User talk:Loadmaster/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Loadmaster. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
|
This is an archive (Jan — Dec 2015) |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
You revert on the Taekwondo article
Hi! I saw your revert on Taekwondo. Taekwondo is actually not for self defense because martial arts for self defense are Wing Chun and Krav Maga. Why did you revert my edit to this article? Opo Chano (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Part of the curriculum of study for TKD involves learning self-defense techniques (in addition to sparring, poomse/forms, and breaking techniques). If you are trying to emphasize that TKD is primarily intended as a sport or combat martial art, that's fine, but don't confuse that with the fact that as a martial art, its derives its basic techniques from both combat and self-defense movements. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
COBOL peer review
Hi Loadmaster, I'd noticed that you've edited COBOL a few times, and I was wondering if you'd mind adding a few comments to the peer review. I'd appreciate any comments you can give. EdwardH (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Grim Downsizer listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grim Downsizer. Since you had some involvement with the Grim Downsizer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Subset vs. inequality
Why have you replaced the subset notation with the inequality range? They both signified the same range. In fact, the inequality range looked smaller and neater. Tejasc1990 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Layout details - spacing of computer code.
I see you adjusted the spacing of some example code in the for-loop article to improve readability. This is always good, but alas, different people have different ideas. In my case, I wince at the overuse of spacing when the spacing can be used to support the reading. Specifically, I have spaces around + and - and no spaces around * and /, precisely so as to support the reading of different levels of association. Thus, 1 + 2*3, not the flabby 1 + 2 * 3, and definitely not the weird 1+2 * 3, which usage I have been bewildered to see elsewhere, and not in the context of Reverse Polish or similar. I just don't understand that at all. When concocting heavy formulae as in Physics or Mathematics, care with the layout is helpful. Naturally, I feel that everyone should provide help in my way... NickyMcLean (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly added spaces to separate assignment operators from their operands, so that
x=ybecame the more readablex = y. This is especially important in lines having multiple expressions, such as the controlling expressions of a C for-loop. As for binary operators, I typically go with eitherx + 3*yorx + 3 * y, depending on the surrounding code. I also personally put extra (two) spaces around logical connectives (ands and ors, e.g.,a < b/2 && a != c+1) in my own code, but I don't do that here on WP. — Loadmaster (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, a space is a space is a space, except when the space between spaces is breakable ... or not.NickyMcLean (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 |
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Bluebonnet-8100.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Bell inequality and hidden-variable theories.
Hi Loadmaster,
regarding this comment on User:MvH's user page: Actually, what you propose is probably not only testable, but has probably already been refuted. It appears to me to be a hidden-variable theory. These are usually incompatible with the violation of the Bell inequality, which has been verified by various experiments, such as the Aspect experiment. There are a few conditions that need to be assumed in order to make this logic work, and without further work I can't exclude that your particular hidden-variable theory evades the result by failing those conditions — but it seems unlikely. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Synergy-Audion1.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Synergy-Cords1.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Synergy-Metropolitan1.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Synergy-Realizations1.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Synergy-Sequencer1.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
bit numbering
I notice that you undid the bit numbering change for the PDP-10. Is there a Wikipedia MOS rule on such? Seems to me that being consistent with the original source makes sense. (That is, it is encyclopedic.) Also, I don't believe that it confuses anyone in the given case. Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've added CPU register tables to many CPU articles (i8008, i8080, i8086, i386, 6502, Z80, MC6800, MC68000, IBM 370, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, CDC 6600, etc.), and I'm of the opinion that we should be using modern accepted bit numbering (based on the powers of 2) for the diagrams. If nothing else, it makes the diagrams consistent across all architectures, which is less confusing for readers, and also allows for side-by-side comparisons of the architectures for those who are so inclined. Where the manufacturer's numbering differs, this should be noted in the diagram and perhaps also in the main text. It's akin to using modern jargon when discussing outdated mathematical terminology (e.g., using "integral" instead of "fluxion"). — Loadmaster (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. The actual reason I changed it was to fix the register numbering to agree with DEC numbering. Also, the MSB was previously 36. Seems to me that it isn't so confusing for readers, though a note about the difference seems reasonable. If one is actually interested in working with such systems, one should know about the bit numbering sooner rather than later. I posted to Talk:Bit numbering, so far no replies there. Who is it that is the standard for "modern accepted bit numbering"? Is there an ISO or IEEE standard? Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- By "modern bit numbering", I'm referring to the practice of using the exponents of 2 to number each bit (e.g., where bit n within a binary word holds the value for 2n). Any other numbering disagrees with basic binary arithmetic. It also refers to the fact that almost no CPU manufacturer today (as far as I know) uses any other bit numbering when describing the datatypes supported by their CPUs. Sadly, the WP article on bit numbering does not seem to provide much help here. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- So IBM doesn't count as a CPU manufacturer, or is that the 'almost'? MSB0 numbering is consistent with big-endian byte ordering, even if there are not bit addressing instructions. I don't remember how other DEC CPU did bit numbering. I was recently looking at the Xerox Alto documentation, and they use MSB0 numbering. It does seem that there is a small advantage to numbering consistent with powers of two, but it doesn't seem so big to me. With any ordering, one has to make sure that it is right for the problem at hand. Both VHDL and verilog allow for either numbering, with all operations being done left to right with either one. (That is, you can mix them in the same design and the system will figure it out.) Gah4 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to say "almost all (with the notable exception of IBM) ...". I still think consistency across WP articles is more important than agreement with manufacturer's docs, as well as being on the whole less confusing for readers. That being said, I can change my position in the face of a really convincing counter-argument. If we can reach a consensus, we may even want to add a WP:MOSNUM section for this very thing. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I have made comments relevant to this at talk:Bit numbering. I have commented to Loadmaster previously on a similar topic (and in a similar vein) at Talk:PDP-11 architecture. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- My purpose for creating the CPU register tables was to add something like a new kind of infobox to the CPU articles. My original goal was to have such an infobox for every CPU documented in WP, so that readers would be presented with a visual form of each CPU's internals. As such, it made sense to me that some common layout and terminology should be used for consistency, in the same spirit of most other WP infoboxes. It's obvious to me now that this is not the approach that other editors want to take. I have lost interest in continuing this endeavor, and I certainly don't want to get into a bickering war over minutiae such as how bits should be numbered. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
File:MichaelShermer4.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MichaelShermer4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)