User talk:Prime.mover

New template
The merit of Template:SourceReview is immediately apparent. Good call. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A friendly thought
I know we're not on the best of terms, but here's a purely friendly suggestion anyway. Since you enjoy logic, you may also enjoy reading about programming language type systems if you haven't already. Type checking and type inference for type systems with parametric polymorphism are particularly interesting. The Glasgow dialect of the Haskell programming language manages to do almost magical things with its type system extensions, and Chris Okasaki (best known for his book Purely Functional Data Structures) and Ralf Hinze are two of the masters at exploiting these features to enforce complex invariants at the type level. See for example Okasaki's paper "From Fast Exponentiation to Square Matrices: An Adventure in Types". --Dfeuer (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of Haskell. Having been programming professionally in the software industry for the last 30 years I find I have less and less patience with the effort to takes to learn a new language. I understand that academics may be able to learn all sorts of exciting things by building a language specifically designed to examine this or that, but when you have a customer who won't pay the bill this "this precise effect" is achieved, your emphasis is more on getting the job done than "let's see what fun I can have learning this stuff".


 * Hence my intolerance of sloppy coding and lack of adherence to house styles. There is a reason for imposing a style - it's to ensure consistency of approach which minimises the time taken to get up to speed with another person's code.


 * I don't actually enjoy logic - but in order to establish the minimal requirements to be able to create the axioms from which the number systems could be established foundationally, I had to put the logic pages together. Dirty job but someone had to do it. --prime mover (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

History Question
I have recently noticed that you have been enforcing the standard that is to be an almost entirely source based work. An archive of mathematics as opposed to an experimental ground for research.

I have no favourability towards either as both have their place in the world.

But I wonder as looking on waybackmachine.org it seems that PW was not always like this. On Jan 2010 for instance there were only 10 books in the database.

I would like to know what the primary motivating factors behind this shift towards such high standards were:


 * Were people posting poor proofs, invented definitions?


 * Was there a high level of internal inconsistency that necessitated it?


 * Or was it something more?

--Jshflynn (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It just seems to make sense. Any mathematical result worth a damn has been published somewhere in some form. With the exception of making explicit some trivial results which are glossed over in the literature, that's about how it is.


 * Recently there has been a trend towards posting up a considerable number of often trivial generalisations of useful working results for no real reason but that the result could be proved. My argument is: unless you're specifically trying to get to something profound, and need it as a stepping-stone, there's limited reason to do so. It was instantly countered that I was spending all my time on propositional logic which is by definition trivial, pointless and a completely solved sytem so who am I to lay down the law?


 * As regards the argument about definitions, well yes, any statement which is equivalent to an existing definition can be used as a definition, but (in many cases) why would you want to? What would be the point in listing a large number of equivalent definitions of an ever more tortuous nature, merely citing the letter of law of some ad-hoc ruling that "equivalent statements are treated as definitions"?


 * Therefore, unless it can be found in the literature as a definition, such equivalences are not taken to be definitions. I don't care how clever a contributor thinks he is - unless responsible for a considerable body of published material, appropriately peer-reviewed and corrected for both accuracy and usability, one's own made-up maths is not going to be treated with the respect that published works are. Because odds-on bet you will find something in a published work that duplicates your own work.


 * Unless, of course, you have genuinely invented a result which is a) profound and b) you really cannot find it published anywhere. --prime mover (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete spambot accounts?
Some of these spambots take perfectly sensible names that a legitimate human might potentially want to use some day. Is there a mechanism for deleting the junk accounts to free up their names? --Dfeuer (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * dunno --prime mover (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but it's not simple. --Joe (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Logic
In your big logic refactoring project, have you determined how you want to deal with Boolean-valued models, predicate logic, or modal logic? --Dfeuer (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In due course. --prime mover (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit in Geometric Distribution
Hello there, I noticed an edit you had made on Definition: Geometric Distribution. You changed $Im(X)$ to $\Omega (X)$, which is incorrect, since $\Omega$ is the set of outcomes in the probability space, and the discrete random variable $X$ is a function from $ \Omega \mapsto A $, or some subset of the real numbers. I think what you had intended is $X(\Omega)$, which denotes the range of $X$. Fs (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The usual way we call attention to such things is with the mistake template. Just write something like Watch out for math inside said template—it will not take kindly to curly braces or vertical bars. --Dfeuer (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying of the correct protocol. Fs (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good call. If you find any more like that, feel free to change them to $\operatorname{Im} \left({X}\right)$ or $X \left({\Omega}\right)$ or $\Omega_X$ (which might have been what I wanted to put). Long time ago. --prime mover (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please help me to complete this proof
I cannot figure out how the sixth step evolved to the seventh step in here, and please help me to complete this proof. Many thanks. Kc kennylau (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is safe to assume that we administrators keep an eye on one another's talk page. If you do feel the need to address everyone at once, please consider using Help:Questions (or if that doesn't work, Talk:Main Page). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Where to tidy
Could you please tell me what should I tidy instead of just give me the tidy template? Many thanks. Kc kennylau (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The template is an indication for experienced users that the page is not up to house style (which undoubtedly has some exponents not documented in Help:Contents and its subpages). You shouldn't worry; we're not expecting you to tidy, but rather someone else, when they get to it. The fact that no specifics have been given (usually) means that the whole page should be reviewed (but not necessarily changed). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense to...?
Do you think it will be better to transclude 1+1=2 to 1+1=2/Proof 1 and 1+1=2/Proof 2 so that we do not need to change three page each time? (Don't worry, I'm not going to do any more maintenance job before asking) --Kc kennylau (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's generally not done here. --Dfeuer (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What can I do?
Forgive me if you think I have asked too many questions these days (coz imma newbie). Well, obviously, I ain't gonna create tons of new proof (coz I hardly have any new idea except 1+1=2). In CP, I am suggested to do maintenance job on stub, proofread, tidy and explain. Therefore, I would like to ask for your suggestions, whether newbies like me are capable of doing these jobs (coz I dun wanna be scolded again, just sayin'). --Kc kennylau (talk)


 * The recommended approach, as I may have said on another occasion in a different thread, is to pick either a) an area of mathematics with which you are familiar, and/or b) a particular textbook on a topic again with which you are familiar, and work through from fundamentals up till you lose the thread. Even in an area of mathematics which has been well-covered, it is usual that there will be a nugget of information in every text which cannot be found elsewhere.


 * As has been stated before, maintenance work is best left to experienced editors. We are part way through an exercise to restructure the entire site, so that all pages will be in a consistent form.


 * If you can complete proofs which are in "stub" status, or you have the appropriate skill to address the pages at "proofread" status, or you can fill in details for pages that have "explain" tags in them, then feel free. Please don't attempt to do "tidy" tasks as your writing style is very far indeed from approaching the standard we require for house style (hint: use the space bar and return key a little more frequently - source code with no breaks in it is difficult to read and maintain). --prime mover (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions :D--Kc kennylau (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do not mind (since I asked a lot of questions)
I would like to ask you to stop reverting my edits without any reasons, since this act is very discouraging. --Kc kennylau (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If an edit has no merit, and does not improve the content of a page, it will be reverted. --prime mover (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I know
How do I know when I become an experienced editor and when I do not fail to follow the house styles and when I am able to do maintenance job? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When a page to which you have contributed is subsequently edited, take note of the changes that have been made to the work you have done.


 * Some people seem to pick up this site philosophy seemingly by instinct, as they are immmediately able to produce pages which are completely conformant to house style.


 * Others never ever seem to get the idea, and still others do not accept the style rules, thereby making it necessary continually to clean up after them.


 * It all depends on which category you fall into. Unfortunately, skills and experience in contributing to other wikis are not always transferable; standard practice on e.g. Wikipedia is frequently not standard practice on . Equally unfortunately, we have found that in some cases, the contributors who consider themselves "experienced" Wikipedia editors often seem consider themselves experienced contributors to as well, whereas in fact they are usually not. On such misunderstandings hinge many conflicts of personality, particularly with younger contributors, in whom the Dunning-Kruger effect can be seen to operate. --prime mover (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You will know you are competent when the work that is needed to bring your pages up to style is less than the work needed to write the page in the first place. --prime mover (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for writing to me. I hope that you will not get annoyed by the amount of questions I have asked. I look forward to cooperating with you and contributing more and more in . --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

About new proofs
I am not trying to be sarcastic. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I would like to ask about what I should do when I am creating new pages, since I would be misunderstood to be refactoring when I actually am trying to merge my proof into the existing single-proof page. According to the house style, I must move the proof to a new subpage and add my proof to another subpage. Should I follow this rule, or should I put my proof directly on the page, and leave all the works for others to do instead? Once again, I am not trying to be sarcastic. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Sorry for any misunderstanding made due to English being my second language. And please do not be angry, since I have set my heart on contributing and I will never troll. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you need to add a proof to a theorem which already has a proof in place, and the theorem and proof is on the same page, then add the second proof on the same page as "Proof 2" and invoke the "refactor" template on that same page. Then the refactoring task can be done by the experienced editors who do a lot of the maintenance work.


 * As has been pointed out, there are several aspects to a refactoring task. As yet we have not gathered all this information into one page, because we do not expect new editors to undertake refactoring. The reason for this is precisely because there is a considerable amount to take into consideration.


 * Because for simple tasks it does not take a lot of experience to do, it may appear, on the basis of that simplicity, that refactoring is always that simple. But it is not.


 * Therefore, as I say, please do not do any refactoring because you do not know the full extent of what needs to be done. --prime mover (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I will follow your instructions. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

About new page
Previously, I have asked about inserting my proof into an existing page with only one proof. Now, I would like to ask about what I should do while creating new pages/definitions, for example Definition:Binomial. Was it appropriate for me to create subpages in that circumstance? I know it is annoying to keep asking questions about the same topic many times, but since I am a newbie and I want to get into more quickly, I feel obligated to ask about things I do not understand. Sorry for any misunderstand made due to English being my second language. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "I know it is annoying to keep asking questions about the same topic many times," yes it is.


 * It is hoped that contributors to may be able to learn by experience. I am temperamentally unsuited to provide ad-hoc one-to-one tuition. --prime mover (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Proofreading of new Definition:Formal Language
It seems that most of the Category:Definitions/Formal Systems can do without restructuring (I have made improvements as necessary by editing), except for Definition:Formal Language. The five new associated pages are listed here; once again, I would like your opinion before pushing this one to main.

Note that I have refrained from implementing the newly suggested definitions regarding alphabets; I deemed it better to take a staged approach, and am not fully decided on the new names yet. More literature research is to be conducted.

This proposed replacement is not but the newest tiny step in re-grounding, generalising and modularising the logic sections, which ought to be testament of the approach. As this process continues I hope that the edits will become of a similarly modular form, not requiring as much headspace and coordination as the changes do now. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been following it as it's been developed. It's definitely a step in the right direction.


 * I will take the time to follow through with inspecting the new pages in due course - when my mind is fresher. I was put through the mill today. --prime mover (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can add much to all this. Good to go live, in my opinion. --prime mover (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done in principle. I'll be reviewing links now. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Job's a good 'un. --prime mover (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox
A look and some responses to the applicable parts of my sandbox are appreciated; the proposals there would go a long way to clear some of the long-time problems we've had in our founding departments. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you approve of Proposal #3 in my sandbox, I'm ready to start pushing that part to main. Some pages are listed on User:Lord_Farin/Sandbox/PropLog (the last group under the "rewritten/newly written" heading). An upside of this scheme is that it allows us to leave most of the connectives pages untouched (save minor things like updating links etc.). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Definition:Trivial
I see you're adding Template:Disambiguate calls for Definition:Trivial, even to pages where it is quite obvious that the intended sense of the word is not presently covered among any of the disambiguating pages. There are some options:


 * Deleting the links, perhaps placing Template:Handwaving calls;
 * Creating a page defining the proper sense of "trivial" intended.

But maybe I'm just saying what you had already thought up. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea was to implement the second option. I put the template in place so it didn't get forgotten. I'm trying to work through the backlog of (now) 174 links to disambiguation pages and process them appropriately - this is just one such.


 * The reason for a link is because those who are not completely fluent in English are able to get the sense of what is meant without the need to link to outside this website. GFauxPas has done some similar work in his work on logic, from the semantic perspective (e.g. "ambiguous" etc.). --prime mover (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Logic refactoring
I would like to ask you to read User:Lord_Farin/Sandbox/PropLog/Principle of Structural Induction‎‎, and determine if it passes the "not-handwaving" criterion. It could possibly be necessary/justified to take this principle as an axiom. Even Keisler and Robbin say that it "can be proved using induction on $\Bbb N$" -- but in doing so, they need to employ inductive definition (on the length of the formula or s.t. like that). But inductive definition can only be employed after proving the Principle of Inductive Definition / Principle of Structural Recursion, which in my reading needs Structural Induction to be proved. So to use induction on $\Bbb N$ would introduce circularity.

Fundamentally, this seems to be one of the last places where handwavery could be needed. Having this principle, I think it's possible to be entirely formal. So hopefully you'll agree that the current form is good enough. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to use the Principle of Least Counterexample? On the other hand I've looked at that, and (underneath its current state of imprecision) it appears to need the well-ordering property of the integers, which in turn etc. etc.


 * Otherwise, yes, it seems adequate to me. We may receive questions from those whose attitude may be more rigorous, in which case we can invite them to have a go at proving it themselves.


 * From my distant memory of this level of set theory (but I may be getting it confused with something else), I vaguely remember Montague having proved that any adequately powerful framework of mathematics needs an infinite axiom schema to define it, and that schema basically includes a principle of induction in it somewhere, even if not deliberately stated as such. Hence Peano's 5th axiom, the Axiom of Infinity of ZFC - and now it appears this one of PropLog.


 * Might be an idea to link these axioms (at a high level) all together in a page that provides this overview, linked to that theorem of Montague's (which appears not to be Montague's Theorem, which is more an alternative restatement of Goedel). --prime mover (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any of that. For now, we'll just keep in mind that this possibly needs to be an axiom. I'll continue. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)