User talk:Alecscooper

What's wrong with categorizing myself as a "Cool Dude"?--Cynic 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, it kinda makes it complicated, because the Categories are being used to categorize the proofs. If there is a category called cool dudes, it kinda throws it off.

Barnstars
... new one on me! Thankx & all that ...

a) I'm getting all this boring scaffolding out of the way because I'm impatient to get onto the good stuff (2 Named theorems so far tho, both with Cantor's name in)

b) I have this colossal body of work I've been gathering for the last few years which I've been looking for a medium to display it on for some time too. I was just in the process of setting up a wiki when this one cropped up. My technical skills don't bend in the PHP / Wiki maintenance direction, so all I can do is this manic infodumping. --Matt Westwood 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence or synchronicity?
Look what I just this second posted up ...

Continuity
Hope you don't mind ... I slightly amplified the page on continuity, moved it to a different page and opened it up to its definition in different contexts. (We already have a link that's needed for "continuous" in the context of geometrical lines in space, which is particularly tricky and I'm not sure I'm up to yet.) Thanks for making a start on this, it's not the easiest of concepts to define rigorously - fine job ... --Matt Westwood 18:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

num
How about we migrate our NUM pages to a template that we can all? --Joe (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that makes sense. --Joe (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry
... dodgy cut'n'paste.

How did it go?
... your English exam, that is?

Thanks for the welcome
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I'm working on transcribing a proof that any three non-collinear points lie on the circumference of a circle. This is something I did myself so might not be as neat or concise as it could be. I'm keeping it on my userpage until I finish it to a good standard. Not wuite sure what to call it, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.--Beligaronia 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub
Sorry about that. Thanks for the heads up, I've just come from wikipedia so some of the things here are a bit different. --Beligaronia 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

been away
In case you wondered where I've been, I had internet connection problems since Monday (stupid ISP). I'm back. --Matt Westwood 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm slowing down ...
Just in case you're worried I've died or something ...

I've gone about as far as I can go for the moment on the elementary stuff. Notes on the following:
 * I got tied up in knots and bogged down in the predicate logic stuff. I need to go away, do some reading, do some work and formulate the best way to proceed before I can go any further (and probably backtrack big time). Maybe someone else with a better background in formal systems might want to pick up on it. My own knowledge in this area is primitive and self-taught.


 * I have it in mind to do something to flesh out basic Graph Theory, but you already have someone on that particular case.


 * I could also continue with Euclid, but that's also being covered.


 * Then there's statistics and probability, which I don't like (despite the fact of it being merely an extension of boolean algebra -- strangely enough I've never seen that fact stated anywhere).


 * I have it in mind to start with some applied maths (after all, there's no point covering diffeqs without applications), but it's too big a job for me at the moment.

Basically, the current economic and industrial / professional climate being what it is, I'm going to need to work on some projects of my own for a while, as I really need to get some more strings on my bow / keep the bread and butter coming in.

I'll keep dropping in, and putting a theorem / biog / definition up here and there, and keep on with the tidying up, but I'm not going to be anywhere near as busy as I have been in the past year or so.

I've sent the same message to Joe.

all the best --Matt Westwood 20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't exceed my authority
but I permanently blocked ConcernedParent's account. Once could be construed as being a joke, twice is malicious.--Matt Westwood 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Joe (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Good call.

Only problem with Ring Theory is that I called the original category "Rings", which ruins the symmetry somewhat. And it appears you can't change the name of a category as there's no "Move" button available (and if there is, I missed it being half-blind through tiredness) so I created a redirect (suboptimal, I know) from "Ring Theory" to "Rings". --Matt Westwood 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

Exactly how we're going to shake the categories down may need to be sorted out. At the moment I'm adding some definitions to multiple categories, but I wonder whether we need a "General" category, or just leave some stuff in the top level. See Definition:Number for example. --Matt Westwood 06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit of Peano Structure Without Non-Successor Element
The piece of text you removed that turned:


 * $$s \left({0}\right) \notin s \left({P'}\right) = s' \left({P'}\right)$$

into


 * $$s \left({0}\right) \notin s \left({P'}\right)$$

The bit you removed was there to emphasise that the restriction of $$s$$ to $$P'$$, that is $$s' \left({P'}\right)$$, was the same thing as $$s \left({P'}\right)$$.

That's where the justification for the next line comes from:


 * "But $$s \left({0}\right) \in P'$$ as $$s \left({0}\right) \ne 0$$, and so $$P' \ne s' \left({P'}\right)$$."

We've just shown that $$s \left({0}\right) \notin s' \left({P'}\right)$$

and then we have that $$$$.

Without that crucial link we can't see that $$P' \ne s' \left({P'}\right)$$ and so $$s'$$ is not a surjection.

Sorry if it has to be so detailed and fussy, we're into axiomatics here and it pays to be as precise and as pedantic as possible.

Are you okay with me restoring the edit?

I ask because this is a result that I crafted myself out of whole cloth, and my thinking processes may not be accurate.

Oh yes, and I still need to rationalise my use of $$P'$$ versus $$\mathcal P'$$ ... --Matt Westwood 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)