User talk:Telliott99

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) 14:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

House Style

Thank you for your recent contribution to Length of Arc of Cycloid.

Please note the following concerning house style:

• We do not endorse the discursive style of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has this covered. Instead, all sentences are simple and contribute one specific point.
• Every statement made must be supported directly by an existing result to which a link must be provided. Throughout this proof are several statements made which have nor been so backed up.
• When invoking a link, please do not use versions with underscores. They are an utter pain in the arse for maintenance. Besides, just look at them.

There are many other points of non-compliance, which no doubt you will be able to determine by (a) studying the house style guide, and (b) reading around the website to get a feel for its style.

Many thanks for your cooperation. --prime mover (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion

After editing some more and considering the (strict) guidelines, I think it may be better to just delete the proof. For the moment, I have simply removed the link. You may find it useful, if so you can re-link.

There is of course ample opportunity to extract some of the statements made in support of this proof into separate stand-alone results, each one with its own proof. Many of the points already have proofs on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$. In particular, the statements concerning the perimeter of a regular polygon are already on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ as fully proven results. --prime mover (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the proof, I think you will find that none of the statements beyond the first two have proofs here (or if they're here, they eluded my search). So I find "many" somewhat extreme. However, I may try to extend these ideas into short proofs and see where we get.

Well, steady as she goes, in the words of James Tiberias Kirk. --prime mover (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lagrange's Identities

Thank you so much for your contribution here. I was finally spurred into action to get this area all tidied up. I picked up one or two of these a while back but didn't know what they were called.

Unfortunately, in doing the work to merge it in and set up all the pages linking them all together, I seem to have lost your original version of the file, which means your attribution has also accidentally been deleted.

I am so, so sorry!

Please continue to contribute, and even to attempt to continue the fine work in documenting these rather sweet formulae. --prime mover (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I am grateful for your help and I am trying to learn. I only wrote up this particular proof because I didn't know about yours. I must improve search skills, LateX and of course learn the house style. --Telliott99 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Underscores in links

Please, when you invoke a link in a page, please do not use versions with underscores in the links.

It is an utter pain in the posterior to maintain such pages, and it looks ugly.

I haven't properly worked out how it is possible to include the underscore links, unless you are copying the link from the browser address field, which is not at all necessary.

All you need to do is copy the page title (or permanent redirect if there is one).

Many thanks. --prime mover (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Roger. I'm aware of the problem, I guess I messed up. I was copying the links, at first, then removing the underscores, later, and must have missed some. Now I have a cheat sheet. --Telliott99 (talk)

Senioritis

Lovely word. Completely understand. Fighting it myself. Feeling a sense of urgency at getting all the basic definitional terms sorted out at the moment. Your help is greatly appreciated. You do you. We can tidy up. Surprised nobody's already jumped on that to fix it. Never mind. I'll get to it. --prime mover (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File Names

I think you said somewhere that forward slashes in file names were problematic. Is it correct to name a page with an additional proof The Answer/ Proof42  ? Should I be handling the re-direct, and how? And how should I have handled Thales' Theorem/Converse ? Should I be adding links to the main theorem page or just leave that to the admins? --Telliott99 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I make too many mistakes. I should have said, / in results pages are a pain, / in standard constructs not so much.

I encourage you to tour around the website and get a feel for how things are. --prime mover (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

When creating a link, you can separately specify the target and the display text. Just make sure that whatever you choose for the display text doesn't include a slash. For example, use Converse to Thales' Theorem. --CircuitCraft (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

View Source

I wonder if there is a standard way to view the source for a page (very helpful to learn how stuff works here). I've been clicking Edit Source but it's mildly worrisome. --Telliott99 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. As long as you don't click "Save Changes," nothing will go wrong. There's a convenient "Cancel" button to make sure of that. If you do accidentally save, though, you could just revert any changes. I agree that it can be a little spooky though. --CircuitCraft (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Superimposable

For a proof in plane geometry I was looking for a definition of "superimposable". I appealed to Euclid (I.4) but wasn't terribly happy about it. I was then looking at Definition:Congruence (Geometry), and the word overlaid is used but not defined. Thinking about overlaid, or "superimposable", how about a definition for "same" or "opposite" sides of a line. It's probably already here but perhaps it would be useful (a sketch is in User:Telliott99/Sandbox. After that we could talk about congruence as the two cases superimposable and reflection. Just a thought. --Telliott99 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought we already had Definition:Side of Line but we don't. We do have Definition:Side of Plane.

Note our house rules: we don't generally sanction unsourced definitions because it is then not possible to corroborate information. We have had multiple instances where a contributor has submitted definitions which have later turned out to be incorrect. For some of these concepts which seem trivial, it is tempting to define it using an appeal to intuition, which is inadequate.

I have a tickling in the back of my mind that tells me I'm sure I posted up a result in analytic geometry identifying algebraically whether $2$ points are on the same or opposite sides of a given straight line, but I can't remember what it was called, and I'm disinclined to go hunt for it now.

Bottom line: there are not many missing gaps left in the coverage of basic geometry. While it may be fun to devise ever more ingenious and pretty proofs of these basic results, I'm trying to focus on filling in where our coverage is still bare. There are mountains and mountains of theorems stated but not proved (they can be found via the links on the left). It would be so much more useful to get stuck into some of these. My own skills are deteriorating as time progresses, so I am to a certain extent relying on others to help. --prime mover (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I looked through Proofs Wanted. I don't know anything about most them, but I found about a dozen I can help with. I especially noted Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi.

Sincere apologies for the massive confusion. I would swear the proof you copy-pasted wasn't there when I read the message, but I might have been distracted by car ads. When reading the theorem page, I scrolled down to External Theorem and stopped. So sorry. --Telliott99 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As for Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi, I have something that includes all the calculations but not sure whether you're interested. I will put a draft on my Sandbox page soon. --Telliott99 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Acheson book

Big thanks for posting up Book:David Acheson/The Wonder Book of Geometry.

What you may want to do, in the interests of consistency with the rest of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, for each page citing it, is provide information (chapter and section if available, but not page number) on where in that book each of the pages which cite that book it appears. --prime mover (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Further progress

At some stage it would be advantageous for us if you were to be able to learn the general structure of pages on this website. --prime mover (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for brusqueness and occasional sharp language. I'm working through these dictionaries that I've got as fast as I can trying to make sure there's no damage from broken links and misunderstood definitions, tightening the bolts and making sure the pistons are greased and so on, but I fear time is running out and I must do this as thoroughly and rapidly as I can. Please bear with me, I like people to be fast learning autodidacts. I appreciate the onset of senility, I'm fighting my own off by constantly screaming at it.

Please try to take care to adjust to our structural and philosophical ideals. I don't mind arranging your material into a tidy shape a couple of times at the start, but it starts to get tedious filling in the headings and putting the category in and hunting down the links and so on.

Careful about the namespace too, please, there are a few. (That means: the bit in front before the colon.) Definitions always go in the "Definitions:" namespace. There's a bot which counts things that are not in a namespace and puts a tally on the homepage. Stuff in the wrong place makes it count wrong. --prime mover (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I will work on it. Some of it is forgetfulness, as I mentioned some is senioritis, and some of it is that the structure is complicated. What I promise to do: study the changes you have made, and not bother you with Talk. I will also slow down.

naming files

We have been snowed under with a blizzard of images with meaningless names. Can you start giving them names which are not stuff like "TS1"? It's an expletive thankless nightmare to maintain this appalling and utterly worthless website as it is. --prime mover (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)