User talk:Prime.mover

External link suggestion for "Equivalence of Definitions of Ellipse"
Maybe you could consider adding a link on the page Equivalence of Definitions of Ellipse to a "pure" geometric proof that can be found here http://www.lucamoroni.it/ellipse-geometric-proof-equivalent-definitions-foci-directrix/ It's a different approach to showing the equivalence of the definition of the ellipse based on purely plane geometry arguments and I think it could fit well (as a complement) in the Ellipse page of Proof Wiki.


 * Alternatively you may wish to add the proof yourself -- we don't link to proofs, we include them complete.


 * Incidentally, please sign your posts. --prime mover (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Length of Arc of Cycloid/Proof 2
I found the main part of the proof here, but I quite believe it's lacking some common sense. We need a much clearer sketch than this. Simcha Waldman (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Template Request: R
I will be using graphs generated in R in the future. It would be a good idea to have a template for citation. Something like you did for me with Template:TarskiGeometryCitation. Something like.

However, the citation format recommended is quite verbose, and I think it would add clutter to have the whole thing on every page. So I'm not sure what to do, and would like your input.

Once I see how you do it, hopefully I can figure out how to add citations for different packages I might use, by mimicking. --GFauxPas (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2016 (EST)


 * Can you give me an example of how you believe it should be used? Like, put a page together that uses it? --prime mover (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2016 (EST)


 * I'm working on it. I'm using it to draw contours for contour integration. --GFauxPas (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2016 (EST)


 * Okay, here's my idea. From Complex Riemann Integral is Contour Integral, every Laplace Transform for a fixed $s$ is a contour integral. I want to illustrate the idea that the contour integral converges for, for example, $\operatorname{Re}\left({s}\right) > 0$ and diverges for, for example, $\operatorname{Re}\left({s}\right) < 0$.


 * files removed while I fiddle with them and make them pretty


 * And maybe you or me will think of other ways illustrations of contours would be illuminating to the reader.


 * I haven't decided yet whether I should impose the parameterization of the curve on the graph like I did. I can easily rerender the graph with or without various accouterments.  --GFauxPas (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * Still not sure quite what you want me to do. I appreciate the elegance of presentation, by the way. --prime mover (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * Thank you! I worked very hard on it, on learning how to code it in . What I would like your help with is how to add a citation at the bottom of the page to acknowledge that I generated in the image in   using  . Just like how when we put up a definition from a book, we cite the book at the bottom of the page. --GFauxPas (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * Straightforward enough. Let me know:
 * a) exactly what it would say
 * b) what the parameters are
 * c) whether you want it to go into any particular category
 * and so on. I'd suggest it may be more like the MathWorld template than a that book one. --prime mover (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2016 (EST)

should be:

This image was generated using the  programming language: R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

and  should be

This image was generated using the  programming language, utilizing the   package.

(As above).

H. Wickham. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2009.

I defer to you as to where to put colons or commas wherever, or if you think of a better way to word it. Thank you in advance! --GFauxPas (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * BTW, I've never seen Laplace Transforms presented as contour integrals anywhere. might be the only place with this graphical interpretation. --GFauxPas (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * There you go, feel free to edit them as you wish.
 * There's plenty of stuff that appears on the net only on, but I expect we would be able to find something about this in published papers somewhere. I know I've plotted the things myself when optimizing microwave filters.
 * Westwood's Puzzle is unique to, unless it's gone further afield by now. --prime mover (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2016 (EST)

Wau
(moved from GFauxPas's sandbox discussion page)

I've been, er, "dicking about" this last few days, and encountered a Vi Hart video posted up by someone on Quora about the number which she calls "Wau". Googling it, I find your name attached to a comment on an xkcd forum referring to it. Might have guessed you'd have encountered it. :-)

What do you think: post up a page on about "Wau" or wait till April 1st? Or is it more appropriate to the Jokes page?

Remember: e to the i to the e i o equals e to the wau to the tau wau wau. --prime mover (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe create a new category of "important constants", and then stick it in that category? --GFauxPas (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * prime mover, now that you're creating pages for various interesting integers, perhaps now is a good time to add a page for $\digamma$. --GFauxPas (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2016 (EST)


 * You're the Vi Hart fan, take it away, maestro ... :-) --prime mover (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2016 (EST)

Two pages to be deleted
Please delete this and this, thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * I suggest that unless you know what you're doing, you abandon this course of action. It is admirable that you are enthusiastic about something you have just learned, but until you fully understand the mathematics that underlies it (e.g. to the extent that you can create the definition pages correctly for Field Extension and Linearly Independent) then it may be a good idea for you to find something else to work on. --prime mover (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * I will bear this in mind. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * :-) --prime mover (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * So will you delete the two faulty pages that I created? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * In due course. --prime mover (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2016 (EST)


 * And I eventually proved both of them. o/ --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (EST)

Appreciation
Your indefatigableness is really something. --GFauxPas (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2016 (EST)


 * Heh. It would be nice to find I'd taught by example. :-) --prime mover (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2016 (EST)

A delightful choice of name for the signer of a new-participant welcome message. Zaslav (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2018 (EDT)


 * $\circ \substack {\perp \\ \smile} \circ$ --prime mover (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

Template:NumberPageLink
I can totally see why this is a good idea. I would however suggest that the presentation be reconsidered. Currently Previous and Next are a bit lonesome and unexplained at the top of the page. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2017 (EDT)


 * Wasn't sure about that. I was copying what I did with e.g. Symbols:F. Feel free to experiment with it if you have a good idea. --prime mover (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Definition:Consistent
There seems to be going something wrong here. The definitions 1 and 2 that were added are not adequate. For definition 1 refers to "tautology" without specifying in which semantic context (and in any case it cannot be that a formal proof system's consistency is *defined* in terms of a semantics; this is the ground of soundness and completeness theorems). Similarly, not every formal language will contain the symbol $\neg$, so definition 2 is not applicable in this universality either.

It therefore is not a surprise that the definition equivalence proof is not complete: the proof does simply not hold!

What is the suggested course of action here? (Also, my apologies for finding out only 1,5 years later...) &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2017 (EDT)


 * I hear a whoosh.


 * There are aspects of logic which I cannot understand. Once I think I have a grip on something, it vanishes. Suggest the following:
 * a) Establish in what contexts definitions 1 and 2 make sense (i.e. have we got to build an appropriate semantic framework into which they can be established either as definitions or theorems?) and specify them within that context
 * b) If they genuinely can't be made sense of, they will need to be thrown away -- but it would possibly be worth adding a note to the errata section of Basson and O'Connor, from which I got all these definitions by puzzling over the text with an ice-pack on my head.


 * If you can have a go at this (e.g. if you have access to the Basson and O'Connor), feel free to do so -- otherwise put an instance of "questionable" on them (with as much explanation as you can) and I'll make the effort to revisit them. I used to enjoy logic but I fear I've reached a brick wall. --prime mover (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2017 (EDT)


 * I have the impression that reality is closer to option a). It is really very difficult to provide an approach that facilitates all the literature's slightly different, but "obviously" equivalent specifications to exist side-by-side.
 * Once I have access to my reservoir of ebooks again I will check for Basson/O'Connor and report back to you.
 * Ultimately, I think the only feasible approach is to have the overarching pages in place more or less like I constructed them now, but amended with loads of example and detail pages that will guide the reader to understanding that there is more subtlety than the idiosyncrasy of their respective treatise.
 * This will be a narrow road with many obstacles. But achieving the goal would be monumental: facilitating readers to understand and grasp the meta-level of logical reasoning, where all the similarities and repetitions that occur in setting up the many different flavours of mathematical logic can be made precise and unified.
 * But let's start small and address the current issue first :) &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2017 (EDT)


 * I found a freely accessible Basson/O'Connor online. It turns out that their definition is exactly as you wrote it. Problem is that it explicitly restricts the definitions to the specific system at hand ("assuming RST 1-4"). This makes them unsuitable to stay on the generic pages. Probably all terms they talk about need to have specific PropLog instances. Most should exist, I remember doing the exercise. But it is tedious and error-prone.
 * Do you have a problem if I put this one on my personal backlog, to be addressed when I have at least a few hours to dedicate? &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)


 * Feel free. I found myself getting out of my depth, which is why I abandoned it at around that point, I was going to come back to it but never got round to it. --prime mover (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Pff. It will take much more time to provide a coherent approach here. Ultimately, the axiom system provided for PropLog should be described, and everything (defined and) proved in reference to that system. This is very hard to keep separate from the more generic treatment of the underlying subjects. But on the other hand it is just similar to the exercise I have done for Boolean Interpretations.

We could subsequently start proving proof systems equivalent (as in $\vdash_{\mathcal P} \phi$ iff $\vdash_{\mathcal P'} \phi$). This would be a great achievement, a first step in overcoming the idiosyncrasy in logic. I will continue to think about this. It provides a concrete motivation to get this shit sorted out. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2017 (EDT)


 * My ability to think has taken a turn for the worse recently. I hate what age does. The hope is that once the stressy stuff is out of the way, I will be able to take on mental challenges again. Until such time, this aspect of mathematical logic will have to remain completely in the hands of you (and anyone else who wants to add their own thoughts), and I will stick to nice easy concrete understandable numbers. --prime mover (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2017 (EDT)


 * There is nice progress. I have unified the approaches to propositional tableaus that were previously conflicting. I'm in the process of rounding up this task, which will result in fully descriptive pages for the Completeness and Soundness theorems described in Keisler/Robbin (for PropLog). Subsequently I can start the same train for the proof system in Basson/O'Connor. I'd almost forget I had started out with that aim. But the progress in untying (generic) PropLog from (specific) Tableaus is almost complete. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Are you actually in possession of a Keisler/Robbin? Or have access to (tantamount to the same thing)? --prime mover (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

Yes, I have a digital copy of the 1996 version. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (EDT)


 * That makes things easier then. My copy was that same edition. I only used it because is was one of the very few I had access to at the time. --prime mover (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

Reductio ad Absurdum/Sequent Form
Should we use two $\vdash$ in the same line? Whose notation is this following? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

Definition categories
Sorry for not properly adding categories to definition categories. I see know why and how it has to be done. --barto (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


 * No worries. The whole structure and philosophy of categories was reworked some 2 years ago. Templates are still evolving. Those old AbAlg categories were never updated until now. --prime mover (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Basson O'Connor
I notice you have introduced a pretty nice form of presenting proofs from proof systems other than natural deduction. This looks very nice, but I think the references cannot be used the way they are currently (because these are generally part of natural deduction and/or otherwise go beyond the scope of the proof system at hand.

To accommodate for this during my treatment of Basson-O'Connor I have chosen the approach seen on Proof by Contradiction/Variant 3/Formulation 2/Proof 2. What do you think? Is this something we can proceed further with? I'm looking forward to hearing what you think, because I want to cover some more of it the coming days and would regret having to go through everything again to make updates. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2017 (EDT)


 * The only "controversial" point here is taking it back to bedrock with TableauLine rather than with the specifically-crafted proof lines I built for Natural Deduction. The only reason I invented those was laziness -- it saved me having to keep track of what all the parameters were for. But the spirit of the page is preserved. If this technique is going to be used in earnest, then building templates for the various cases is also worth thinking about. So no worries. --prime mover (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2017 (EDT)


 * I see your point, I haven't been able to figure out a good way. But in most cases this would just bring extra template clutter on top of TableauLine. We will see if there is progressive insight here. Thanks for having a look! &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Template naming
I see you disagreeing on the template naming with lowercase letters. I can see your point from consistency. However, also I do find it convenient to type them quickly when I don't have much time, also the more specialised templates. So please at least retain the lowercase-and-space variants as redirects, so that both work. This saves frustration for everybody.

Also, thanks for putting some effort into harmonising the category naming etc. for templates. This was a bit overdue. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2017 (EST)

Additionally, thanks for helping out with working through the stubs to see which need finishing, which need a proof, which contents, etc... It's clearer now. The last 200-odd we can tackle by hand :) &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2017 (EST)


 * The advantage to CamelCase (or, more generally, a template name with no spaces separating them) is that the whole template name can be picked up by a double-click and pasted into the buffer. With multiple word templates you either have to type them on or drag the mouse over the entire template name.


 * Have your two-word template redirects, if you so please, but I like the CamelCase versions so I prefer to keep them.


 * As for names, specifically: "wtd" has no meaning in industry, but "WIP" is a universal industry standard abbreviation for "work in progress". I used to work in a "WIP store" many years ago, and I still refer to ongoing projects as "WIP". I would like to retain this. "wtd" is too close to "wtf". Apart from that, ultra-short template names are as irritating to use (unless like ZF or AoC are standard mathematical terms) because it is impossible to remember what they are, and they become unusable. And I really see no point to the appalling "Tl" which (because of the impossibility of distinguishing a lowercase L from an uppercase i) renders sourcecode difficult to comprehend. So I would suggest we do not go down the road of Wikipedia on this one. Not everybody is a Unix fanboi and lots of two-letter template names make the site difficult to learn. --prime mover (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (EST)


 * What about "Todo" replacing "wtd"? I also tend to agree with you on "tl", probably it ought to go. "template" is typable, although it can be a bit confusing to have Template:Template.
 * In favour of short template names argues that they are quick to type, and there is always the documentation on their page to find out how to use them. But usually a bit of effort reveals a short yet descriptive name, so the problem is manageable. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (EST)


 * I can't see any advantage to changing what we have just for the sake of it. Ultimately this is a maintenance template, in place flagging up the fact that a page is incomplete. Nice though it is to polish the scaffolding and draw pretty pictures on the paint buckets, ultimately this is work which does nothing towards actually progressing the website. But if you feel strongly enough about this stuff, feel free, knock yourself out, fill your boots, whatever. I seriously can't see the point in it.


 * And what exactly is the point of the "tl" template anyway? Do we really need a maintenance template to manage the maintenance templates? Seriously? --prime mover (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2017 (EST)


 * You are very right, and indeed these matters should not distract us too much. It is however good to be looking at methods to make editing on this website easier and less time-consuming to do properly.
 * And while I say it, I conclude that this means that focus should shift to (besides the main task of covering more maths) expanding Help pages and things like finishing up the markup proposal for the section whitespace. Which I will now proceed to do. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2017 (EST)


 * If it were me doing it, I would guard against being too detailed and prescriptive in the creating of help pages. While guidelines are good, it may be a mistake to try and define the style of everything. I can see a danger in going too far down the path of giving too many instructions. Yes I know that's a paradoxical contradiction of my own specification of $\LaTeX$ style, for which I offer no excuse of apology. --prime mover (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Emptying the also see section
Please do think carefully when you remove a link from the also see section. Example. If a theorem gives a counterexample that an X need not be Y, the also see section can give additional context why we may wonder about a counterexample. If you feel very strongly about this, I'll post a discussion on the main page. --barto (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (EST)


 * Point taken. Yes okay, I can see there is a case. I was over-hasty. I will put them back. --prime mover (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2018 (EST)

Back
Thanks for the welcome back! I've been really busy with university so I kind of let this behind, but now's the summer so I'll have a few months of freedom. My analysis ii professor said that he really didn't learn the material as a studentin courses until he spent a summer teaching himself from Folland, so he recommended that anyone who wants to master the subject do the same. :) --GFauxPas (talk)


 * It's not a work I know, but if it comes recommended, then go to it. Analysis is a female canine and I hate it, but it has to be mastered. --prime mover (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Grammar
Grammar question came up when I was reading a page you wrote recently. When do you use "is" and when do you use "are" for things like:

"None of my friends is/are interested in science-fiction" ? --GFauxPas (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2018 (EDT)


 * "is" for each and every, and "are" for none and all, I believe. Don't know why, don't even know if it's the same both sides of the pond. --prime mover (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (EDT)


 * The reason is that "is" is the third person singular of be, while "are" is the third person plural of be. So "is" is used when the subject is singular (e.g. each, every, and entire), while "are" is used when the subject is plural (e.g. Both and several).


 * It should be noted that "all" and "none" are a bit special in that whether they are singular or plural depends on what noun they are attached to. For example, "All of the complex plane is locally compact." is correct because "All of the complex plane" is a single object which has the property "locally compact", while "All of the prime numbers are indivisible .' is correct because here "all of the prime numbers" is group of objects that individually have the property "indivisible." --AliceInNumberland (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

Tidy
Nope, I don't want to play any more. --prime mover (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2018 (EDT)


 * It disappoints me to see this all too familiar pattern recur. In fact I wonder what triggers it. I guess everyone likes their own style of writing, but I can hardly understand why this would lead to these frustrations.
 * On the one hand I understand that not all "rules" are written in the house style, because it is often not easy to articulate the motivation behind something, or its exact form, when it has "just worked" for a long time.
 * On the other hand it is the nature of things that over time, established conventions are changed (cf. the recent policy switch on custom-defined $\LaTeX$ commands, which has alleviated the long-standing concern regarding left-right). Thinking of which, probably the FAQ should be amended to encourage the use of.
 * Some things will require a long debate to come to a conclusion for a change. It is my experience that the discussion is improved when tangible alternatives are proposed ("this is not workable" is understandably not a very appreciable viewpoint if no search for alternatives is conducted).
 * It is my experience that everything can be discussed, maybe after a brief period of experimentation in someone's sandbox.
 * /2c &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2018 (EDT)


 * I tried, I really did. But it seems to me that [recent contributor] was / is spoiling for a fight, and whatever I said was going to make it respond with further taunts. I wonder whether there's a clique of contributors to Stackoverflow who have an attitude. --prime mover (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (EDT)


 * I believe you. In fact I think that both of you really tried, and were eventually frustrated enough to start suspecting malicious intent in the other party. But similarly I think that this is not the case. There is just a problem of not managing to speak the same language on some level. But sadly I have no idea for a solution to that... :( &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2018 (EDT)