User talk:Cronholm144/Archive 3

B

When I said no such rating, it means that much of th wiki software does not recognize it. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chicago_articles_by_quality_log. When you put a Bplus rating on it the software felt you removed the rating. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Im not sure if it's ok to write here. If it's not, please forgive me. But I do have a question. Do the references need to be in English? Thank you.

Assessment of maths articles

Many thanks for assessing all those unassessed articles, and congratulations on having more than 400 edits — a well-deserved squirehood indeed! You are right to note that many articles have no assessment at all, but there are about 15000 articles in the list of mathematics articles so there is rather a lot to do... Geometry guy 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That number is very frightening... but stubs take roughly 30 seconds to assess and edit, 45-60 for start class plus 15 for general comment. B-class take 3 minutes and another 2 for a good comment, at least. So it looks I have my work cut out for me. ;) and assessing the article doesn't even constitute real improvement of the article...sigh.--Cronholm144 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Looks like it will take me most of today to get through the 0-9 articles, but I suppose that is the best place to start.

It is probably not a good idea to assess all 15000, as it will overwhelm the system (and the editors!). However, it would be nice to at least double the current coverage, and make it a bit less haphazard. If we rate many articles, then it is particularly important to get the importance parameter right, since that helps to focus our efforts. There is a problem at the moment that it is unclear what the context is for determining this parameter. For example motives are of low importance in mathematics as a whole, but quite high importance in algebraic geometry. In my view the importance of an article should be rated within its field or category, as this allows for a finer discrimination. I would therefore uprate some of the importance ratings you have given: for instance, the Mandelbrot set is rather important in complex dynamics and fractals. Geometry guy 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Have you heard of AutoWikiBrowser? This can dramatically reduce the time it takes to go through a list of articles making a similar edit to each. You need to register to use it: for that it helps to have more than 500 edits, but hey, you are nearly there!

I am not planning on assessing all 16000 just adding articles that seem important. I have my AfD ready too. Sorry if I rated Madelbrot set incorrectly. In guess I should have put it at mid importance, but I was thinking about its importance to the average reader who probably doesn't know what the complex plane is and just thinks that mandelbrot sets and julia sets are just pretty shapes. I will assess importance as it pertains to its field from now on.--Cronholm144 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A noble goal! At the moment it is unclear what is correct or incorrect for importance ratings, but at least one thing is clear: ratings, like everything else on talk pages, is information primarily for editors, not readers. Geometry guy 21:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must commend you on your assessment, it's a good idea to keep track of the articles that are important. If you require any assistance with actually creating/adding information into the article; i am but a humble mathematical-chemist :-)

♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am becoming a mergist. Right now I am going through various divergent series and negative number articles and have been suggesting quite alot of merges. Any input would be appreciated. The only article I added thus far is 0, 1, 4-manifold, and multiple article having to do with Abel and Abelian. I will keep you posted. Thanks and no need to be humble;). Also, do we have a plan on where to go next on calculus, it has been eating at me.--Cronholm144 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily use AWB to assess importance and field for stuff that I know about, which I hope makes your work easier, since you then only need to assess quality and correct my mistakes. Geometry guy 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on your talk page, Thanks for the help!--Cronholm144 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Cronholm go! 500 edits and an AWB candidate! Let me know if there is any way I can make my preliminary maths ratings more useful. Geometry guy 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your edits are great, The problem I have is with my own understanding of where the various fields overlap, I.E. Set theory, Analysis, Topology, etc... they all begin to blur. So whenever you categorise an article for me it takes a load of my mind.--Cronholm144 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Unfortunately I don't have that many mainspace edits, so AWB may be out of my reach for a while. But the worst they can say is no. Right;)--Cronholm144 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped at the end of the affines for now. going to take a break.--Cronholm144 04:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Cronholm! I'm sorry to see that your mergist ideas had a setback. There may be a case for a partial merger of some of the divergent series examples. I'll have a look.

Meanwhile I have finished a first pass at the letter A. I will have made mistakes e.g. rating an already rated article (as you noticed once already), rating a redirect or disambig, or misforming the rating because of a typo. I also skipped some where I wasn't sure how to rate them. Still, my hit rate was probably a bit high: I tagged about 1/3 of the articles in the list — at that rate, we'll end up with about 5000 assessed articles! Geometry guy 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C - thanks for helping out at my talk page. I hope you don't mind me absorbing your reply into my own response over the edit conflict. I was expecting to receive messages like this and have been really happy that it has taken so long for the first to arrive. On top of that several users have added classes or adjusted ratings in a very helpful way. Anyway, I expect this won't be the first complaint, so I wanted to organise them in a little section and leave a gentle explanatory response. Geometry guy 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind and i think that is a good idea on both our talk pages. The only reason I replied for you is that I thought you had gone to bed and I thought it ought to be addressed as quickly as possible ;)--Cronholm144 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have gotten to Altitude in the A's

Good work! I should indeed be in bed by now. Meanwhile diplomacy seems to have worked a bit, and I got as far as Central something. Bis morgan! Geometry guy 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude and fortitude deserve the special Cavalry Award for: exceptional dedication shown in adjusting all those /Comment pages without question or remark, after inspiring G-guy to make a small change to the template which necessitated all these edits anyway. Surely a fine knight, but an even finer squire, whom this knight would be sad to lose! Geometry guy 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of losing me barring divine intervention :). I am almost through all of my edits, transclution limit beware. BTW thank you for your comments at the GAR discussion, your well-reasoned words have a calming effect on everyone with whom you speak, a great talent certainly worthy of a great knight.--Cronholm144 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C, I'd best stop now, then, since I'm starting to lose the calma. Bis morgan! Geometry guy 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Father Joseph.jpg

The eminence grise

**Huzzah!** Your shabby stub-fighting sword is replaced by royal decree for a fancy foreign Flamberge.

144 Cronholm, AWB, Esq.

Congruatulations on your AWBness! Proceed cautiously at first with this tool. Switch off all automatic options, and do not skip pages. Play around with the different ways to create lists, and how the editing process works (without saving anything!). Then have a look at User:Geometry guy/Unrated maths articles by links. Edit the page and copy the edit screen to a text file. Then use this text file as an input to AWB. It alternates between article and talk pages. You can then set AWB to "prepend" the maths rating template (and it is also better to set the options to show the preview rather than the diff). Then you can look at the article and "Ignore" the correction, then fill in the maths rating on the talk page and "Save" it. Have fun! Geometry guy 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The power of this tool actually (wiki)frightens me, I now see why they require users with at least 500 edits to use it. I am still playing with it, but I will be very cautious not to make any edits until I am absolutely sure that I know what I am doing. Right now I am reading through the main body of the user guide. --Πρ 02:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just realized that my sig is different. This is an alternate account that I made up so I can still make regular edits while I am using AWB.

I loaded up Oleg's list because I was having trouble with the text file and everything went well except that my list auto sorted the articles alphabetically and I would prefer that they went in alternating order like yours. How do I do that? Thanks Γεωμετρία γυγ! --Πρ 04:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again myself--Cronholm144 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried using Oleg's list and discovered the same issue. This seems to be a flaw in AWB: there should be an option to list links by the order in which they appear on the page, but there isn't. So here is what I did (sigh):

copied Oleg's list (the display version, not the source) and pasted it into emacs (a text editor with powerful search/replace tools);
cut out the header and side panels to reduce the text to a list;
replaced " (talk) [0-9]*" by "!!";
replaced "[ 0-9]*\. stuff!! not rated!" by "stuff <newline> Talk:stuff";
removed all remaining occurences of "[ 0-9]*\. stuff!!".

Unfortunately I did all this in linux, so there are file-format and encoding issues to deal with. To use my page, it is best to copy the source of the page into notepad and save it. Then use this text file as the input to AWB. Geometry guy 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just misimported your list the first time, dumb mistake:(, I am going to drop a line over at AWB about this general issue. I am sure that they can't wait for someone to point out flaws with their program.;) BTW Linux...I am impressed, I just couldn't get used to it when I tried it.--Cronholm144 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux has improved a lot in recent years: try Ubuntu. It is great! Geometry guy 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More progress reports

I finally got to the end of the letter C, although I think I need some new inspiration to go on with the alphabetic plan. In particular, now that we can both get AWB to throw up article, then talk page, then comments page, the two-pass process seems inefficient: it has its benefits, certainly, but right now I would trust you 100% to go through the rest! It would be a pity if ABC had a special treatment, but there are other biases out there already, such as the large number of (often pointless) algebra stubs created in the early days. I'm not sure what is the best way to proceed now. Any suggestions? Geometry guy 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would hate to see either of us burn out. However, I see that our activity has spawned more concentrated activity and discussion at WT:WPM than it has seen since its inception, (at least I would like to think so). I think we should definitely continue with the process, but perhaps at a slower pace. I think that it might be time for a partial math-rating wikibreak. I feel like it might be time to turn our attention back to the articles themselves to replenish the mathematical reserves, after all, after 1000 articles I am sure that a couple caught your eye. ;) Since I have made fewer edits than you, I think I will continue to reduce the backlog of classless articles (only low importance left!) and then continue from D onward. I will move forward until I feel that my reserves need to be refilled by genuine editing. As regarding the algebra stubs, did we rate them stubs or were they created in the early days of WP:WPM as free radicals? (my memory of the stub-fighting days is vague, like a bad dream)If it is the latter case I can zoom back through and de-rate some of the truly low importance articles.

--Cronholm144 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a good idea to mix in some real editing: for instance, I worked a bit on Backlund transform recently. Great work on the unassessed class articles — only 125 to go! The algebra stubs are from the early days, I think, not our efforts. I'm tempted to de-rate the low stubs with only one sentence, and possibly WP:PROD them as well. Geometry guy 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something else I meant to mention. I like very much that you are adding a comment that maths ratings are not set in stone, and also, often providing links to reference pages where appropriate, but there is an issue concerning long comment fields in many articles. The issue is that these comments are transcluded into many pages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Stub-Class mathematics articles. If you click on this link, you will probably find it takes quite a few seconds to load. Partly for this reason (and also for security), there is something called the "pre-expand include limit" which limits the amount of material which can be transcluded. We hit this limit recently on the mathematicians page: see User_talk:CBM/Archive 5#Vital_articles_and_mathematicians for further details. When it is exceeded, pages no longer function properly. Anyway, I don't want to distract you... just to let you know! Geometry guy 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted to break WP :(, I read through your conversation and got the feeling that the break of the transclusion limit is inevitable. Should I create a "Math comment" and a "Math reference" template and replace all of my old comments with that, or would this even help (or hurt or do nothing)? Could we somehow split the page into two maybe A-K and L-Z stub articles, we would have to sacrifice the utility of the auto ordering scheme...sigh. Or do I misunderstand the whole issue? It seems the fact that I am not WP savvy is made more and more apparent every day.--Cronholm144 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is inevitable yes, but only in the long term: for the moment we have a fairly robust set-up. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and (maths) ratings are even more a work in progress (recent discussions have convinced me of this even if I wasn't convinced before); at the moment most of our pages transclude less than half of the limit, and I would argue that once they double in size, a rethink is needed anyway. In the meantime, we just need to work with what we have in an optimal way. (I don't think the templates you suggest would help.)

This brings me on to a possible side mission for a knight-errant. I believe you are enthusiastic about providing lists of references for editors to cite. Why not create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/References subpage to organise this? It could be links, it could be lists: it is up to you to decide. In this way, a standard comment could be reduced to "references would help" or something similar. Geometry guy 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I will get on it as soon as I get done installing ubuntu on my new partition. :) For starters, I think I will consolidate what we have already. I will also drop a line at WT:WPM for suggestions on formatting the new subpage. --Cronholm144 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will hopefully slow the progression,I will go back through replace my old edits eventually. "needs refs, try finding some [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/References|here]].--~~~~"

done with unrated as well. :)--Cronholm144 09:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work Cronholm! I can't wait to see the new squeaky clean tables when VeblenBot does the next update. Meanwhile, I've been taking lessons learnt from the WT:WPM discussions to improve the system. Geometry guy 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope those system-wide improvements can be made using a bot :), I don't think I could bear to go through and change everything again. I am going finish Oleg's list before I move on to the D section. The task is much less daunting. 10000+ stubs>>600 decent articles, when measured in terms of tedium. :)--Cronholm144 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G-guy, Wikipolitics seem to have no end, but you seem to be adapting quite well. :) Anyway I have been following your conversation with Arcfrk, (I feel like a voyeur, but with 1500 articles on my watchlist it can't be helped). As you have probably noticed, I haven't been rating too many articles lately, not for lack of energy, (although the break helped) but rather because of the ongoing controversy of cat. vs. field vs. set theory vs. algebraic geometry vs....(I am loathe to redo all the articles that I rate). So I suggest that we put a hold on the mass ratings (except for your pet project of course (topology(too many brackets))), until everything has settled down and our purpose is more defined. Meanwhile, I will continuing editing articles that are within my purview (terribly few in the grand scheme). If you need any help with the topology let me know. On a more concrete note, do you know if the AWB spellchecker will conflict with mathematics terminology? I plan on going through a number of math articles with using that system, but I'd hate to accidentally ruin good terminology. I suppose I could check this myself, but in the words of Rick Norwood "The trouble with instant gratification is that it takes too long." Cheers--Cronholm144 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you got me here to remove your self-vandalism. I have very few pages on my watchlist (a knight must go on missions without being frequently called back to the castle ;) — but this is currently one of them... As for wikipolitics, I hope for a wikibreak from that soon. I have to admit I was a bit shocked by the standard of English used by those who, among other things, judge the quality of an article's presentation. Here I don't mean colloquialisms like "I gotta say it", but things like "I should of said..." and "somebodies gotta say it..." Yikes!

Anyway, enough of that! Splitting up fields is pretty easy using AWB; I just get the current list, delete from the list the articles whose field I do not want to change, then use the AWB search and replace facility to replace e.g. = geometry (or =geometry) with = topology in the remaining list. Category:Set theory has nothing to do with maths ratings in principle, although my foray into this area was inspired by CMummert's suggest not only to assess, but also to list articles by category (as I'm sure you guessed with your watchful eye). It would certainly bypass this discussion about algebraic geometry, although I think it may generate other problems. Although there are still uncertainties about importance ratings, those of us who have rated many articles have generally been fairly consistent. These things will always be subject to fluctuation: that is no reason not to get the ball rolling. So I have no intention to put maths ratings on the back burner!

As for AWB, the true answer is "I don't know". However, you should read over the guidelines for using AWB: in particular, for article edits like this the guideline to preview carefully each edit is rather important. Geometry guy 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, AWB still frightens me, so I never hit save until I have read everything twice. Sigh, a squire's attempt to shirk his work has been found out :). I will begin rating again tonight sometime, Although for a change of pace, I think I might start with Z, after all how many math articles can start with Z? (Zorn's lemma. Znám's problem, Zeno...sigh). My watchlist seems to grow and grow (1500 at this point) after all an eminence grise must have his eyes and ears in every nook and cranny of the kingdom, lest the twin evils of dissension and corruption slip in unnoticed. For King and Country! --Cronholm144 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made a start. Bon courage, HS Cronholm, I hope you have better luck than I had with "D". One small reminder (although I'm sure you know it): we're not trying to rate every article. I'm aiming for a third at the moment, so I keep in mind that there is a lower importance rating than "low", which is "do not rate". In other words, if in doubt (e.g. the article seems obscure, or has a merger tag, or some other reason to suggest it isn't stable or won't develop) don't rate! Someone else will rate it later if it is important. Just some nightly knightly suggestions from a tired knight at night :) Geometry guy 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I am taking the night watch, :) Hopefully I will have made progress by the time you see this massage. Don't worry about Z it looks like about 1/6 of them will make the cut. Drama on two fronts right now, I'll add more later.--Cronholm144 02:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have learnt quickly a lesson that took me some while to appreciate, i.e., when someone is responding in an untypically irritable or sensitive way, have a quick check to see if something else has been winding them up! Anyway, glad to see you have got Z done. Now I have to try to keep my promise to refine the meaning of "importance". Geometry guy 11:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning and good luck with that definition; I trust it proven to be rather elusive creature thus far. I am not sure if we ever learn that lesson. Luckily, the Internet gives us the space and time to add reason to our responses. I left a comment on Michael's page, hopefully he is up for the job as your antithesis (he has done a good job so far). :) I am "done" with X and Y as well (a well-spent 5 minutes). W here I come. --Cronholm144 11:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Calculus?

Think it'd be a good idea? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I fear that a full fledged new Wikiproject would be subject spotty attendance and structure issues etc... maybe we could make a calculus subgroup as a part of Wikiproject: Mathematics and if it grows sufficiently we could branch it off. For now I think the focus of the group, such as it is, should be Derivative, Integral, Calculus, and other top importance articles(although it seems derivative is almost to FA). Then we can work our way down the list. That is of course if there is enough interest.--Cronholm144 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As a humble squire I shall work tirelessly toward attaining my knighthood. For King and Country!

Gratitude and fortitude

Hi C. Thanks for you supportive voice at WT:WPM. One of the hardest things about Wikipedia is that you can put in a huge amount of work for the good of the project and no one will thank you for it. Make one mistake, and other editors come banging at your door. Well, fortitude is a knightly quality, so let us try to live up to it. Geometry guy 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, too true, and here! here! respectively. One of the best parts of being a knight is having your round table to back you up in times of trouble. :)--Cronholm144 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G-guy, where should I start on that list? I tried using your recent contribs as a guide and started after median, but it seems like all the others after that are rated as well.--70.254.93.225 06:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address for all to see. I must remember to log in after using AWB--Cronholm144 06:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try starting at Talk:Entropy. Geometry guy 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at maxwell's equations, Thanks for the award!:)--Cronholm144 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richly deserved! Edgerck recently ran into resistance after he put an "expert needed" tag on Mass-energy equivalence, then came along as the expert and rewrote the article! I was going to say "I told you so", but your contribution made me realise this would be unknightly! We should instead be encouraging new editors.

Meanwhile, I have updated User:Geometry guy/Unrated maths articles by links so that it also lists the Comments page. That should make it easier to sign ratings using AWB. Are you planning to add more ratings this evening? I could finish off the C's if so. For the moment, I will continue where you left off, though. Geometry guy 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more as soon as your are done with your edits, in the meanwhile I will make edits on the Über-list using the tried and true, multiple tabs control+v method.--Cronholm144 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am done, Cronholmius: start at Field of fractions. Bon courage! Geometry guy 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off I go then, hopefully I can surpass my previous speed record of 0 articles per minute :)--Cronholm144 00:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped at Monster group yikes! Also I have been adding this in the comment box

"Please mail your all complaints to the following P.O. box--~~~~

...I'm kidding! Please add useful comments here.

Note: these ratings are not set in stone, please change them as the article progresses."

I think this might cut down on the complaints. Good luck!--Cronholm144 07:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... there is a small risk that not everyone will see the humour - it may be wiser to restrict the latter to edit summaries. Anyway, meanwhile I have cleared out unassessed field and unassessed importance, which leaves all those articles for which I did not assess the class. I've listed them in the usual way at User:Geometry guy/Rated but unassessed maths articles. This is slightly easier to do, because the maths rating, importance and field are already in place, so we just need to grade and sign. Geometry guy 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get rid of the humour, :( but I am going to keep the rest, I think people will be more inclined to comment if they see it has been done before and that it is acceptable to do so.--Cronholm144 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And you don't have to remove all humour! Meanwhile I am going through the stubs: I was a bit harsh on some articles, so I want to uprate some of them, and sign the rest. Geometry guy 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the old fashioned way (for now) and add my sig + comment.--Cronholm144 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cronholm - I replied myself over the edit conflict. Take heart: I'm quite please how few complaints we've had after rating 1000 articles! Geometry guy 09:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good your comment was better :), I commented only because I felt connected to the issue after the conversation at Cayley transform--Cronholm144 09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted that! I might stop by there a bit later. Geometry guy 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divergent series

Hi Cronholm144!, For some reason I do not understand, when I am in the Spanish Wikipedia in the article on the referred series (1-2+3- etc..), the box on the left of the screen that shows in which other languages is the article available, does not longer display the star next to the english word. Instead the small square bullet in front of the word is displayed in a sort of dark blue or gray color different to the bullet of the other languages available.

Also if I go into the english version of the article, there is no star shown in the upper right corner (at least in my computer, although I must admit I haven´t tried in any other computer).

Best regards, Uruk at SPANISH WIKIPEDIA

I replied on your talk page, please forgive my broken Spanish--Cronholm144 06:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for the checks. I will investigate at this end. GRACIAS, Uruk

Gracias por el dato Equipartition article

Hi Cronholm144!, Thanks you for the comment, I have left some message in her page. Saludos, CHAU, Uruk

on saving Cantor

You give me too much credit... I'm not sure, but I don't think it has been saved quite yet. :-)
I hope your feelings of disappointment with GA won't persist. I used to be a regular WP:GA/R reviewer and used to make precisely the same points and engage in precisely the same arguments as the current reviewers (some of whom are new; some are old hands) did with Georg Cantor. They are trying to do their job as they perceive it, and deserve credit in many ways...
Later Ling.Nut 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I do applaud what they are trying to do, I just don't approve of their methods and unrealistic (i.e. in-line citations near to the standard of FA) standards. I think I am too invested already to look at anything objectively at this point. I vented most of my anger before even posting at GAR. here. You might get a laugh. I am taking a wikibreak from wikipolitics and going back to articles. It's safer there :)--Cronholm144 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :-)
if you can get this article, it looks useful:

The Genesis and Development of Set Theory
Phillip E. Johnson
The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring, 1972), pp. 55-62

Ling.Nut 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I need is an E-mail address and I'll have it to you within the hour. If you don't feel comfortable with advertising your E-mail, E-mail at my Gmail address. (in my userboxes under basics) Cheers--Cronholm144 06:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My email address is on both my user and user talk page... Ling.Nut 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little embarrassing... but I don't really know how to use the wiki email system...--Cronholm144 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just click the link that says "email" on either of my pages (click my signature, below). You won't be able to send attachments via that link. I'll have to reply to your email, and then we can send attachments. Ling.Nut 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Sorry for my ignorance... I have only been here for a month.--Cronholm144 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Squire! I hope you will wake to find that the tide is turning for Cantor, thanks not least to Ling.Nut's efforts. Geometry guy 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it has, perhaps an smithing award is in order for our mutual friend.--Cronholm144 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely: it was well deserved indeed! Geometry guy 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I've never seen one of those before.. pretty cool... Ling.Nut 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you deserve it. I got the pic from user:Minestrone Soup knightly subpage. It's all the rage! The next big thing! They will replace barnstars in no time! tell your friends! Seriously though, I think they are more personal and give a little boost to one's sense of purpose here. Also there is much more room for creativity IMO. BTW I can look for a less grumpy black smith pic if you want. :) Cheers--Cronholm144 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) No, I strongly prefer the grumpy one. Believe it or not, I've been in some pretty screechy arguments in the past... tho I'm trying to tone down my act a little these days... Thanks again! The blacksmith is cool, and working on Cantor was fun :-) Ling.Nut 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the image which illustrates Cantor's diagonal argument! --Ling.Nut 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group homomorfism image

Hello, I'm wondering why in your image aN is mapped to only Phi(a). It seems to imply that in any group, with any normal subgroup N, and any element 'a' of the group, under any group homomorfism Phi, the elements of aN are all mapped to Phi(a), but I don't think this is the case. Or am I misreading the image? Is N=Ker(phi)? ssepp^(talk) 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, N is the kernel of the group homomorphism G to G prime (phi).

aN is a coset of N in G, specifically

aN = {g in the element of G such that g = an for some n in the element of N}

I hope this explains it.(if it doesn't I can write more)--Cronholm144 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if N is ker(phi) then it makes sense. Perhaps this should be more clearly indicated in the image? With the notation I'm familiar with N can stand for any normal subgroup. Unless the image is supposed to be a puzzle where it is up to the viewer to deduce what N is :) ssepp^(talk) 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the notation I use is unusual, that is why I have offered to tweak the image to fit with the articles whose talk pages I posted it on. Is there a notation you prefer? I can switch it up and upload it within the hour. --Cronholm144 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it does need some mention that N is defined as ker(phi), otherwise it is confusing. This could be in the image caption, or in the image itself. I think the latter is preferable, because the image might not always be used with the caption. Perhaps a simple 'With N=ker(phi).' or something like that could be put in the image.. ssepp^(talk) 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the image so the text is larger and so N=kerφ shows up. Let me know if there are any problems or if you need an alternate version. I want all of the abstract algebra to have some illustration. It is also fully released under GFDL so change it and reupload it as you please.--Cronholm144 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. I tidied it up a bit. It was the first time I edited an svg but with inkscape it wasn't hard! ssepp^(talk) 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only strange the aN font looks different when I look at the image in preview compared to when I look at it in full. ssepp^(talk) 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, much more legible. :) If you have any questions about the program I think Oleg or KSmrq might be able to help you. I just started using the program yesterday too.--Cronholm144 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dot under the H. I removed it in the other version but now it's back! ssepp^(talk) 10:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know... I had to use the old image to create version two because my browser won't let me edit in an external application. :( I just wanted to align the notation with the current article. Could you go ahead and fix it? Thanks! --Cronholm144 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy this lovely treat!

Here we go, i managed to make a little thing that makes us proud :')! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! With this news of the knightly order will spread across known world!--the squire
Good, this is a useful tool that will aid me in realizing my hidden agenda--THE EMINENCE GRISE
I going straightaway to add it to my main page so that the news really will spread. :)--Cronholm144 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How do I shrink it so that it fits in the page nicely?(see my userpage)

On WP:AIV

I have moved your concern about User:SteakNShake to WP:AN/I. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Cronholm144 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]