User talk:Kc kennylau

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:

• Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
• Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
• Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
• Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers! prime mover (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring

Please don't do any more refactoring jobs till you have learned what is needed to be done. --prime mover (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, sorry and ok. By the way, is refactoring splitting pages to smaller pages and renaming them to "Corollary", "Proof 1", "Proof 2", etc? --Kc kennylau (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
And maybe you could create a page called ProofWiki:Refactoring teaching newbies like me how to refactor (and any other processes as well). --Kc kennylau (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Because I got the wrong meaning of refactoring in the category description: Usually this means being split into several pages (probably as subpages transcluded into a master page). --Kc kennylau (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We haven't gotten round to that (and in fact, it is probably good that newbies do not concern themselves with site-structural maintenance tasks; that's a different discussion altogther). There are many conventions regarding it that currently reside only in my and PM's head, which is indeed somewhat unfortunate. Once you've seen us do a few dozen, you'll get the hang of it.
Refactoring is indeed partially the splitting of larger pages into smaller ones. However, we like our pages to be self-contained and make sense, so there are some additional conventions. In our lingo, refactoring can also mean "there is a large project spanning a potentially large amount of pages which needs considerable time and thought devoted to it, and should ideally be completed in a single dash". But anyway, I'm not going to try and explain all that right now. Just one piece of advice: should you refactor, and be unsure about an uncommon situation, ask us. This prevents frustration. — Lord_Farin (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that perhaps you can give us some examples of pages that you have refactored to teach use how to refactor. Should you not be able to find any, you can still teach us how to refactor by words, instead of just leaving that thought in your mind. --Kc kennylau (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that perhaps you could first try to familiarise yourself with the site-specific house style rules by reading the relevant help sections, by keeping track of our changes to your (and others') contributions, and by generally browsing the site. Perhaps in a few weeks/months, we'll reconsider. Nonetheless -- let me stress this -- your eagerness and enthusiasm are greatly appreciated. — Lord_Farin (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I wanna ask Prime.mover how can I learn how to refactor if you don't allow me to refactor? --Kc kennylau (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see the relevant section of the Frequently Asked Questions page, as this has come up before.
To put it bluntly, we request that refactoring work is not undertaken by new contributors.
I note that we can't actually stop you from taking on refactoring work, except by blocking you from contributing altogether, and that's something we would rather not do. But from the results of the work you have already done, it is clear that you have not yet garnered the appropriate overview of how our pages adhere to house style.
There have been contributors who have immediately grasped the concepts of our house style and write style-perfect pages practically straight away. We note that not everyone has those skills. But till you have taken on the house style discipline, please respect our request, as it causes more work than it saves us. --prime mover (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding a new section in the FAQ just for me. I am very touched. I promise I won't do any maintenance until I reach 1000 edits. --Kc kennylau (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It wan't just for you. As I say, this issue has come up before. --prime mover (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't do forgiveness

"Forgive me for embarking on this refactoring task".

Please respect our requests. I understand your enthusiasm for whatever it is you're enthusiastic about, but I really would prefer you not to embark on refactoring. Please do not keep on asking why, and please do not keep on raising the subject.

I also appreciate that you have taken time to get to grips with house style, and pages are improving, but we still request that refactoring be done by more experienced contributors.

Be aware that in extremis you can be blocked from editing. I don't want to do this because it would ultimately be unfair, but it is still an option. --prime mover (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will improve. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Another matter which has come up before.

Please don't initiate categories until you are more familiar with the way this site works. (a) The one you added did not conform to naming style and (b) I'm unconvinced that we really need such a category anyway.

While it is relatively easy to rename pages and set up redirects etc. in the case where pages are suboptimally named, it is not so easy to do this with categories. --prime mover (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll improve. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring

Please do not perform any refactoring tasks. THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING. --prime mover (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In the particular instance Rational Multiplication is Closed you paid no attention to the integrity of the linking of the source work. Fortunately there was no problem, as the appropriate place to leave this source citation was on the parent page, but this is not always the case. It is very easy for the flow to get lost if care is not taken in refactoring. --prime mover (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for making your angry. A few days ago, I promised you that I will not perform any more refactoring task. Therefore, I feel obligated to tell you that I considered myself as merging my proof into Rational Multiplication is Closed instead of refactoring, since
1. You did not put {{refactor}} there; and
2. I am not obeying house styles if I just put my proof there opening a new section without creating a new subpage.
I sincerely apologize to you and I hope that you understand my situation. Please do not mind if I have used some words wrongly, since English is my second language. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been asked this before, and I am going to ask this again.

Please, if you have any respect for anyone on this site at all, please refrain from doing any refactoring. You still have to show that you have the necessary skill and experience with this site to do so. --prime mover (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ok --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you don't understand what "refactor" means.
In this context it means: taking a section of one page (e.g. a proof) and moving it into a new page (usually a subpage).
As has been explained, there is more to it than just moving the pages about. There is other work that also needs to be done which, if it is not done, can make the links wrong.
As you do not understand this work, I request once more that you do not do any refactoring.
If you need to add a second proof to a page with an existing proof, please just add it as a second proof and (if you like) add the "refactor" template to the top of the page.
Again, thank you in advance for your co-operation in this matter. --prime mover (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
ok --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect strategy

Nice work on adding these Fibonacci proofs. With some small pointers, your writing is also practically compliant with house style -- thanks for that effort.

The reason I wanted to leave you a note is because most of these "subpage" constructions (with a / in their name) have /-less redirects in place to facilitate searching, beautify our link targets, and simplify any future refactoring.

You can see if there is any such redirect in place through the "What links here" link in the Tools part of the sidebar (you know it when you see it). For example Definition:Coprime Integers redirects to Definition:Coprime/Integers.

Cheers :). — Lord_Farin (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you create a page listing the properties? i would love to see it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean something like Properties of Fibonacci Numbers? Just create an example in your personal spoace User:kc_kennylau/Sandbox mimicking Properties of Exponential Function. For more information on the technique, see Help:Transclusion. If you meant something else, I'm sorry to have misunderstood -- in that case, please clarify. — Lord_Farin (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I was forbidden to do refactoring of any kind. --kc_kennylau (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why I asked you to put it in your sandbox. That way, I or PM can give you some hints and rationale. When it's deemed ready, it can be moved to the main namespace. — Lord_Farin (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you're experimenting. Good. To test the onlyinclude functionality, you can create local copies as subpages of your sandbox. See my sandbox for zillions of examples. — Lord_Farin (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Negatively indexed Fibonacci numbers

Please expand Definition:Fibonacci Number to include negative indices, preferably according to the equation $F_{n-1} = F_{n+1} - F_n$. Can you drop a note when you've done so, so that I can review it? — Lord_Farin (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories in Redirects

Just a heads up: When redirecting a page, you can use the category mechanism just as on an ordinary page. This makes the redirects much easier to find. — Lord_Farin (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DIY

That's right. Do it yourself. You are hereby granted the privilege to refactor Sine of 45 Degrees to include your new (and very nice :) ) proof. If your contributions retain the current high level, you'll probably be allowed to take on other refactoring tasks as well :). — Lord_Farin (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is this. When you are adding a new page and designing a new proof, why not create the new page, add the transclusion and craft the page in the appropriate style in the first place? Then there would be no need for a "refactor" template.
I appreciate that this is at odds with what I said earlier, but when a page is already in the same style of multiple transcluded proofs, adding a new one is not actually changing the structure of what is already there. --prime mover (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Whence the "DIY". It's a good exercise nonetheless. — Lord_Farin (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Trigonometry

You seem to be having difficulty with your trigonometrical ratios. Could I suggest you look at a book? --prime mover (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Library of Standard Integrals

This is a superb piece of library work you are doing. It was something I had in mind to do myself, but after having posted these integrals up in the first place, I found I needed a change -- and I never got back to it. --prime mover (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it together! :D --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Job done. Nice one. --prime mover (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I still need to make sure every page is interconnected. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Amending pages with Primitive of Function of Root of a x + b in them

I can't see how the changes you are making improve the pages at all.

The concept is:

Integral is in the form $F \left({\sqrt {a x + b}}\right)$.
Directly substitute from the result Primitive of Function of Root of a x + b the integral in the form $F \left({u}\right)$.

I have clarified the process in Primitive of x squared over Root of a x + b. I am afraid that the interim steps you added rather tend to confuse the process, and in some cases the steps express something that is incorrect. --prime mover (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette

Please, in future, comments appropriate to particular pages should go into those pages, not into my talk page. --prime mover (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
Sorry, noted. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Complex Differential Calculus

I have set up some new categories for Complex Differential Calculus, as you will see.

Please feel free to take on this area of mathematics, as it has been left undone and the gap is a bad one.

Many thanks. --prime mover (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Including refactoring? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
Please make sure that if you create subpages, or rename pages, either make sure that the links in the Sources section are redirected appropriately, or, if you do not have access to the source works, invoke the SourceReview template.
I specifically make this request because many times people have in the past not understood this section, and it is so easy for the flow to be broken. And I do not want that to happen. --prime mover (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
I'm inclined to agree here and include refactoring. If you are at any point in doubt about the approach or strategy, please feel free to drop a message so we can discuss up front. — Lord_Farin (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
Thank you for the support from both of you. In Primitive of Exponential Function for example, should I copy the sources to the complex proof? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
If you have access to the (Spiegel) source, see whether it refers to either Real or Complex (from memory, I think its context was for the Real case, I am not in a position to check). If for Real, move it to the Real page and remove it from the general (parent) page and update the links that point to it. If it is implicit that it should apply to both, leave it on the parent page.
(Same applies to the Khan Academy source -- watch the video if you can. If the link is broken, see if you can mend it -- the site was restructured one time and we never got round to mending the links.)
The strategy is: the flow should be strictly a linear ordering, and the pages should match as precisely as possible the content of the sources. If you apply these principles, maintaining the "previous" and "next" links should become straightforward.
And the overriding message: if you do not have access to the source works in question, add a SourceReview template (add some explanation if you would) and leave it to someone who does have (or can get) access to that source work. --prime mover (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Small addendum: it is my preference to have the SourceReview on every page involved in the refactoring. This makes things easier to resolve. Good luck :). — Lord_Farin (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Random extra tip: use Template:Subpage and Template:Subproof to your advantage. They save a lot of typing. — Lord_Farin (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
Thank you, never knew that. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

Today you created two extra pages which were basically already up (I put mergeto templates on them). Please search the site before posting new stuff. I suggest using Google, built-in search is cr... suboptimal. Cf. this old discussion. — Lord_Farin (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

The problem is that I only looked at Category:Definite Integrals... --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2016 (EDT)

Use of "minor edit"

When you are going through a whole load of pages and changing a link on each one, can you please check the "minor edot" checkbox? It is then possible to filter them out while looking back over the recent changes to see what has been done. --prime mover (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Noted. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
And further, was it necessary to change those links at all? I believe not. --prime mover (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
Noted. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2016 (EDT)

Normally I would not have been so drastic with such a change, but you have been around a long time and you should know how it works here by now. --prime mover (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Well, I was chatting with User:GFauxPas on MSE chatroom who gave me explicit permission (there are many discussions going on, so it would be hard to trace) to change the proof. You are invited to join us in the chatroom. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2016 (EST)
GFauxPas is not an admin, and he does not have the "authority" to grant "explicit permission" for such an action. --prime mover (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2016 (EST)
I would also like to add: it is preferred that discussions about pages on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ are transacted within $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ itself, as in that way other $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ contributors can add their opinions as they see fit. As you yourself point out, it is difficult to follow the conversation, and I have no wish to waste my time attempting to do so. --prime mover (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Schanuel's Conjecture

The pages Definition:Linearly Independent and Definition:Field Extension, in their current form, do not contain an adequate definition of the concepts in the sense you are using them in Schanuel's Conjecture and your use of it. Without that background work having been done, these pages have limited comprehensibility. --prime mover (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2016 (EST)