User talk:Dfeuer/Archive/Ancient History

Editing conduct (again)

With over 2k edits in the last month, you are to be considered a regular contributor (to say the least). It makes me sad to see that you still refuse to try and adhere to the style rules for e.g. linking (and another style rule I will not mention so as to avoid another rage against it). You seem not even to attempt to learn it. Why?! We're not your personal cleaning company, you know. --Lord_Farin (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I was drafting some things with the intention of going back and linking, but then I fell asleep. I'm sorry. --Dfeuer (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I can recommend the use of Template:WIP and Template:Inuse. Also, when you know something is not up to style and you don't know how to fix it, please put a Template:Tidy call so as to display that you at least know something isn't up to standards. --Lord_Farin (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you refer to the one about the order topology on a convex set, style is the least of its current presentational problems. It basically needs to be rewritten from scratch. I'll take a look at how Munkres does it and see if I can find good ideas there. --Dfeuer (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For that one, consider Template:Improve. In general, it is advisable to place rough drafts you produce in your sandbox (like you've done with the ordered group stuff) until they've sufficiently crystallised and regularised in order to not detract from the site's aims (rigour, clarity, consistency - you know them) unnecessarily. Regarding Munkres, it'd be awesome if you would start covering it like PM and I do, with prevs and nexts etc. That'd be a really valuable addition to the site. --Lord_Farin (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of symbols

I haven't seen one. If there isn't one, I think there should be one. If there is one, I think it should be easier to run into in the dark. I'm thinking one table for each mathematical field, with each row showing a symbol, its name(s), and links to definitions of all the things its used for in that field. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is one, but it has not been rigorously maintained. Look at "Symbol Index" on the left hand side menu. I'm not sure how much more it can be made to glow.

As long as you leave the existing structure in place while you do it, you are welcome to construct the above. --prime mover (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More silver polish? Headlights? I don't know how I managed to miss that every time I looked at the sidebar. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just been looking at it, and note that it is seriously incomplete, and has a lot of work to bring it up to the current standard of both presentation and source code.

We did experiment briefly with tables in the early stages of ProofWiki but decided that the format did not allow adequate flexibility of what needed to be presented, so we gave up and reverted to the (admittedly not ultimate) form that you see. --prime mover (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg

To a greater to lesser extent, this wiki is more similar to PGDP than it appears on the surface. Any fool can create a website which posts up random proofs that they like. No attempt at definitions, no attempts to link from one proof to another, no attempt to bind to sources. After all, this is how $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ was started.

What we are trying to do here is create a, well, you know what we're trying to create. However, the aspects of the site which you seem most impatient are more important than you believe they are. No other site pays such attention to presentational, ease of intellectual accessibility, uniformity of style and traceability of sources as this one.

My comments about sticking to what you know are meant exactly as they are said. We do not want a lot of experimental work posted up based on individual working out of stuff, whether by a competent mathematician or no, unless the result itself is referenced (with or without proof) in a published source. If such a proof is presented in a book you have, for example, with something like "The proof of this is omitted", then feel free to go ahead and create a proof. But the statement of the result itself must be sourced'. If it later turns out that the statement is false, we can always add that page to the "Errata" section (see some of the mistakes that have been found in Steen & Seebach, for example).

But individual research is not the way to go. Consider it more as a dictionary than an encyclopedia or fan page. Every entry is rigorously sourced from either a hard-copy or one from a rigid list of web resources. (Yes I know there are already exceptions on this site - they were posted up before it had developed into the site it is - such pages are to be addressed.) So if you want to post up what you think is an interesting result, then make sure you know what you're posting and can source it from hard copy.

If this is not the style of work that you want to do, then my suggestion to you is that maybe ProofWiki is not the place for you. On the other hand, if you disagree with any or all of the above, you are 100% at liberty to block any contributors who do not share your master plan so as to ensure that their incompatible philosophy no longer interferes.

I would say that there is also room for auxiliary results that are generally not even stated in sources because they're tedious and obvious. Other than that, I mostly agree with what you wrote. Besides mentioned auxiliary results, I think the only other major category of results one can argue to be admissible is so-called folklore results (which researchers use all the time but aren't actually published anywhere). I think that there is room for a "hull" of unref'd results floating around ref'd results (easy generalisations etc.) but to venture into a research field without any guidance but the internet could turn out inconsistent in some respects, or worse. Lastly, @Dfeuer: let me put in that I think it's better for the site if you stay. I would however like you to take to heart what PM says. --Lord_Farin (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lattice Theory

Presumably you're about to post up {{BookReference|Lattice Theory|1995|Garrett Birkhoff}} into the Books namespace? Note that the specific edition you're using (1995) needs to be differentiated from the original 1940 edition using the new amendment to the BookReference template and corresponding work that has been done on the Books namespace by L_F recently (you will have followed the exchange on Friday, I believe it was). --prime mover (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not have noticed the exchange on Friday. --Dfeuer (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case I recommend you go back and read it - it is immediately relevant.

I also note that 1995 will need to be amended. Editions were 1940, 1948, 1967. 1995 was just the date of another reprint of the 1967 edition. So please replace all instances of that link with {{BookReference|Lattice Theory|1967|Garrett Birkhoff|ed=3rd|edpage=Third Edition}} so as to ensure that the sources are accurately linked. --prime mover (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The text about printings in this book is most confusing. It appears the copyright may have been renewed last in 1967. The second (revised) edition came out in 1948. The third edition, seventh printing, came out in 1993. Then the eighth printing (with corrections) came out in 1995. Whether those corrections are significant or not, I don't know. How much difference there was between the second and third editions, I don't know. When I get around to reading the foreword, that may or may not tell me. --Dfeuer (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

3rd edition came out in 1967. 7th printing of that 3rd edition 1993. And so on. --prime mover (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is: if you are referencing the edition you are using, then use the link that specifies it is the 3rd edition. Whether it is significantly different from 2nd and 1st editions is neither here nor there. But referencing the 1995 edition is incorrect because there was no 1995 edition. That edition is a later reprint of the 1967 edition. --prime mover (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In general I believe it is common to refer to a "revision" when significant changes in set-up and/or content are made. "Corrections" are usually just a parsing of the provided errata to that date. If it were significant, it would invariably result in renewing the copyright for obvious reasons. Or that's my POV - in any case, thanks for using the suggested template form. --Lord_Farin (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

On "Intro to Axiomatic Set Theory"

I would like you to inform that I generally consider the pages featuring a link to Takeuti/Zaring's Intro to Ax.Set Thy to be up for a complete rewrite. They are an example of what happens when people disregard the general cohesion and style of PW. They're not worthless, but I'd advise you to spend time on other things.

In due time, when all the basics have been done proper (for which reason I'm covering "Mathematical Logic for Computer Science" — although side-tracked twice atm) I hope to get back to the work and go over it from scratch. In general I don't feel that PW has enough body to support covering of texts on that (quite advanced) level just yet. — Lord_Farin (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't

Just don't. Behave. You're grown up and should act like it. — Lord_Farin (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

user rights

You see what's happened. I expect you can guess why.

In case you can't:

a) Blocking someone without warning is generally considered rude.

b) Restructuring is all very well but there is a specific reason for the structuring of subpage names the way they are.

c) If you don't understand the thinking behind how something has been done, please consider the possibility that the problem may not necessarily lie with the stupidity of the original contributor. The fact that a particular implementation route differs from the technique that you would have preferred is the result of a choice which may have had a specific reason behind it.

--prime mover (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I blocked you for 15 minutes because you were making huge changes to the work I'd done even as those very changes were being discussed. I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail sometime later tonight, because direct confrontation between me and you obviously is not going to get me anywhere. Know ye that explaining the reason behind something will likely be more effective than telling me there is one. I explained myself to you. --Dfeuer (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, you did *NOT* block me for fifteen minutes, you blocked me for a whole day. (From memory it was from 22:30 on 28-Feb-2013 to 22:45 on 1-Mar 2013.) I won't comment further on what such action comes across like for fear of falling foul of Godwin's law. --prime mover (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Original block was 2 hours (because I was fumbling with the interface), reduced a couple minutes later to 12 minutes. If I'm wrong, it was purely a miscalculation, and I apologize. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology (grudgingly) accepted. I would say in my best Monty Python voice "don't do it again" but the occasion will no longer arise for that to be possible. --prime mover (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

Your efforts in processing renaming requests are valued. Two things:

• When the original title is not plainly wrong/inaccurate, it needs to get appropriate categories to make it more visible (also as an entry point for the site).
• When renaming, please ensure that the links to the page are updated. This is important and one of the main reasons why renaming requests aren't processed immediately.

In particular, could you please take care of Relation Contains Diagonal Relation iff Reflexive? Thanks in advance. — Lord_Farin (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt adherence. Much appreciated! — Lord_Farin (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this in the database?

Hey Dfeuer, I'm looking for a proof that tackles this expression in the database. Can you help?

$(B \cup A) \setminus (B \setminus A)$

--Jshflynn (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, it's in the Set Difference category, can't remember what it's called, family crisis prevent much time spent here. --prime mover (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... That's a pretty tough one to name. You could try asking PM or LF, but it's also possible that it's just not there, especially since it's so hard to name. What do you need it for?

As for the actual expression, let me see...

\(\ds (B \cup A) \setminus (B \setminus A)\)

\(=\)

\(\ds ((B \setminus A) \cup (A \cap B) \cup (A \setminus B)) \setminus (B \setminus A)\)

\(\ds \)

\(=\)

\(\ds (A \cap B) \cup (A \setminus B)\)

\(\ds \)

\(=\)

\(\ds A\)

--Dfeuer (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that :)

Upon doing this: Relation Intersection Inverse is Greatest Symmetric Subset of Relation. I came up with this (which is just a hunch):

$\mathcal R \cap \mathcal R^{-1} = \mathcal R^\leftrightarrow \setminus \left( {\mathcal R^\leftrightarrow \setminus \mathcal R} \right)^\leftrightarrow$

It was a challenge to use symmetric closure and set difference only to come up with something meaningful. I am not sure if it is really worth posting but that expression appeared when I was trying to get from the right hand side to the left. Thanks again. --Jshflynn (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Prove it if you can, or try to disprove it. While you're at it, there's a classic topological puzzle, the Kuratowski closure-complement problem, you might want to take a crack at. The solution's probably on PW somewhere. The problem: prove that if $X$ is a subset of a topological space, then there are at most $14$ different sets you can get by applying the closure and complement operations to $X$. Prove that there is a set of real numbers from which 14 sets can be so constructed. --Dfeuer (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in the plan. Needs a healthy long run-up. It's in Steen and Seebach (the second part of what you put anyway). --prime mover (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

house style

It's not just the parentheses issue, which I'm prepared to concede because you are making such a childish fuss about that you've caused some of our more sympathetic contributors to feel sorry for you. It's other stuff too which indicates that you appear to intend to make absolutely no attempt at all to adhere to house style when it doesn't suit you or when you think you know better, even when you have repeatedly been informed of where you have breached them.

Until you can show that you are willing at least to attempt to work within the strictures of the house style (it's not just coding standards, a lot of the stuff you can't be bothered to follow is stylistic and presentational) then your chances of being re-admitted to the ranks of admin, at least my me, are non-existent. Maybe if you sucked up hard enough to one of the others you would be able to bring them onside, but I think it is worth informing you that I may not be the only admin on this site that believe you lack the attitudinal and personality qualities for being on the management team. --prime mover (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Conceding the parentheses issue will buy you a lot of good will on my part, which will lead to much greater efforts to adhere to other aspects of house style. --Dfeuer (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. If you don't show good faith in attempting to follow the other aspects of house style, you are not going to be looked upon with any good will yourself. Remember: we don't need your good will. It's the other way about. --prime mover (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You will have that good faith effort. --Dfeuer (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your efforts will consequently in due course be appreciated. --prime mover (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

whining

"You have no idea how depressing and demeaning typing in these goddamn left/rights is. I might as well be writing "I am an idiot" 1000 times on the blackboard."

The fact that you actually do type in the left/rights character by character demonstrates that in fact perhaps you may be right. It has been suggested that you invoke an external editor, via which you should be able to define all the macros you want. You remind me of a colleague who objected to the comment header style at work, whom I caught laboriously typing "/**** " ... (etc. till end of line) character by character on the keyboard: plonk, plonk, plonk ... he didn't even seem to understand that you could hold the key down and let autorepeat do the rest. When I suggested he use the inbuilt editor macro that was provided by default on his system configuration (a 2-character sequence) he complained that he had more important things to do than learn some silly keyboard language that wasn't industry-portable.

Same applies to the refactoring jobs you start but don't finish: while it is fun and exciting and cutting-edge for you to write two further definitions of the term "order embedding", you believe it is beneath your dignity to amend the parent page so as to invoke these definitions, preferring to leave that to someone else.

I also remember you whining to L_F a while back that certain maintenance tasks were "dull", by which you implied that you had no intention of embarking upon them.

And then you complain that you had your admin privileges taken away?!? --prime mover (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change the parent page because I wanted to get the three definitions and equivalence proof ready first. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, fair enough - but I'd have built the parent page before actually putting the equivalence statement up. --prime mover (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)