JRSpriggs

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity, Category:Hyperbolic geometry, Category:Go (game)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Relativity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

User_talk:Oleg Alexandrov, User_talk:Trovatore, User_talk:Arthur Rubin

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation, finite set

Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition, Noether's theorem, Nightcore

User:JRSpriggs/Optimal monetary policy, User:JRSpriggs/Ordinal notation, User:JRSpriggs/Force in general relativity, User:JRSpriggs/Dirac particle in general relativity, User:JRSpriggs/Conventions for general relativity, User:JRSpriggs/EM in GR

Need work:
Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime, Electromagnetic stress-energy tensor

Resources:

• Category:Wikipedia help, control-shift-R reloads, Wikipedia:Purge, Wikipedia:Glossary,
• Help:Displaying a formula, Help:Special characters, Wikipedia:LaTeX symbols,
• How to edit a page, Help pages, How to write a great article, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia,
• Special:Uncategorizedpages, Wikipedia:Subpages#Listing_subpages, Special:Prefixindex/User:Example/
• Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
• edit summary, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Introductory material, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, Template:Deletiontools, WP:LAYOUT,
• Wikipedia:Missing science topics which may inspire you to create new articles
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics if you like to do clean up work.
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics#Logic, Category:Mathematical logic stubs
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/Basic_use Python manual, Wikipedia:Creating a bot
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism,Template:TestTemplates, Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
• random math page
• NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions
• Copyright violation detector, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log, Template:Backwards copy

Archives:

• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 1
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 2
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 3
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 4
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 5
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 6

Friedmann equations

Hey, I was wondering why you undid my revision? The section does not state that rho or rho_c are being evaluated at the current time (and they don't have to be, generally omega changes with time). And even if rho and rho_c were evaluated today, then H0 should be defined and omega should be written omega0 instead (this is more consistent with the following equation on this page). P.espenshade (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. I changed Friedmann equations back. Sorry about that. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Practical Cryptography" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Practical Cryptography. Since you had some involvement with the Practical Cryptography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. LFaraone 13:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Methods of computing square roots

I've answered your principal objections by restoring/deleting sections of the article, as per your request on the talk page. I had no idea anyone would object, given several editors' comments about verbosity. I'm going to continue editing, sparingly. If you have any other suggestions, please forward them on the talk page. Thanks for your efforts. Sbalfour (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuum Hypothesis, History

Is there a particular reason why my edit was reverted? I attempted to improve the clarity by rewording the confusing phrase “the unprovability of the nonexistence of an intermediate-sized set”. Phrases like “the A of the B of the C” are very hard for many readers to comprehend, so I reworded it to the form “the B of the C is A”. I would argue that my revision actually made the paragraph more clear, and, in addition, avoids the passive voice (“Paul Cohen proved the …” instead of “The … was proven by Paul Cohen”). I also made the revision to remove the incorrectly-used en dashes. By convention, en dashes are used mainly for numerical ranges, and em dashes would have been the appropriate punctuation mark (regardless, dashes shouldn’t’ve even been used at all, as there’s nothing intrusive or dramatic here). Anyway, I would like to hear the reasoning behind why you rejected my edit, and any suggestions you might have on how it can be improved. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chharvey (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your version of the last sentence of the History section is "In 1963, Paul Cohen proved the second half of the independence of the continuum hypothesis: the nonexistence of an intermediate-sized set could also not be proved.".

I think that most readers will see this as "... Paul Cohen proved the second half of the independence of the continuum hypothesis, the nonexistence of an intermediate-sized set ...". Which is incorrect. And then they will see "... the nonexistence of an intermediate-sized set could also not be proved.", and think "What? Is it proved or not proved?".

Replacing the colon with ", that" might help, but I do not think that it would be clearer than the older version. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Question at Reference desk/Mathematics

Can you help out with this question about GCH and cardinal exponentiation? Thanks.  --Lambiam 19:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and sorry for my late response now... Dan Gluck (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Kinetic energy: formatting

Hello, thanks for looking over the text I edited at kinetic energy here. I've looked over the text again and I think it would be most consistent to write dx in this context. In particular, d would not be bold, which is consistent with the following text, and italic, in keeping with the usual convention on Wikipedia to write dx rather than dx. What do you think?

Eelworm (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ordinary variables are italicized. Vector-valued variables are bolded (see "F" in the same sentence). I would treat "dt" the same as "t" and "dx" the same as "x" rather than regarding "d" as an operator which deserves separate treatment. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! No objection to that convention, but we should use one convention consistently. Are you going to change the rest of the text? Eelworm (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No. I do not have the time or energy to do that. Revert me, if you must. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Free vs bound variables in binary connectives

Could you explain why the definition of a bound variable in a formula with a binary connective would include those variables that are bound only on one side of the connective? What is the purpose of having variables be both free and bound? A reference would also be good. Thanks! Undsoweiter (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From free and bound variables, "However, it could be confusing to use the same letter again elsewhere in some compound proposition. That is, free variables become bound, and then in a sense retire from being available as stand-in values for other values in the creation of formulae.". Once a variable has "retired", we do not want it to become active again. The only reason we define bound variables is to forbid the use of a rule of inference in a case where the substitution of a free variable would become bound. See first-order logic#Rules of inference. If "and" was used instead of "or" in the definition of bound, then one could side-step that restriction by simply combining the clause with another clause not containing the variable. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Former Muslims United for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Former Muslims United is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Muslims United (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A request to contribute to the discussion

Good morning,

please express your opinion in the thread "relativistic mass" in the discussion with DVdm:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

thank you in advance, Best Regards, RodriguesVector.

To RodriguesVector (talk · contribs). Regarding User talk:DVdm#The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass, I have confidence in DVdm's understanding of and respect for the rules of Wikipedia. I suggest that you follow his advice. I regret that I do no have the time to give a more detailed response. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs. Thanks a lot for your time. I have looked at your entries and I can see that you solve problems quickly and efficiently.

Unfortunately, my dispute with the DVdm is escalating. There is a reasonable supposition that the DVdm editor is confusing its idea of Wikipedia with Wikipedia's principles. It looks as if he is only reading the headings of the rules of procedure without looking inside. Similarly, he judged my entry only by the title of the article, which he disregarded and considered to be "fringle theory".

If you had any more time, I'd like to ask you to intervene on my talk page.

Thank you for your time RodriguesVector (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolute values in logarithms

Can you provide a standard reference where the unnecessary absolute value in real logarithms is used?.

Let me provide an example of how abs(x) can make a mess, consider the integral of tan(x) from 1 to pi/2, this integral does not converge in reals, but if you use the absolute value you find a real value. This is not correct as the integral is not real-valued. I argued this with the other guy and he just ignored me. Taking x>0 is the only thing needed to have real-valued logarithms. Putting absolute value is unnecessary and generates confusion when the logarithm must be extended to x<0 in order to have correct non-real results.