User talk:Oxinabox

Welcome!

Hello, Oxinabox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of infinities

perhaps you are splitting hairs (i intend no offence)?, my statement/question is intended to illistrate the fact that one infity might be greater than another (though i don't know the truth of this). i will do my best to explain mathimatically (even if i do have to let the number of ways to make a thing be infinte), a chair is one thing thus in my formulae it will be shown as 1, Let the number of ways to make a thing (including a chair) be is infinite, let the number of things that can be made that are not a chair be "a", $1<a\qquad 1\infty <a\infty$ --OXINABOX 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One infinity can indeed be greater than another, for a certain definition of "greater". This is mentioned in the article, in the section Infinity in set theory. Your multiplication argument, however, is invalid, and I will attempt to explain why. Infinities do not follow the ordinary laws of multiplication. The equation 2x = x is only satisfied by one finite number, x = 0, but it is also satisfied when x is infinite (if multiplication is defined as the Cartesian product and equality is defined as the existance of a bijection).

Here's an example. Let N be the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, 4...} and let E be the set of even natural numbers {0, 2, 4, 6...}. Surely N has "twice as many" elements as E, because for each element of E (let's call it x), N has exactly two elements: x and x + 1. On the other hand, there is a one-to-one correspondence between N and E which matches each element of N to its double in E: {(0,0), (1,2), (2,4), (3,6), (4,8)...}. If there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets, that means they have the same cardinality or "number of elements". So even though in one sense there are "twice as many" natural numbers as even natural numbers, in another sense there are the same number, because the sets have the same cardinality.

I think I can even apply this reasoning to your chair problem. For every way not to make a chair (let's call it x), there is a corresponding way to make a chair, which consists of doing x, and then making a chair. In fact, for each way not to make a chair, there is more than one way to make a chair: for example, you could do x, and then make two chairs. So there must be at least as many ways to make a chair as there are ways not to make a chair. —Keenan Pepper 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, i am starting to understand. but couldn't you also do x twice, and then make only one chair? i would believe that ways to make a chair would be like the set of even numbers natural numbers, whe re as ways not to make a chair would bould be the set of natural numbers is there any infinities that show up in physics that are greater than one an other? such as the *(infinite) distence a point source of light needs to be from you to have its rays aprovhing you patallel to each other, and some other infinity. and a nother infinity say the amount of energy needed to porpell a body to the speed of light.

Why does multiplication not work? i thought that 0/infitity ->0, as did 1/infinity ie (1*infinity)^-1, and that infinity/infinity -> 1? Oxinabox1 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing x twice is another way of not making a chair, so we already counted that possibility. This is all in the context of abstract set theory; in physics there should be no infinitities. If the answer to a physics problem is infinity (or a non-real complex number or whatever), that means it's impossible.

The laws of multiplication you know depend on the real numbers being a field. There is no way to include infinity and keep it a field, so there must always be some expressions that are undefined, called indeterminate forms.

\infty  \over \infty

is one of those. There's no way to define it that doesn't lead to a contradiction. —Keenan Pepper 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes, so you seem to be right, doing x twice is another way of not making a chair, as is making two chairs. don't no much if any about what feilds and things, (so i'll read up on them). but you are wrong about infinities not occuring in physics. (they do the answer is often often infinity, although, you are right, this oten means it is impossible). it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light (so it is inpossible), for dirverging ray coming from a point source (point sources are possible only in theory being 0 dimentional, but you get close enough in reality,)to be parellel if from infinity. i finish this latter 144.137.230.147 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where was i? oh yes, i believe complex numbers are neccicary i in eletrical physics. Light comeing form the sun is considered to come from an infinite distence. you also have infinite density at the big bang, (the mass of the universe in a 0 dimentional point), And half the the branch of theroetical physics is dedicated to the removal of infinities from formalae.Oxinabox1 02:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex numbers help organize calculations, but they're never necessary, and more to the point if you end up with a complex answer for a mesurable quantity like voltage, you know something's wrong. Sunlight is not considered to come from an infinite distance, even in principle, because then the Sun would appear as a tiny point of light, not a disk. (See Bad Physics.) We have no data about the first instant of the big bang, and the infinity we get from extrapolating backward simply means we have no idea what happened before then. —Keenan Pepper 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Form feed; Ye (Cyrillic); Hose coupling; Charles Hose; Fast neutron; Neutron capture; Ted Hill; Benford's law of controversy; Mass number; Breeches; Garden hose; Carbon-14; Implosion; Ef; Critical Mass (band); Large Helical Device; Cycling Sisters; Adaptive clothing; Sounder

Cleanup: Spivak pronoun; Fission product; Oi
Merge: Jeans mass; Folding clothes; Clergy shirt
Add Sources: Urethra; Kelly hose; Upsilon
Wikify: Metrology; Critical section; Hydration system
Expand: Dora the Explorer; CamelBak; Pegu Weights and Measures

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Population paradox; Mathematical statistics; Non-well-founded set theory; Eubulides of Miletus; Θ (set theory); Independence (mathematical logic); Casio CFX-9970G; Edgar Lee Masters; Breeches; New states paradox; Triangle choke; S programming language; Casio fx-7000G; Form feed; Castletroy; Karl Weierstrass; Alias method; Paradox theorem prover; We ♥ Katamari soundtrack

Cleanup: Chandra Wickramasinghe; Coherentism; Gettier problem
Merge: Two envelopes problem; List of films containing a predestination-grandfather paradox; List of computer algebra systems
Add Sources: Uptown, Chicago; FX-9750G PLUS; Spivak pronoun
Wikify: Son of Dork; Probability interpretations; FCurve
Expand: Conflict atlas; OGRE Engine; Four Great Inventions of ancient China

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP this ARTICAL HAS MAJOR PROBLEM

[1]

the whole artical is cxovered by an invcisable image (i think)that is a hyperlink(to some black hat forum), thus preventing ,me from using the page. and i can't fix it or disable the image,

Hi! The page is fixed now. Cheers! Katalaveno^T_C 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, removed helpme for now. Don't hesitate to put it back if you need further assistance :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me 2

What had been done to it? and how can i fix it in the future. (i'm putting the helpme back up so I can find out how to fix it) -Oxinabox1 06:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article's history. Real96 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me 3

Can't veiw the edits don't to the page by looking atthe history, and even if i could it wouldn't help as in the old versions the whole think is covered in an image that prevents me from clcking hte dit tab and veiweing the codes that have been placed.

If you want to change an article's edits, go to the talk page first. Real96 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get what you're saying. In this edit, 172.142.219.101 added the code that created the effect that you saw. In the next edit to the page, Katalaveno removed that from the article. Katalaveno could have seen the history of the page by pressing ALT + SHIFT + H. WODUP 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, i think i understand. how did he manage to edit that out? --Oxinabox1 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, unblock me for some IPyes?

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

Oxinabox (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • unblock)
203.14.53.45 (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • ipblocklist • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock)
Block message:

unbelievably long history of vandalism; anonymous block; please log in to edit

Blocking admin: Antandrus (talk • autoblocks • blocks)

Decline reason:

You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your_reason_here}} to your talk page.

Note: declined unblock requests may only be removed after two days or when the block has expired.

Logging in, as suggested, should remedy any problems you are experiencing. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't help, I log in and i still can't edit.

every Education department computer in westion australia i IP blocked from editting, and this block overrides the fact that me - user Oxinabox was logged in.

I am a user with reasonable lenght of time as a contributer and little but minor edits, mostly just corrections of common mis-beliefs {which at the time i requested unblocking happened to be the fact that silver back gorillas are not the alpha male as the article suggested)

Therefore:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Oxinabox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

IP address blocking overrides user log in, registered users don't desereve to be punished for using the same computer as an unregister vandal

Decline reason:

Not blocked directly. If you are unable to edit, please follow the instructions. — Yamla 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rdsmith4 said to contact him in the block log. i haven't yet. doesn't matter as i'm not at school no more anyway, just for the principal of the thing.Oxinabox 02:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

203.14.53.45, the IP address mentioned in the above request, is blocked anon-only by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. You mention a block from Rdsmith4, I think... what's the IP address in question? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't really matter anymore. I was really just using me as a case example of a problem in the blocking system. When a IP is blocked (Such as every IP address registered to the Education department of Western australia), reputable[or at least in good standing) Users (like Me) who log in on that computer still can't edit.

comments on Talk:Firewall

I removed this comment of yours [2], because it talks about the article subject instead of helping to improve the article, per WP:TALK and WP:NOT#CHAT. If you think that the wording is incorrect then please make a constructive comment like suggesting an alternative wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Suggsting that the Wording was wrong, I'm Saying that the Factual basis of the paragraph in question is wrong. however i did not make the change the the paragraph my self because it would have meant deleting large sections of the artical and i lack the knowledge (i just know that the internet didn't come in to place till 1991) and time to rewrite it. Why do you feel the need to manage the content of the talk page anyway? My questioning hasn't hurt the artical. I've cleaned it up so it's more on topic though :)

I've un-reverted (re reverted) and copied this discussion to the talk Page.

Malazan empire

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Malazan Empire are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. WLU (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]