User talk:Prime.mover/Archive 1

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Filing cabinet.png
This is an article of past discussions, from 23 July 2008 to 13-June-2011.
Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sup dude

Do you even sleep? you've been going non-stop since you first joined. of course i appreciate the work (I haven't even been able to keep up with reading it all), but you're making the rest of us look lazy. Regardless, excellent work, and with that, I think I will bring a Wikipedia tradition to ProofWiki: Barnstars. See the wikipdia page on barnstars for more details and other barnstar designs.

Hey, when you create a page, or link to a page, be sure to keep in mind their namespace.

eg: Say you wanted to link to definition of graph, then you would write [[Definition:Graph|graph]], this will put a link to the Definition namespace. Also, be sure to include the category, at the bottom of the page, just put the category in the category box, eg. Definitions or eg.Axioms. If you are linking to a category, you must put a : in front, for instance [[:Category:Definitions]] For creating a page you must do the same thing, having the namespace in front.

This is so we can differentiate between proofs and definitions. Thanks,--Joe 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Using an external editor

Hey, I just found out and tested that you can use an external editor to edit pages. It works great. I tried so far using GVim using the "It's All Text" plug-in for Firefox. All you have to do is install the plug-in and then tell it where your editor is. Here are the two sites I used to help me set it up. I did this in Linux but I'm sure it'll work fine in Windows! Hope this helps --Joe

Thanx dude - I'll check this out ... --prime.mover 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I'm just thinking, maybe it would be better if we kept the Definition namespace. Since there are a lot of definitions out there, maybe it would be better to keep them separate from all the proofs. In terms of adding them to the proper category, I'm working on a bot that can check and fix this automatically. I'm thinking it's best to try and keep the proofs(which is the main focus of the site) separate from the definitions. I know it might be a pain, but I think it's better then having them mixed in with the namspace for proofs. Mixing them I think causes more problems then it will fix.

  • When you search for a proof, you won't just get proofs, you also get definitons and axioms.
  • It messes up the page count as we talked about earlier
  • It will confuse people, probably won't be sure what is a proof, what is a definition...

I should be able to get a bot working that can automatically check things to make sure definitions are in the correct category, what does everyone think? --Joe 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New LaTeX

Hey, Have you tried the new LaTeX stuff? Is it working good? --Joe 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Confess I haven't yet. I need to check out the "stackrel" function at least so I can define a symbol for defining entities:

$\mathbf {Define:} \ fred \ \stackrel {\mathbf {def}} {==} \ bert$

Yay! That works! Nice one.

BTW do you know how to include negative spaces so I can weld the edges of two $==$ signs together?

Okay, now I need to check out how to stack equation entities properly so I don't need to use tables. Having said that, when I wrote my thesis using full AmsLaTeX I found that I could not achieve the effects I was after without writing my own package (which included a modification to the table/array facilities) so we'll see what gives.

It's getting late for the night and I'm not good at learning new stuff p.m. I'll try and get it together to check out all the new buttons tomorrow - if not, then next weekend when I have two completely free mornings. --prime.mover 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I took your idea for using tables to create equation arrays and made it into a usable template. Still may need some tuning though, what do you think?? Check out the sandbox to see it. --Joe 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Would certainly speed my throughput. Good job.

Only caveat: sometimes (rarely, see Solution to Quadratic Equation) it needs more columns, e.g. to put a $\implies$ at the front and to be able to put a lined-up row of equals signs in the middle. (This is just one of the flexibilities that standard LaTeX doesn't allow.)

When creating a template, there's always the tradeoff between prodiving ultimate flexibility and keeping it streamlined enough to be usable on these things. But I reckon making it 5 columns, justified: r, r, c, l, l should be enough. How easy would it be to force it to make an extra gap before the end column so the comment doesn't come confusingly close to the equation it describes?

Of course, for really complicated equation sequences we can always fall back on the technique of using a table, if what we're trying to put together will not look good any other way.

As I say, fine work, bro. --prime.mover 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I added a few more modifications, take a look! --Joe 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

... okay I think I get the gist ... okay, let's try it out. We can always tweak it if we find we need to in the course of events. --prime.mover 17:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. Let me know if you want something added, and I'll see what I can do. --Joe 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that I have left and right mixed up, for l1,l2,r1,r2 (I was thinking alignment, when I should have been thinking side of equation). I'll fix it now! --Joe 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple things ... we want the LHS sides to be right justified and the RHS to be left justified, and the centre line to be centre justified, yeah?

I don't know whether we necessarily want the centre to have to be an equals sign. I can envisage that you may want to put a "propositional function" in there, e.g. $P(x) \Longrightarrow Q(x) \land R(x)$ or something, or (here's a good one) when you want it to be a $\le$ or $>$ or $\subseteq$ or something, any general relation. --prime.mover 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

you can,just use " {{equation|operator=\leq. --Joe 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this for ultimate user-friendliness then:

Columns labelled "ll, l, o, r, rr, c, cc" for left-left, left, operator, etc.

Then you don't have to worry about remembering whether you want the 1st or 2nd column and most of your equations will go

{{equation |l=\(something\)|r=\(something else\)}}
{{equation |ll=\(so\)|l=\(trash\)|o=\(aint\)|r=\(gold\)|c=so what the heck}}

I kinda see what you mean but not really, could you give a math example? --Joe 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

{{equation | l=\(4 a^2 x^2 + 4 a b x + 4 a c\)
           | r=\(0\)
           | c=(multiplying through by \(4 a\))}}
{{equation | ll=\(\Longrightarrow\)
           | l=\(\left({2 a x + b}\right)^2 - b^2 + 4 a c\)
           | r=\(0\)
           | c=(Completing the square)}}
{{equation | ll=\(\Longrightarrow\)
           | l=\(\left({2 a x + b}\right)^2\)
           | o=\(\le\)
           | r=\(b^2 - 4 a c\)}}
{{equation | ll=\(\Longrightarrow\)
           | l=\(x\)
           | r=\(\frac {-b \pm \sqrt {b^2 - 4 a c} }{2a}\)}}

which is supposed to look like the one in Solution to Quadratic Equation, except I put a rogue $\le$ in the middle just to indicate what I mean about the operator column.--prime.mover 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, I think I see what you mean. Should ll and rr be right/left or center/center justified? --Joe 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Way I see it: ll and l should be right justified, rr and r should be left justified, same with c and cc, and o should be center.

So everything snuggles up to the center line which then draws the eye to the heart of the equation. All very aesthetic. --prime.mover 18:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, what is cc? --Joe 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Second column of comments, if needed. --prime.mover 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, check it now. --Joe 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Way to go. Perfect. I've added a user-template for this design pattern in my user page. No doubt it will evolve ...

Right, back to my semigroups. You are a diamond. --prime.mover 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative Space

At some point (I don't remember where) you asked how to make a negative space to combine to equals signs. \! inserts a negative space, so = \! = gives $= \! =$. --cynic 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuuude! Nice one!

It's so as to have a notation for "$x$ is defined as $y$":

$\mathbf {Define:} \ fred \ \stackrel {\mathbf {def}} {=\!=} \ bert$ ...

Also so as to do a better job on equivalence classes: $\left[\!\left[a\right]\!\right]_b$

... that's completely the business. --prime.mover 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit bar buttons

Hey, I'm not sure if you noticed the new post, but I added some new buttons to the edit bar (So far just ref tags and the one for the equation template). Any others that are used a lot that might be good to put there? --Joe 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

plenty! - too many, in fact, to be sensible. As I happen to be on any particular subject I tend to just add them to my user page, which is growing by the day.

Can't think of anything universal, unless you want to put up a Theorem - Proof template:

== Theorem ==

== Proof ==


... or something. The main advantage to such things is the tendency towards uniformity of style, I suppose ...

I did notice the equation button, haven't used it yet, haven't been doing anything equation-based since I noticed it. But I will ... sooner or later. --prime.mover 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


You don't need to get sidetracked with geometry if you don't want to. I can get a text on Monday and work on it some, and really deal with it in two weeks after exams. I will note that we don't want to be plagiarizing Euclid for all of our geometry. Nonetheless, thanks for the work. --Cynic-----(talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm ... I thought that as Euclid is (a) public domain and (b) "classic", a documentation of his proofs probably wouldn't be out of place. That said, some of what's been posted seems both trivial and unwieldy (for example, the Pons Asinorum I'd always thought a bit long-winded and it could be polished off in 2 lines). So I thought that once it's all up we could then add to each page an analytic proof of each result, for example, take it from there. But you have to start somewhere ... it's relaxing and therapeutic.

Just found this superb resource! [1] --prime.mover 06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions as Theorems

I'm thinking it might be wise to have both, in response to a question you posed on the talk page for Euclidean Space. For example, there are a number of things to prove about Euclidean space, which most properly seem to fit the Proof namespace. At the same time, it seems wise to have a definition page as well, since a user might come here browsing definitions, and of course no matter what the idea of Euclidean space is a concept, not an argument, which merits a definition, not a proof. I don't see any problem with defining Euclidean space in a definition page, along with whatever assertions one must make to explain the concept to the user, then linking to the proofs of these various assertions from that definition page.

This goes the same for Definition:P-adic Metric. It seems wise to have a definition page for it, since a user may come across the metric some random proof and want a definition for it. However, various claims about the p-adic metric (that is IS a metric, Ostrowski's theorem, the build-up of $\Omega$ all deserve proofs, which should be linked to on the definition page. That's my two cents. Your thoughts? Zelmerszoetrop 13:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries

Matt, it's clear that you've been editing for far longer than I have, have contributed much more to the style of proofwiki than I have, and have set up so much foundation, that I defer to you in pretty much anything you want to do to my articles, barring the unlikely mathematical error. Not to mention, you're a sysop. If you've got any tips or constructive criticism for me, never hesitate to let me know. Cheers! Zelmerszoetrop 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Group Examples and such

I've combined the page on Definition:Dicyclic Group with all of the material from the Definition:Quaternion Group page, since the quaternion group is a special case of a dicyclic group. Let me know what you think of it!

For the dicyclic group page, as well pages like Definition:Alternating Group, Definition:Symmetric Group, what I'd like to do, what I personally think is ideal, is having these pages remain as repositories for all proofs about these objects, such as demonstrating that they are groups, that they are non-abelian, and any other common properties about them. A separate definition page should exist explaining what these objects are, so that we have something to link to from proofs that doesn't send the end user through a long explanation of why a group is a group.

Your thoughts? Zelmerszoetrop 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Sure it's a word; as in, High School Equivalency Exam, Course Equivalency Guide, etc. , , Zelmerszoetrop 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not bad

At least, I think so. Thanks for asking --Cynic (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page title

Hey, do we have this page already? If not, can you suggest a good name? --Joe (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots actually, this is a useful result in cryptography. eg. x=101, y=12, n=10057 --Joe (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Thank you so much for telling me about GeoGebra! It's a million times better than the programs I was using before. You have saved me a great deal of future work and frustration! :) --Beth Ann

Logic question

Hi, I want to start adding complete proofs for all of the basic metatheorems of first-order logic, but I don't think this wiki has an official deductive system for FOL. How should we pick one? Whoops, sorry about that. I was being lazy and didn't bother to check. Mag487 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, another very general logic query. We presently have formal logic divided into a bunch of categories (some of whose borders are blurry), like predicate logic, propositional logic, mathematical logic and so on. I would propose we either subsume the categories into a mathematical logic supercategory, or eliminate them altogether in favor of a mathematical logic category alone. I'm not sure, e.g., mathematicians really refer to predicate logic as such, but rather to "first-order logic without equality," which is on a continuum with a bunch of other logics (like first-order logic with equality, or second-order logic). My intention is to tackle the important basic results of first-order logic with equality (the logic that set theory takes place in) and then branch out a bit to other areas of mathematical logic like proofs of the incompleteness theorems. Mag487 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition Categories

Good work on categorizing. Just a thought: it makes sense to link the definitions subcategory to the relevant category of proofs. I think I've gotten it for all of the ones you've done so far (up through ring theory), but it would be easier if you put it in when you first create the page (you can see the message I've been using on the ring theory page). --Cynic (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there wouldn't really be a way to move a category since all the pages in the category would have to be edited too. FYI I created a category redirect from Field Theory to Fields because of a similar difference. --Cynic (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a disadvantage to having a bunch of categories for one definition. I think that high level definitions like number should probably be in the top level definitions category (and if there are any specific categories that it has special or specially important meaning in, those too). --Cynic (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


I'll try to add proofs everyday. I was long looking for a site like this. I have a question though: Is there any criteria for selecting a proof to be added to proof wiki. Can theoretical problems in standard textbooks be treated as theorems and their proofs added, or are only named theorems admissible. For example can I add the proof of ℓ is not separable. Regards-Shahab 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I have another question regarding linking of defintions in articles. Is it a convention on proof wiki that a term appearing multiple times in a proof be linked multiple times as well. Regards.-Shahab 08:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: pardon me, lovely work

No problem, Matt. Is there some kind of style guide for these things? I've tried looking at the help pages, but didn't find anything. --Florian Brucker 11:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tychonoff's Theorem

You had to wait almost a whole year, but here it is :)

Disjunction and Implication

Hello, fellow logician. I've been editing Disjunction and Implication and I added the theorem $p\lor q \dashv\vdash (p\implies q)\implies q$. But, since I ain't familiar with the set of rules for Natural Deduction you use here in ProofWiki, I was only able to proof $p\lor q \vdash (p\implies q)\implies q$. =\ Would you mind to finish it? --Dante Cardoso Pinto de Almeida 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Peano Structure Without Non-Successor Element

Doh you're right. I just didn't notice the added prime symbol last night - I guess I was more tired than I thought. I reverted my edit. --Cynic (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Do you remember what the 2500th proof was? --Cynic (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Sorted.--prime.mover 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Course going well

Yep, school starts up again in about a month, and I'm just about ready to get back. I figured it was just about time to update my info, seeing as I haven't been a first year in almost three months :p --Alec (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

questioned proof

recently you questioned a proof of mine, i wanted to go back and fix up my errors but i've forgotten which one it was. do you remember? J D Bowen 04:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How recently? Could have been the one about the number of cycles of a given order. Could also have been the one where sequences and series had got confused. Sorry, I can't remember either - I have this happen a lot at work: I fix it, I document it, I notify the person whom it concerns and move on. Once I've passed the task on to someone else I seldom remember details. Sorry. --prime mover 10:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

commutative diagrams

Do you know how to do them on-wiki? J D Bowen 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I created the ones in here using GeoGebra. It was fiddly. --prime mover 21:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you can create them in LaTeX I suspect it would just be a matter of importing the relevant packages into the wiki's LaTeX distribution, but I have no idea if that's doable. --Alec (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't work:

$\xymatrix{ \bullet \ar[r] \[email protected]{.>}[r] & \bullet }$


Hey, wondering if you got my email? --Joe (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey ... access at email . proofwiki . org --Joe (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (CST)


Hey, check your email and the sandbox. --Joe (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2011 (CST)

Stay with the MathJax? Or back to the old implementation of $\LaTeX$? --Joe (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (CST)

Depends on:

a) Sorting out the odd fiddles; $\S$, $\P$ etc, and whether we can default the "display style" to Left Justified.

b) Whether we can find a way to fix our templates so you can stick latex in them

c) In particular if we can rescue the Equation templates, or replace with something equally easy to use (I suspect we may just need to amend them, but I haven't been inspired to go over them yet).

If we can't fix (c) then my vote's against.

Note that there are already pages with dollar delimiters in, and equally already pages with "redefine" in them.

MathJax rocks - I hope that the reason we can't do some stuff in it is through our inexperience rather than that you Just Can't. I really really hope we can stay with MathJax, but I don't want to re-do Equations.

Oh, and do we get our LaTeX tool button back? --prime mover 16:24, 7 February 2011 (CST)

Okay, so I think I've pinpointed the location of the error ... apparently when we put }} it crashes. I think it's causing a premature ending of the template. Looking into a fix. --Joe (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2011 (CST)

Find and replace

It is what it says --Joe (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2011 (CST)

Innit. --prime mover 15:40, 8 February 2011 (CST)


I'm not familiar with Hartley and Hawkes, I'm using Grillet - Abstract algebra as a guide. Everything that's down already looks pretty good! I'm quite busy at the moment but I'll think about how to treat polynomials in the near future, I think the work is in keeping in mind a global picture, the results themselves aren't much trouble.

Yeah it's a nice little project - makes a pleasant distraction from all the work I'm supposed to be doing. I've changed a few \and's etc. as I've seen them; I'm new to the wiki-style editing so just shout if I'm doing something out-of-style. --linus44 00:22, 9 February 2011 (CST)


Thanks, I'll bear those in mind. One quick question: is it possible to number equations and refer back? Or is there a preferred alternative? -- Linus44 22:17, 11 February 2011 (CST)

Pointwise operations

So there is, that's great, it wasn't going to be thrilling to write, thanks! "Induced structure" is a better term anyway. I'll mark the pages not needed for deletion. Also, this site needs a `like' button for what you wrote about "Q.E.D." for ending proofs on the help page. I die a little inside every time I see it. -- Linus44 06:46, 13 February 2011 (CST)

In fact, the definition of induced structure is quite robust so it covers addition (although interestingly not [I think] multiplication) of polynomial forms as well. This should shrink the unwieldy collection of pages I had used to prove that they are a ring. -- Linus44 07:54, 13 February 2011 (CST)

Math Fixing Macro?

Hi! I've been playing around with emacs macros to make changing pages with \<math\> etc. quicker when I come across them. As far as I can tell, it's not possible to write one that sort's out the aligned material, i.e. that changes | $\mapsto$ \vert, removes the \<math\> \</math\> tags and spaces the }}'s inside an aligned equation without learning some lisp. Just wondered if you had written something along those lines? If not I might have a go, shouldn't be too hard unless lisp is unexpectedly confusing. Linus44 14:27, 20 February 2011 (CST)

Cor blimey, lisp! That takes me back. Never used the language, which is unusual for me and my life journey, but once you get your head round the paradigm it seems straightforward.
Sounds like a brilliant idea, but I'm wary about using a macro that does things blindly.
What would be useful would be for a bot to go through all the pages which have a) deprecated commands: \and, \or, \reals etc. and flag them up by adding them to a category, b) identify those with the old math tags on them, and do likewise, and b) identify those with other breakages on them, whatever they be. Then we'll have a great big category with all the pages that need fixing on them, and we can address them all. Perhaps we can "press the button" on any particular page we come to, and then check the page for consistency before releasing. --prime mover 15:06, 20 February 2011 (CST)
Well Lisp ain't too bad, although the author seems confused about the conventions regarding where to put plus signs. Something like this:
(defun cmath (start end)
  "Replace “<” to “<” and other chars in HTML.
This works on the current region."
  (interactive "r")
    (narrow-to-region start end)
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "\(" nil t) (replace-match "$" nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "\)" nil t) (replace-match "$" nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "{{begin-equation}}" nil t) (replace-match "{{begin-eqn}}     " nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "{{end-equation}}" nil t) (replace-match "{{end-eqn}}" nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "{{equation" nil t) (replace-match "{{eqn" nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "\\and" nil t) (replace-match "\\land" nil t))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (search-forward "\\or" nil t) (replace-match "\\lor" nil t))
      ;; (goto-char (point-min))
      ;;  (while (re-search-forward "\\$\\(.+?\\)\\$" nil t)
      ;;     (replace-match
      ;;       (concat "$" (replace-regexp-in-string "|" "\\vert" (buffer-substring (match-beginning 1) (match-end 1))) "$" ) ;regexp-in
      ;;          ;;(concat "$" (replace-string "|" "\vert" (buffer-substring (match-beginning 1) (match-end 1))) "$" )
      ;;   	  nil t 
      ;;     )
      ;;   )
     (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (re-search-forward "{{begin-eqn}}\\([^~]+?\\$[^~]+?\\){{end-eqn}}" nil t)
        (concat "{{begin-eqn}}" (replace-regexp-in-string "\\$" "" (buffer-substring (match-beginning 1) (match-end 1))) "{{end-eqn}}")
	  nil t 

(fset 'mfix
   [?\C-x ?h ?\M-x ?c ?m ?a ?t ?h return])
in .emacs does the job except 2 problems:
  • for some reason I can't get it to substitute \vert for | (the commented bit), it won't escape the backslash
  • it deletes the dollar signs in the |c= part of equations as well]
Since it makes sense to preview the changes first I'm pretty much ok with this, the remaining changes aren't frequent enough to be tedious (which is another way of saying I'm tired of looking at regular expressions). But maybe I'll find the time and interest to neaten it up.
As for a bot, I'm more of an incidental programmer so I wouldn't know where to start, although it does sound cool. Linus44 14:22, 21 February 2011 (CST)
Perhaps we don't want to do the "equation" bits. No, no "perhaps" about it, I'd rather I (or whoever) did these by hand. The task's not intractable now, we have less than 600 of them, and it's therapeutic. I've done all the long pages (i.e. greater than 6000 characters) so most of the hard work's done.
But replacing < math > delimiters directly by $ \$ $ is a good idea.
As for a bot, I glanced at the material on the mediawiki site (or wherever it was) and it talks about python, which I'm not prepared to get into at this stage (sheer intellectual idleness) ... had a recent change of career direction and there are less brain cells available for that sort of thing now, at least till I get my metaphorical feet under the equally metaphorical table. --prime mover 15:33, 21 February 2011 (CST)
I think I agree, especially when playing with |'s and double braces it's easy to come out with unwanted side effects since they form the "framework" of the template as well. The reason I stopped where I did was that to only pick out the correct sets of characters involved "nested" regular expressions, which I can testify are not theraputic. Although I am impressed with what can be done with emacs, I might learn lisp proper some time.
My knowledge of python is based on a couple of xkcd comics; have you tried import bot ? Linus44 16:57, 21 February 2011 (CST)
Nope, not yet, and not tonight, I'm up at 6 in the morning, my wife returns to work and needs transport. Another day. Sleep well. --prime mover 17:02, 21 February 2011 (CST)


Depends, sometimes it's copied, otherwise I usually type them, it's quite a convenient punctuative key so I savour the opportunity. Seriously, don't know, hadn't really thought about it.

Unrelatedly, do you know if this is correct, it seems a little uncanny:

  • Principle of Induction iff Well ordering principle iff Axiom of Choice iff Zorn's Lemma --Linus44 00:36, 23 February 2011 (CST)

Again unrelatedly, just realised your username is that Zodiac Mindwarp song. Good call. -- Linus44 11:03, 23 February 2011 (CST)

Thanks for the hints

I checked the source of the Definition of the Free Group and the math-tags were used there so I assumed that this is the way to handle things here, but I'm very pleased to learn that dollar signs should be used instead (:

Thank you the the other suggestions as well, I'll do my best to mirror the projects way of editing!NoJ 17:25, 26 February 2011 (CST)

When I said the implies arrow was ugly

The new parser seems to have fixed exactly does this new parser work? I am curious! JamesMazur2 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Quick Question

...what notation are you using for "does not divide"? I had a quick look, but couldn't see negated backslash, so left it as vert's for the moment. --Linus44 01:30, 3 May 2011 (CDT)

Re: Links and Categories

I know, and I'll make more of an effort to do it, and will go back and cross-reference stuff I already added over time. For a lame single example, I did add the definition Definition:Ultraproduct a while after having referenced and used it in Compactness Theorem. Although as a side note, I also later noticed that there's a few compactness theorem proofs;

I hadn't searched it when I first put it up (I'm learning to do this as well). So at some point I'll probably try to sort out how those should be merged together.

It just already takes a long time to add something and doing all the linking makes it take even longer and makes it less fun/interesting to do. As I get more familiar with the site and more used to the wiki stuff, I'll approach behavior you like more, but I'm probably going to end up striking a balance because I'd rather be doing something that seems like it's adding content rather than connecting it (I understand that poorly connected content is arguably not very good content). A significant part of my motivation here is review and self-education. I recognize the importance of the things you mention for the usefulness of the site, but increasing that isn't necessarily the sole or primary reason for my participation here.

Qedetc 16:04, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

Also! If it's any consolation, I have been watching the edits people do after me and am trying to be more preemptive to save them some of the trouble (mostly so far that's been you and Alecscooper).

Qedetc 16:08, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

Whoops, I had asked about a page name that was weaker than the theorem it pointed to, but realized you were redirecting it to a stronger theorem anyway and had changed the name of that page as well. I guess my remaining question at the moment is whether changing $\kappa$ to $K$ increases the searchability, or should I try to avoid variable names in titles all together, (or at least make sure their role is clear in the title). Also, are really long titles looked down on? Qedetc 11:37, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

Somehow I had missed a message you left. In response to "I notice that there is significant crossover of terminology between this area of formal language theory / model theory which you're in the process of working on, and the point-set topology that I'm also working on." I'm curious; do you have a few examples of particular shared terms or concepts that made you notice some connection (however slight that connection might be)? Qedetc 16:55, 4 June 2011 (CDT)

You don't need to apologize. I was mostly worried that somehow something I said came off offensively. (Which, if it did in any way, feel free to let me know, even if it was because of just what you happened to be thinking about at the time or some weird particularity of how I phrased things. It's not really in my interest to offend people.)

Re: other stuff. It's probably good if someone yells at me occasionally, otherwise I'd probably get lazy and not do things very thoroughly here as far as the site is concerned. I'm secretly lazy.

Qedetc 11:30, 9 June 2011 (CDT)

Thank you for welcome: 日本への栄光


Prime.mover,Thank you for welcome May I ask you 3 questions:

  • How old is this nice Project?
  • Is there any Japanese version ?
  • I have some proofs, correction and enhancement, should I do it directly or after permission?

Again,Thank you for welcome --Yohji kinomoto 16:20, 8 June 2011 (CDT)

Thank you for the message

Thank you for the note Sir.

It is a little fuzzy for me, but it seem to be simple for you; may you or any of your behalf do this (dividing or cutting or so?)

thank you in advance. --Yohji kinomoto 10:13, 10 June 2011 (CDT)


I think there is one missing i in the word Polynomials (written Polynomals) in some recent edits. As it was in title, it was difficult to correct.

Regards and congratulations for the great job!--Integer 17:18, 10 June 2011 (CDT)

Thank you so much " Prime.mover " for supporting me thanks ...