User talk:GFauxPas

User talk:GFauxPas/Archive1

Laplace transform help
It occurred to me that I may be doing way more work than necessary for $\mathcal L \{ t^q \}$, see my sandbox.

Can I merely prove the equivalence for $\mathcal L {\restriction_{\operatorname{Im} s = 0} }$ and invoke the Identity Theorem?

If indeed I can do that, maybe it's still worth finishing the proof as is without relying on such powerful machinery, nuking a fly etc. --GFauxPas (talk)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to sit this one out, at least for today. Haven't been around Laplace Transforms for many years. --prime mover (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (EDT)


 * I realized after I posted that the real axis isn't open so you can't invoke identity theorem, silly me. Thanks anyway for answering. --GFauxPas (talk)

Definition:Complex Riemann Integral
Thanks for moving this page to its suggested target. However, you did not address the existing links; they all still point to Definition:Complex Integral.

Could you please complete the move by addressing the references? Thanks :). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2016 (EST)


 * Sure, I can do that. What's the reason for not relying on the redirect? --GFauxPas (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (EST)


 * It can be expected that it becomes a disambiguation in the future. So wherever we want to be precise, we ought to make sure that we refer to the correct type of complex integral. And at this point, it is still easy to address every one of them. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2016 (EST)

On the eternal quest for neat and consistent formatting
I understand it can be difficult getting back into the game after a long time away -- but one point it would be good to remind yourself about is the fact that we put an extra line between sections. Thx in advance. --prime mover (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2018 (EDT)


 * Noted. --GFauxPas (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

Multi-page proof constructs
Rather than put everything on the same page and then call for a refactor task, it would save a step if you were able to go straight to the main-page-with-transclusions technique directly.

The reason, as you may recall, that we prefer to restrict refactoring tasks to more experienced contributors is that history has shown that it takes tome to understand the intricacies of the prev-next links in the Sources section, and tidying that up after the event is a lot harder work than it looks on the surface. But if you are crafting the page from nothing, there are no such prev-next links to rework.

In the case where you are crafting a brand new set of pages, this does not apply, and you are invited to investigate the usual structure of such main-page-with-transclusions pages for yourself. --prime mover (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2018 (EDT)


 * Sure. I was nervous because I was away for a while, but I can try by just mimicking other transcluded pages. --GFauxPas (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2018 (EDT)


 * Inductive Construction of Sigma-Algebra Generated by Collection of Subsets I got my feet wet. Did I do it right? Do I transclude the proof of the corollary onto the main page of the theorem too? Do I transclude the proof itself from another page, or is that only if there's more than one proof? --GFauxPas (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2018 (EDT)


 * Yeah good job. One small change I made is that when a corollary is turned into a standalone page, rather than say "From the main result", or whatever, it makes sense to link to it directly. The proof remains on the page of the corollary itself. The only thing transcluded is the statement of the result. It keeps things simple. --prime mover (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2018 (EDT)

Citations to Munkres
A quick note about the citation to Munkres.

The $2000$ edition, as you understand, is the 2nd edition, as established.

Buy in citing it you need to add "edpage = Second Edition" to the invocation of the template, or the first edition will get linked to.

The correct form is:

A glance at BookReference should make it clear as to what is going on here. --prime mover (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

Cardinality of Infinite Sigma-Algebra is at Least Cardinality of Continuum
Hi! There seems to be one or several mistakes in your proof of Cardinality of Infinite Sigma-Algebra is at Least Cardinality of Continuum. It's been discussed on the talk page, but we don't know exactly what the intention was and whether the proof is fixable. What do you think? St.nerol (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)