# 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.

## Contents

- 1 Barnstars
- 2 Coincidence or synchronicity?
- 3 Continuity
- 4 num
- 5 Whoops, sorry
- 6 How did it go?
- 7 Thanks for the welcome
- 8 Stub
- 9 been away
- 10 I'm slowing down ...
- 11 Hope I didn't exceed my authority
- 12 Categories
- 13 Recent edit of Peano Structure Without Non-Successor Element
- 14 Course going well, then?
- 15 Can you verify/correct?
- 16 Milestone approaching
- 17 Lagrange's Remainder Estimation Theorem
- 18 your latest edit
- 19 Munkres book
- 20 "Benford's Law" entry

## 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 $s \left(0\right) \in P'$.

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)

## Course going well, then?

Good to see you're now a soph ... --Matt Westwood 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

## Can you verify/correct?

Hello!

## Milestone approaching

We're 15 away from the glorious 4000. The rate proofs have been generated the last few days, it's not impossible it's going to hit that landmark over the course of this weekend. I'm away in Nijmegen, NL, on that MathWiki conference and so I won't be taking care of business. Any chance you can monitor it (at least keep a quick eye on it every so often) just so it doesn't get missed? Thx. --prime mover 17:04, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

- ... although in practice it seems to have been a relatively quiet weekend.

- Quiet on proofwiki, but seriously exciting at the conference. Once I've caught upon some rest (just driven 360 miles, further than I'm used to doing in a day, and I started at 04:00 this morning) I'll write a report. There are some things we might want to discuss concerning medium- to long-term strategy and direction. --prime mover 06:35, 29 August 2011 (CDT)

- Catch up with you when you get there. Need to discuss political stuff like copyright notices etc. --prime mover 14:54, 31 August 2011 (CDT)

## Lagrange's Remainder Estimation Theorem

Hello, i have noticed that you wanted a proof of Lagrange's Remainder Estimation Theorem. I've created two proofs today, but i am not sure about proper names: Lagrange Polynomial Approximation, Taylor's Theorem/One Variable#Proof_using_Rolle's Theorem directly. If one of them is what you wanted, please feel free to rename or to edit. --Cokaban 11:38, 24 November 2011 (CST)

- Your work is appreciated. The pages are up for restructuring anyway, so may well get renamed. No worries, it's on the list of stuff to do. Many thanks for your contributions - we'll take a good look and sort the names (if necessary) out in due course. --prime mover 11:59, 24 November 2011 (CST)

- Whoops, sorry Alec - only just occurred to me it was
*your*page this was posted to! Put it down to me being a) short of sleep, and b) long on caffeine, not be being intentionally rude (for once) ... --prime mover 12:01, 24 November 2011 (CST)

## your latest edit

Proves my point. :-)

(gimme a break, I've had a busy day ... --prime mover 17:11, 8 March 2012 (EST)

## Munkres book

Lots of citations for Munkres (on, ahem, Wikipedia mainly) suggest that Munkres Topology was published in 1975. As you put the initial posting of this up, are you in a position to be able to check it? I don't have a copy to be able to check. --prime mover 01:22, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

- Actually, my bootleg international second edition doesn't seem to give the original publication date anywhere. I have no idea where I got the 1974 date, so if you've seen 1975, then I'll certainly change the page to reflect that. --Alec (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

- Okay we'll go for 1975. No worries, I'm on the case. --prime mover 17:26, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

## "Benford's Law" entry

In here, you listed out Benford's Law, which is an observation rather than a theory, so it cannot be proven. Kc kennylau (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

- True enough. However, with the right set of assumptions (if I recall correctly, Scale Invariance/Base Invariance of the underlying distribution) it is possible to derive Benford's Law. So feel free to change the entry to Scale Invariance Implies Benford's Law or something to that effect if you'd prefer... --Alec (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)