User talk:Prime.mover

Sup dude
Do you even sleep? you've been going non-stop since you first joined. of course i appreciate the work (I haven't even been able to keep up with reading it all), but you're making the rest of us look lazy. Regardless, excellent work, and with that, I think I will bring a Wikipedia tradition to ProofWiki: Barnstars. See | the wikipdia page on barnstars for more details and other barnstar designs.

Hey, when you create a page, or link to a page, be sure to keep in mind their namespace.

eg: Say you wanted to link to definition of graph, then you would write graph, this sill put a link to the Definition namespace. Also, be sure to include the category, at the bottom of the page, just put the category in the category box, eg. Definitions or eg.Axioms. If you are linking to a category, you must put a : in front, for instance Category:Definitions For creating a page you must do the same thing, having the namespace in front.

This is so we can differentiate between proofs and definitions. Thanks,--Joe 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Using an external editor
Hey, I just found out and tested that you can use an external editor to edit pages. It works great. I tried so far using GVim using the "It's All Text" plug-in for Firefox. All you have to do is install the plug-in and then tell it where your editor is. Here are the two sites I used to help me set it up. I did this in Linux but I'm sure it'll work fine in Windows! Hope this helps --Joe


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:External_editors
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Syntax_highlighting#External_editor_feature

Thanx dude - I'll check this out ... --Matt Westwood 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Namespaces
Hey, I'm just thinking, maybe it would be better if we kept the Definition namespace. Since there are a lot of definitions out there, maybe it would be better to keep them separate from all the proofs. In terms of adding them to the proper category, I'm working on a bot that can check and fix this automatically. I'm thinking it's best to try and keep the proofs(which is the main focus of the site) separate from the definitions. I know it might be a pain, but I think it's better then having them mixed in with the namspace for proofs. Mixing them I think causes more problems then it will fix.


 * When you search for a proof, you won't just get proofs, you also get definitons and axioms.
 * It messes up the page count as we talked about earlier
 * It will confuse people, probably won't be sure what is a proof, what is a definition...

I should be able to get a bot working that can automatically check things to make sure definitions are in the correct category, what does everyone think? --Joe 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New LaTeX
Hey, Have you tried the new LaTeX stuff? Is it working good? --Joe 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Confess I haven't yet. I need to check out the "stackrel" function at least so I can define a symbol for defining entities:

$$\mathbf {Define:} \ fred \ \stackrel {\mathbf {def}} {==} \ bert$$

Yay! That works! Nice one.

BTW do you know how to include negative spaces so I can weld the edges of two $$==$$ signs together?

Okay, now I need to check out how to stack equation entities properly so I don't need to use tables. Having said that, when I wrote my thesis using full AmsLaTeX I found that I could not achieve the effects I was after without writing my own package (which included a modification to the table/array facilities) so we'll see what gives.

It's getting late for the night and I'm not good at learning new stuff p.m. I'll try and get it together to check out all the new buttons tomorrow - if not, then next weekend when I have two completely free mornings. --Matt Westwood 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Equations
Hey, I took your idea for using tables to create equation arrays and made it into a usable template. Still may need some tuning though, what do you think?? Check out the sandbox to see it. --Joe 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Would certainly speed my throughput. Good job.

Only caveat: sometimes (rarely, see Quadratic Equation) it needs more columns, e.g. to put a $$\Longrightarrow$$ at the front and to be able to put a lined-up row of equals signs in the middle. (This is just one of the flexibilities that standard LaTeX doesn't allow.)

When creating a template, there's always the tradeoff between prodiving ultimate flexibility and keeping it streamlined enough to be usable on these things. But I reckon making it 5 columns, justified: r, r, c, l, l should be enough. How easy would it be to force it to make an extra gap before the end column so the comment doesn't come confusingly close to the equation it describes?

Of course, for really complicated equation sequences we can always fall back on the technique of using a table, if what we're trying to put together will not look good any other way.

As I say, fine work, bro. --Matt Westwood 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I added a few more modifications, take a look! --Joe 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

... okay I think I get the gist ... okay, let's try it out. We can always tweak it if we find we need to in the course of events. --Matt Westwood 17:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. Let me know if you want something added, and I'll see what I can do. --Joe 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that I have left and right mixed up, for l1,l2,r1,r2 (I was thinking alignment, when I should have been thinking side of equation). I'll fix it now! --Joe 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple things ... we want the LHS sides to be right justified and the RHS to be left justified, and the centre line to be centre justified, yeah?

I don't know whether we necessarily want the centre to have to be an equals sign. I can envisage that you may want to put a "propositional function" in there, e.g. $$P(x) \Longrightarrow Q(x) \land R(x)$$ or something, or (here's a good one) when you want it to be a $$\le$$ or $$>$$ or $$\subseteq$$ or something, any general relation. --Matt Westwood 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

you can,just use " operator=\leq . --Joe 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this for ultimate user-friendliness then:

Columns labelled "ll, l, o, r, rr, c, cc" for left-left, left, operator, etc.

Then you don't have to worry about remembering whether you want the 1st or 2nd column and most of your equations will go

$$ $$

I kinda see what you mean but not really, could you give a math example? --Joe 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

$$ $$ $$ $$

which is supposed to look like the one in Quadratic Equation, except I put a rogue $$\le$$ in the middle just to indicate what I mean about the operator column.--Matt Westwood 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, I think I see what you mean. Should ll and rr be right/left or center/center justified? --Joe 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Way I see it: ll and l should be right justified, rr and r should be left justified, same with c and cc, and o should be center.

So everything snuggles up to the center line which then draws the eye to the heart of the equation. All very aesthetic. --Matt Westwood 18:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, what is cc? --Joe 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Second column of comments, if needed. --Matt Westwood 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, check it now. --Joe 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Way to go. Perfect. I've added a user-template for this design pattern in my user page. No doubt it will evolve ...

Right, back to my semigroups. You are a diamond. --Matt Westwood 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative Space
At some point (I don't remember where) you asked how to make a negative space to combine to equals signs. \! inserts a negative space, so = \! = gives $$= \! =$$. --cynic 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuuude! Nice one!

It's so as to have a notation for "$$x$$ is defined as $$y$$":

$$\mathbf {Define:} \ fred \ \stackrel {\mathbf {def}} {=\!=} \ bert$$ ...

Also so as to do a better job on equivalence classes: $$\left[\!\left[a\right]\!\right]_b$$

... that's completely the business. --Matt Westwood 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit bar buttons
Hey, I'm not sure if you noticed the new post, but I added some new buttons to the edit bar (So far just ref tags and the one for the equation template). Any others that are used a lot that might be good to put there? --Joe 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

plenty! - too many, in fact, to be sensible. As I happen to be on any particular subject I tend to just add them to my user page, which is growing by the day.

Can't think of anything universal, unless you want to put up a Theorem - Proof template:

Proof
[[Category:]] ... or something. The main advantage to such things is the tendency towards uniformity of style, I suppose ...

I did notice the equation button, haven't used it yet, haven't been doing anything equation-based since I noticed it. But I will ... sooner or later. --Matt Westwood 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Geometry
You don't need to get sidetracked with geometry if you don't want to. I can get a text on Monday and work on it some, and really deal with it in two weeks after exams. I will note that we don't want to be plagiarizing Euclid for all of our geometry. Nonetheless, thanks for the work. --Cynic-(talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm ... I thought that as Euclid is (a) public domain and (b) "classic", a documentation of his proofs probably wouldn't be out of place. That said, some of what's been posted seems both trivial and unwieldy (for example, the Pons Asinorum I'd always thought a bit long-winded and it could be polished off in 2 lines). So I thought that once it's all up we could then add to each page an analytic proof of each result, for example, take it from there. But you have to start somewhere ... it's relaxing and therapeutic.

Just found this superb resource! --Matt Westwood 06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions as Theorems
I'm thinking it might be wise to have both, in response to a question you posed on the talk page for Euclidean Space. For example, there are a number of things to prove about Euclidean space, which most properly seem to fit the Proof namespace. At the same time, it seems wise to have a definition page as well, since a user might come here browsing definitions, and of course no matter what the idea of Euclidean space is a concept, not an argument, which merits a definition, not a proof. I don't see any problem with defining Euclidean space in a definition page, along with whatever assertions one must make to explain the concept to the user, then linking to the proofs of these various assertions from that definition page.

This goes the same for Definition:P-adic Metric. It seems wise to have a definition page for it, since a user may come across the metric some random proof and want a definition for it. However, various claims about the p-adic metric (that is IS a metric, Ostrowski's theorem, the build-up of $$\Omega$$ all deserve proofs, which should be linked to on the definition page. That's my two cents.  Your thoughts? Zelmerszoetrop 13:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries
Matt, it's clear that you've been editing for far longer than I have, have contributed much more to the style of proofwiki than I have, and have set up so much foundation, that I defer to you in pretty much anything you want to do to my articles, barring the unlikely mathematical error. Not to mention, you're a sysop. If you've got any tips or constructive criticism for me, never hesitate to let me know. Cheers! Zelmerszoetrop 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Group Examples and such
I've combined the page on Definition:Dicyclic Group with all of the material from the Quaternion Group page, since the quaternion group is a special case of a dicyclic group. Let me know what you think of it!

For the dicyclic group page, as well pages like Alternating Group, Symmetric Group, what I'd like to do, what I personally think is ideal, is having these pages remain as repositories for all proofs about these objects, such as demonstrating that they are groups, that they are non-abelian, and any other common properties about them. A separate definition page should exist explaining what these objects are, so that we have something to link to from proofs that doesn't send the end user through a long explanation of why a group is a group.

Your thoughts? Zelmerszoetrop 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Equivalency
Sure it's a word; as in, High School Equivalency Exam, Course Equivalency Guide, etc. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equivalency, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivalency , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalency Zelmerszoetrop 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not bad
At least, I think so. Thanks for asking --Cynic (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page title
Hey, do we have this page already? If not, can you suggest a good name? --Joe (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots actually, this is a useful result in cryptography. eg. x=101, y=12, n=10057 --Joe (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GeoGebra
Thank you so much for telling me about GeoGebra! It's a million times better than the programs I was using before. You have saved me a great deal of future work and frustration! :) --Beth Ann

Logic question
Hi, I want to start adding complete proofs for all of the basic metatheorems of first-order logic, but I don't think this wiki has an official deductive system for FOL. How should we pick one? Whoops, sorry about that. I was being lazy and didn't bother to check. Mag487 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, another very general logic query. We presently have formal logic divided into a bunch of categories (some of whose borders are blurry), like predicate logic, propositional logic, mathematical logic and so on. I would propose we either subsume the categories into a mathematical logic supercategory, or eliminate them altogether in favor of a mathematical logic category alone. I'm not sure, e.g., mathematicians really refer to predicate logic as such, but rather to "first-order logic without equality," which is on a continuum with a bunch of other logics (like first-order logic with equality, or second-order logic). My intention is to tackle the important basic results of first-order logic with equality (the logic that set theory takes place in) and then branch out a bit to other areas of mathematical logic like proofs of the incompleteness theorems. Mag487 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition Categories
Good work on categorizing. Just a thought: it makes sense to link the definitions subcategory to the relevant category of proofs. I think I've gotten it for all of the ones you've done so far (up through ring theory), but it would be easier if you put it in when you first create the page (you can see the message I've been using on the ring theory page). --Cynic (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there wouldn't really be a way to move a category since all the pages in the category would have to be edited too. FYI I created a category redirect from Field Theory to Fields because of a similar difference. --Cynic (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a disadvantage to having a bunch of categories for one definition. I think that high level definitions like number should probably be in the top level definitions category (and if there are any specific categories that it has special or specially important meaning in, those too). --Cynic (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
I'll try to add proofs everyday. I was long looking for a site like this. I have a question though: Is there any criteria for selecting a proof to be added to proof wiki. Can theoretical problems in standard textbooks be treated as theorems and their proofs added, or are only named theorems admissible. For example can I add the proof of ℓ∞ is not separable. Regards-Shahab 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I have another question regarding linking of defintions in articles. Is it a convention on proof wiki that a term appearing multiple times in a proof be linked multiple times as well. Regards.-Shahab 08:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: pardon me, lovely work
No problem, Matt. Is there some kind of style guide for these things? I've tried looking at the help pages, but didn't find anything. --Florian Brucker 11:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tychonoff's Theorem
You had to wait almost a whole year, but here it is :)