User talk:Radlrb

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Compound of 4 tetrahedra (model).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Compound of 4 tetrahedra (model).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ha! You made me look at the Lucid Dreaming Userbox, and I realized it wasn't listed anywhere... So I placed it in a philosophy page... That means you were looking at my userpage... Dhrm77 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! You have plenty of interesting userboxes, and when I saw that one, I could not resist. Thank you for making it, I also had a look at your Rubiks cube website; fascinating. Did you come up with those algorithms? Radlrb (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Had a look again, and those were already created (of course), but maybe the notation is yours. Radlrb (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't really make that LD userbox. If I remember correctly, I found it in a user's space that had been moved or deleted, and thought it was worth saving. So I copied it into my user's space.

Regarding the rubik's cube algorithms, yes, I came up with most of them. I gave the credit, however, for 2 of them to 2 other people. But the rest are mine from way-back when.... In particular, while an algorithm had been published in the 80's to rotate 2 corners in 16 moves, I had already come up with a simpler version in 14 moves to do the same thing, prior to publication.

And yes, the notation is mine. The reason I created a different notation is because I wanted that notation to be portable to larger cubes (7x7x7 and up) and even the megaminx, gigaminx, petaminx, etc... With the standard notation where they use additional letters for additional slices, you run out of letters to use with the 9x9x9 and up. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's amazing, sorry, I assumed incorrectly. Great work! Rubik's cubes are actually a universal

Cube). This is not a problem studied today, but one could easily see how this might be of interest, if we consider say a such a lattice structure in space. This would also require manifold folding and alterations that would permit such movements, that would return back into a cubic lattice (if we literalize Rubik's cube motions of rotations of a single greater cubic structure). Future mathematics. Have you published any of that material somewhere else that I could read more in detail? Or maybe some documents you have. Radlrb (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I never published anything about algorithms (besides that site). I did that a long time ago, and probably still have some papers with algorithms written on them... I wish I had included the date I built that site, although I think I can estimate it was between 2006 and 2012. Now I don't think I have access to it anymore to make any change. At the time I last edited that site, it was still a work i progress... There are quite a few algorithms that are missing. They will probably never be added. Sorry. Dhrm77 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, that's quite alright. What you have is already very nice. : ) Radlrb (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be careful and avoid adding stray characters to the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. Editors have had to remove stray characters added by you four times now. (1st time, 2nd time, 3rd time, 4th time.) Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't even notice it, it must be from when I searched for my username as I edited, and typed it in there. Thank you, it won't happen anymore. Radlrb (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recent change ("non-trivial" to "(other than 1)"), made me wonder if that was an improvement, and of course made me look more into that whole sentence... I'm not even sure that the mention of the cannonball problem in the 144 article is really necessary.. If I understand correctly, 144 is just the number of balls in one particular layer. If 144 must mention the cannonball problem, then so must all the other squares up to 24^2. What do you think? Also, the way that section is written is confusing. I had to look at the cannonball article to understand what it meant... Dhrm77 (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, 66 is the first integer to have a sum of divisors equal to 144, and 70 is the second. If 70 is important in the

Lorentzian unimodular lattice, which is the buildup to the Jordan algebra lattices in higher dimensions. I hope this helps and clarifies, I'll reword the sentence for the article to make it clearer, thank you for your input, as always. Radlrb (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I had put you in the Wikipedia Numbers Project Page as maybe having interest in joining the group, even if as a gnome if at the moment you don't have the time to input more information as you'd maybe like (I know you're busy with other projects). I'm trying to get the group to move a bit more, and mentioned it to you directly in the past on your talk page. Do you want to join formally? Right now you are under the "To be asked to sign up" since some time, I'm sure you noticed. Just letting you know again. I had removed you from the list, since I mentioned it to you a long while ago, however you didn't seem to take notice. I reverted it that however since I felt bad, so you're there again. I was thinking of adding Certes as well, since he also does such a wonderful job in maintaining these pages. Have a blessed day! Radlrb (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with lattices.. So that's why I didn't want to touch that part.. But I thought that "non-trivial" looked better than "(other than 1)". And thank you for including me in the group, even though I don't have much time to contribute a lot. I'm not sure what to do to formally join. Dhrm77 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, they're the same sentence essentially (non-trivial and other than 1)...the only difference is that the word "trivial" makes it seem "unimportant". There are several different words in mathematics which I find largely inappropriate and sophomoric, such as "trivial" or "degenerate", and as well as calling the most important group in group theory a "Monster" (for the monster group that is sporadic). Mathematicians can be incredibly creative in naming things, or very bland, and sometimes rather blind-sighted in how words over time will affect the very theories and models. So I do my best to shy away from these terms, which is why I almost exclusively refer to the monster group as the friendly giant here in Wikipedia; I'm trying to do my part in balancing out these terms. For the Mathematics Number group, all you have to do is move your name into "Sign-ups" : ) (and you're welcome! You are one of the top contributors to number pages, so you should be part of the group I believe) Radlrb (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me the word trivial, in this context means that "among the solutions to this problem (for instance the cannonball problem) the "0" or "1" solutions are 'trivial' because they are obvious and don't require much or any research. But I see your point. Dhrm77 (talk) Dhrm77 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I like that. Yes, of course, and in that context it is definitely an appropriate and attractive word to use. A bit of my head maybe seeing the word trivial so many times! Radlrb (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 11 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• the sum between 13 and 31, inclusive.

You probably meant : the sum of all the numbers from 13 to 31, inclusive.

• the sum of its
  prime factors (like the product of its digits) is 32, and 131
  is the thirty-second prime number.

• the sum of the
  decimal (with notably different digits than its other members
  ).

I don't think that mentioning that the 2nd unique prime has 84 digits is relevant, and linking to 84 isn't needed either.

and you probably should say "which has a distinct digit pattern compared to the other members of the sequence", instead of "with notably different digits than its other members". Dhrm77 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dhrm77. Sure, we can make some changes. For the first point, mentioning integers specifically is probably better. For the second point, the way it is written is fine, but we can change it too if you like, I don't mind. However since 418 is the sum of the integers between 13 and 31, and the thirty-second prime number is 131, then 131 can be seen as a type of concatenation of 13 and 31 (both in decimal). Mentioning the 22nd unique prime with 84 digits is important since it contains the digits 8 and 4 which multiply to 32 as well (like 4 x 1 x 8). For the last point, there is no true pattern per se in the 22nd unique prime (compared to others, like repunits or of the form 999000...1), which is why I phrased it more softy. I'll see how to rephrase it more in line with what you're feeling. Cheers, and I appreciate your help! Radlrb (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article a bit. removed an entry that is really far-fetched for this article. We don't want these articles to become a little bit of a "numerology" laundry list. Numbers are fun, and we can connect numbers to each other all day long. But wee need to show some restraints and only list properties that stand out. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your points, however I disagree on the latter. I reincorporated the point because it stands out as a permutation of the digits of 4 and 8, as 84 shows up on the digits of the decimal unique prime and on 48 as the 32nd composite. Since there is a large interplay of permutation of digits with 418: 23 and 32 (528 product of 22 and 24, the thirty-second triangular number) 13 and 31 as aforementioned, and 48 with 84 as well; all from or using basic concepts and notions. All of that is brilliant and needs worth mentioning, at least in my aesthetic and mathematical head and heart. I enjoy showing how excellent mathematics is, as we (in society) are learning its greater landscape (inside philosophy, psychology, and physics), even if it sounds too colorful, and "numerological". I want to point out that numerology is technically only numerology when tied to time and space, as in within a real landscape of manifestation, such that numbers and events are generated through consciousness directly and absolutely. So, here, we're simply talking about numerics and analysis. Radlrb (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I add mostly only important content, at least prior to adding lesser input (you know my history here). Unless there is reason to add content that links with other content, I would not add further information that does not at least have a two-steps connection to a number. For instance, 131 is tied to 32 directly via its prime index (see positional indexes that are factors and divisors of a number for example, when seeking further connections within a sequence vis-a-vis a particular member of a sequence; as an aside of course, for your pleasure and inquisitiveness), and through 48 as the 32nd indexed composite member too, while also being equal to the product of the digits of 48. If then, there is a massive 84 that arises within the number of digits of the 22nd prime number (where 13, 31 and 131 are prime) that connects also with 418, whose prime index is written with two twos (2, the only even prime, and two of them) that are intermediate digits between 1 and 3 and vice-versa, then there is strong reason to seek what this connection might mean and how it is formed. (I.e. ... other intermediate digits, within other sequences, or structures in mathematics - which could for example manifest itself through prior members of unique primes - an interesting example is 333,667, whose digits add to 28 while it is the seventh member in the sequence, and 28 being the seventh triangular number; a quintessential number often tied to 7). This, as an extension to what our streamline mathematics today says, regarding connections like these. Higher intuition demands, in fairness, to see if there are connections, and when ones such as these arise, to see where they lead. Else, what, are we afraid of a mathematics that makes sense throughout its diverse fields; such that there is a greater mathematical union? I think not. I don't know precisely where you stand with numbers and numerology, however they definitely are a logical system when considering a planetary entity as an entity that generates consciousness and events inside that are of dynamic interest. This requires first seeing how all collections of matter such as molecules, cells, animals and plants, and other abstractions in space and time are living entities, and detaching from defining life alone as a system that requires a biology, in order to define it as a system of flow that inputs and outputs processes with differing levels of animation. So in these terms, numerology becomes the study of numbers that arise in a system that is being worked on through a parenting system, and infinitely up onto the whole Universe itself. This is what I have in mind when I experience numbers, because I do not see randomness as possible, as it is an anti-system, that cannot be genuinely generated by any computing system, as any computation must arise from prior computations within a system that was first a unit, and then parts - either by asking itself to generate a least relatable number, a most relatable number, or any combination of these to given degrees; forms of "random" generating functions that rely on very delicate electrical states that are unreasonable to predict (with our level of technology) are the patterns (which are actually extremely complex) that we have been calling "random", in pseudo-mathematical vocabulary. Radlrb (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you can connect any number to any other number through some kind of relationships, and it might be interesting to list these on some math recreational website, I don't think that all of what you added for 418 really belongs on Wikipedia. So I wouldn't be surprised if someone else who habitually checks the number and math pages reverts your changes. My take is that if some information is too far-fetched or the reason for the relationship between number is too convoluted, it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. About numerology, one example that comes to mind is the number 666, where many people have made all kind of connections from looking at converting letters into numbers to attempts to prove that so and so might be the anti-christ... I frown on that. For the simplest reason that at most only 1 person might be right, and most likely nobody. Concerning the "concatenation" of 13 and 31 into 131, just consider that this only works in base 10. And although some properties of numbers are base-related, we shouldn't make too many connections that only work in our familiar counting system. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can connect any number with any other number, however we cannot make the same connection between any two numbers (except when using 0, 1, and 2 with respect to a number ${\displaystyle n}$). Meaning connections between numbers are not arbitrary, and they are exact. How you connect them is what matters, so it's not like it's a trivial endeavor. At hindsight, without the proper interest and delicacy, yes. But the connections made are different and hold different relationships. This is a common misunderstanding to think that all connections are of the same nature, they are not. Some are stronger than others. Yes, take base-ten 777 = 3 x 7 x 37. Pretty nice. Yes take concatenation of base 10 13 and 31, with 131 and 48 included. One can ignore it OR seek all these connections in all bases that are relevant, then say if these connections are arbitrary or not. I already thought of all this years and years ago. What I know, and with proof, and because I have an open mind, is that there are differing connections in different bases and yes, they start lining up (one needs to be careful where and with which connections are being connected with). But I mean, to see that one needs to care for that and actually trust numbers themselves, and that they will link, and treat them with that very capacity, like atoms that bind to each other, here as numbers... Well, if my edit gets reverted, I'll revert it back and seek understanding again. I know it's relevant. Especially since people do not respect these connections and shy away from them simply because they've heard over and over from the "status-quo" of math that it's irrelevant. Bull-fucking-shit. They have never tested anything of the sort thoroughly (or know how to), or make actual intellectual efforts to understand such connections (with the exception of few, some of which were the brightest mathematicians we've been blessed to learn from). Math is so intelligent, that it's actually incredibly abstract. Numerology is the highest abstraction possible between numbers and space, such that a real-time relationship is made between the "entities" inside a system and the system itself, such that the evolutionary relationship is reflected with numbers (i.e. as time passes, the numerical reflection of that relationship increases as well, and in proportion...and not just numbers, but numbers with continuous self-complexifying relationships). The list of composites and primes is known relatively to a large (human) limit, and seeing that 418 and 48 have the same digits essentially, that 13 and 31 sum to 418, where 131 is the 32nd prime number, and 48 the 32nd composite; this all from a relationship of indexes of primes and composites, with 23 connecting to 32 (both in base ten), with a difference of 9 numbers or a span of 10 numbers (10 numbers, base ten). Pretty straight. Maybe you should try it out too, I promise you'll be surprised and pleasantly pleased, these associations and way of thinking opens up an entirely different emotional channel, since it works with the highest mathematical intuition of equating 0 and infinity (infinite energy is the same as no energy). Radlrb (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't want to get into a revert-war. If more than 2 people (with good editor status) revert the same thing, it's usually a good sign that it they may be right... Of course it's not an absolute rule, the majority isn't always right. I have had edit that were reverted that I wish weren't... but that's life, and on Wikipedia, I learned to let other people be right sometimes... Dhrm77 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I also need to stand up to what I believe is right...(*as well as respecting being wrong, of course, which tends to happen in proportion, at least throughout all aspects of life combined Radlrb (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)*). As you said, the majority isn't always right. What would be my worth if what I am advocating for I don't respect it with a passion, and defend it. I can think of a large amount of instances where the minority was right, and turned the flow of history drastically because of courage, reason, and patience. I've had a revert of 20,000 characters before, and decided not to do anything about it at the time since it is not worth the negativity, especially since there is also heavy abject prejudice against my style and background at times (though I do feel welcome here now, gladly. I do try to only enlighten). So I know that I need to let go when I need to, but that's dependent on my pejorative if it's whether there is (Radlrb (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)) essential information that is being misunderstood or otherwise. One of my Userboxes, by the way, is "This user's editing philosophy... Contribute, let go." Radlrb (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radlrb (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you are talking about might fall under

Original Research, and therefore not acceptable to Wikipedia's policy, regardless of if it's right or wrong. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 666 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic number.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Why did you remove 2 links in this edit [[1]]? They seem appropriate in a "see also" section. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I have returned them inside See also. I thought it was a bit superfluous, but after taking a second look thanks to you, it seems logical and intuitive to leave, indeed. Thank you, like always, I appreciate and look forward to your help @Dhrm77. Radlrb (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 193 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double cover.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 744 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annulus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real space.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 181 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 744 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited 32 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Roger that : ) Radlrb (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 744 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infinite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 28 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 12.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this new kid making edits in number, math and random articles, named "semen2". He has been making a few good edit, some controversial ones, and some bad ones. Seems to be an immature kid with some potential. I've been trying to keep an eye on his edits... Dhrm77 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did! looks like s/he will add good materal : ) Radlrb (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He changed his name to "Numspan33‎" recently, and has made quite a few controversial edits. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]