Wikipedia:Drawing board/Archives/2008/June

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Hoping someone still monitors this area

Hi, I am on the fence about creating articles for all members of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Is being on the commission notable enough for Wikipedia? So far, I have only created articles for individuals that I thought satisfied notability requirements without being on the commission (and two already had them). Thoughts? --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I would think the question is whether or not these individuals have enough widespread independent reliable sourcing to verify notability outside of their involvement in that larger subject. Taking only one from the list, I see 11 news hits in the archive for Gus Puryear here. Based only on what I see there, I would personally doubt that he has sufficient notability to stand alone. (I didn't go trawling through google,though; there could be tons more that I don't know of.) If you determine they don't meet the guidelines, though, there's nothing wrong with expanding the members section at the parent article with a bit of sourced biographical information. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks, I guess I'll just go case by case. I am surprised that Puryear wouldn't be considered notable, he's been nominated for a federal judgeship by the president, and has been quite controversial as such. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he wasn't, mind. I said based on what I saw there, I would personally doubt he'd meet notability guidelines for his own article. In the news archives I linked, there were 11 hits on the name. When I tried to follow the links, most of them came up 404, File Not Found. Others were subscription based or "free at your local library" sites. The only one that I could get into was this one, and it only has one sentence about him: "Gus Puryear of Tennessee was grilled for his role as executive vice president of Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison management firm." As I said, though, there could be tons more on a general google search that I don't know of. :) If you have access to sources to verify that he's notable, then go for it. It all comes down to that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringfield (Mathematics)

As the following mathematical structure is neither a group a ring or a field, I wonder if it is better to coin the term ringfield. Reasons for it not being any of these structures is based arround commutivity, associativity and distributivity properties of this structure.

He is a sci.math.research post by me awaiting moderation containing the start of a branch of mathematics.

while developing binary multiplier divider logic ideas, i came upon a new type of mathematical ring with an strange field extension.

-z = (~z) +1 as a basic 2 complement arithmetic inversion

in the multiply their is z = x*(y+1) where this z is double word size, and x and y are single word size. so let that be symbolically written as (z) = (x:0)*(0:y-1) so y has to have 1 subtracted for z to be the actual product

in division the actual identical logic is used so (z) = (0:x)*(-y:0) is the division with (z) = (a:b) where a is the remainder and b is the quotient there is no singularity at y=0 as this is executing logic.

The implementation is by a carry restoring divider with the addition of a complemented divisor rather than the subtraction of the divisor.

in terms of a stack machine to turn a divide into a multiply what is needed is (x:0) -> (0:x) order 2 cyclic group and (0:y-1) -> (-y:0) = ((~y)+1:0) = (~(y-1):0) so there is a swap and logical negation, so the group cyclic order is 4.

this is interesting as it introuduces a cycle similar to complex numbers x ? 1/x ? ..... (4 cycle)

maybe the square root of negation and some how a half swap relates to quantum systems where i know such operations may be defined.

The numbers are 2s complement signed, and so the usual concept of signed arithmetic does not apply with regards to differing signs make a minus. The operation definition is consistant with positive numbers, but negative numbers will produce a 'different' operation. I think that somehow this difference when dealing with negative quantities will relate to convergence of functions, and explain the analytical limits of some functions such as gamma and zeta. I am bringing to mind the possible need for a -1 when performing any multiplication, and wonder how it relates to the trick to obtain a talyor series expansion of log.

I think the concept of executing logic is fundemental as the universe does not throw division by zero exceptions, and the quatum operators of quantum mechanics are by their nature non commutative.

I wonder what other people think as the lack of a singularity suggest some amazing infinite series stability issues, and the 4 cycle may go someway towards solving chi characters in number theory, and may explain the mobius mu functions square 0 nature.

I am most interested how calculus differential (div/minus) and integral (mul/plus) may evaluate to on this computer optimised field. The calculus I envisage may not have that funny d(1/x) = K ln(x) singularity, which became introduced maybe by the handling of negatives in a multiply.

I still havent given it a letter yet (like Z, R, C, Q, etc) but K is my favorite if it is still going.

No attempt at present has been made to join this number field with complex number issues, as the multiplicative minus rule does not seem to apply. The fields carry length before carrying into the upper field word (on the shifted double word in the logic) would be represented by K(32) for a 32 bit system etc.

let me know any feedback, cheers folks

Simon Jackson, BEng.

p.s. Thank you very much for posting this on as I feel there is much to be looked at.

"God does not extract sign bits" - me.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.75 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suspect you may not be in the place you intended to be. This is a discussion board where you ask for feedback on writing new articles. If you're looking for feedback on a mathematical issue, you might want to head over to the reference desk or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Otherwise, points to consider would include Wikipedia's policies on newly coined terms, original research and notability. Take for example the Korteweg–de Vries equation, which is well referenced to demonstrate that the mathematical model is of encyclopedic notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]