Miscellaneous desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 29

How Does Pure Math Research Look Like?

At universities, chemistry or biology research are usually carried out in labs and involve, but are not limited to, reacting chemicals, running PCRs, running assays, etc... But how does pure, theoretical math research look like? Do professors and researchers just sit down with a pen and paper and write down equations? Acceptable (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect that a lot of it's done on computer (probably the parts they consider "trivial"). StuRat (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This describes writing a research paper in mathematics. A major part of mathematics research consists of studying papers that other mathematicians have written. If you are good or lucky your own paper may be published in a peer reviewed journal such as Pacific Journal of Mathematics or Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Then there is the time you need to spend explaining to aquaintances that you work on something that they can't understand and is not obviously useful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the good and the lucky that get published in journals. If you aren't getting papers published in journals then you'll quickly get fired (see publish or perish). --Tango (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the mathematician and on the field of mathematics. Some research will be done just sat at a desk on your own with pen and paper. Some will be done huddled around a black board with a colleague or two. Some will be done in the hotel bar at a conference with another attendee that you've just realised is working on something related to what you've been doing so you decide to pool your ideas together. Some will be done sat at a computer. Much will involve a combination of the above. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cue for the old joke about how the Pure Maths Department is the second cheapest to fund in the University - all it needs is chairs, tables, pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Cheapest of all is the Philosophy Department - it doesn't need wastepaper baskets. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.66 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the coffee! --Tango (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mathematician: A device employed for the conversion of coffee into theorems." StuRat (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

annual hotel rooms attributed General Aviation

How many hotel rooms are sold to general aviation companies annually? specificly for pilots and technitions? perhaps also passengers? I was told it is 6.2 million annually but I would like more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.68.37 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. I await an answer myself. As well as pilots, you would probably want to include all crew members, flight crew and cabin crew. They all have to stay somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~An airline pilot will usually stay in a crashpad [1]. Royor (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)~~Haha should have read the question more carefully, my bad.[reply]

Not a problem. I have a pilot's license and thus know a thing or two about general aviation. So when the OP threw out that term, I knew people may not exactly know that standard airlines don't fall under it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who is a pilot. He lives half way across the country from me, so we only see each other when he happens to be flying to my local airport. When he does come into town, his airline puts him up in a hotel room. That said, there is a difference between general aviation and scheduled flights that would usually have a cabin crew and various other people that have been mentioned in the responses thus far. An "airline pilot" (a pilot working for an airline with scheduled service between cities) would not fit under the umbrella of "general aviation". Dismas|^(talk) 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention whether you're looking for international numbers or in one specific country. In the US, AOPA is the obvious organization that would have an interest in keeping track of this information; you should write them an e-mail and ask; they may have the information at their fingertips. (I don't, sorry.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shopping

I have looked in Argos, Tesco and the £shop, with no success, and it seems we have no gardening shops around here, so I thought I would ask here. Does anyone know of any other shops that I could look for that might sell 1) a medium sized flower pot or 2) a small wooden box, similar to a jewellery box, but without any of the little compartments inside?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without knowing where "around here" is, it's difficult to give specific recommendations - if you have Argos and Tesco, it's quite likely you have Wilkinson's, and any of the major DIY stores (B&Q, Wickes, Focus) will have that sort of thing. If you do a Google search on "garden centre westhoughton" (or wherever it is you live), that should come up with a number of suggestions. Tevildo (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we do have a garden centre here, but it is about two hours away, quite a walk just to buy a flowerpot. Wilkinsons, though, how could I not think of that, should have been the first place I tried. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, got the flower pot, now I just need the box, any more ideas? Starting to suspect they don't make things like that any more. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try visiting the local charity shops [linked to clarify for the non-Brits who may be reading]; you may well find a cheaply priced jewelery box from which you can remove the dividers, at much less cost than buying a similar item new. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.66 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Brush Woes

Here's a picture I drew: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=935250&l=bec703c6c0&id=1827848507 It's my first time colouring something with watercolours, so I'm not really good at it. If you look closely, you'll see brush marks, and also that the paint's not been applied evenly. Some parts (especially in the red cloak) are lighter (more watery) than the others. Any tips on how to make the colouring look even, and how to avoid those irritating brush marks? I've never "learnt" art from a proper teacher, so I'm really weak when it comes to technique. Thanks in advance. 117.194.225.95 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uneven coloring is a characteristic of water paint. Some people like that, and others like visible brush marks. The brush marks imply that it's too thick to flow after applied, so you could add more water to the paint, but that will result in thinner colors and more blending between adjacent colors. If you want a consistently dark image, without brush marks, perhaps oil paint or acrylic would be a better choice. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to remove any signs of brush marks and what not, you should scan your sketches and use Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop or a similar program. Most professional illustrators (particularly those who work in the anime field) use these programs extensively and there are a plethora or tutorials online explaining how to achieve a variety of effects. I'm not an expert in painting, but you might have better luck with Gouache if you want to stay off the computer. --Daniel 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Airbrush. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this sort of application, i.e. solid blocks of color with little actual shading, the above suggestions of gouache, acrylics or oils would be best, particularly acrylics if you are new to painting, as they are the most forgiving for beginners. Unless you devote considerable time to learning their ins and outs, oils and gouache can both be pretty tricky to master. With acrylics you can do multiple thin coats relatively quickly because the drying times are fast(achieving solid areas of color), and they are pretty cheap. Personally I prefer oils because of the optical effects that can be achieved with them, but acrylics can be a good starter medium. True watercolor paintings uses the transparency of the medium for many of its effects, so using them for solid blocks of color is not the best use for them. Good luck and do some experimenting. He iro 06:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Wikipedia authors called "editors"?

I've noticed that in some Wikipedia language editions "editors" are referred to as "authors" whereas the English encyclopedic article "Wikipedia" constantly refers to its authors as "editors". Do you know why it is that way? Does is have to do with the fact that collaborative authorship in an online enviroment is different than in print media? Thanks for your help!

maja färggren 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja färggren (talk • contribs)

There are two ways to answer this: 1. Discussing the relative associations between "authors" and "editors" in English ("authorship" is usually more individual, "editors" conveys more collectivity) more generally, or 2. Looking to see when the terms were used in Wikipedia's early history, and why they became tradition.

No. 1 seems pretty straightforward and I'm sure others will chime in with more elaboration. No. 2 seems harder for me to quickly figure out. Interestingly, the pre-cursor to Wikipedia, Nupedia, has very distinct authorship/editorship roles (you could be an "editor" or a "writer" or a "reviewer" and so on), but very early on with Wikipedia, the use of "editor" rather than "author" seems to have become prevalent. In the 2001 captures of Wikipedia from the Internet Archive, the verb "to edit" is used fairly exclusively when talking about modifying or creating pages (you "edit" a page, you do not "write" or "author" a page). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the origin of the phrase "the encyclopedia [that] anyone can edit"? That might give some clues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat touching what Mr.98 has said, editors fits with the variety of roles people play on wikipedia as collective work. If I write/author an extra paragraph in an existing article most people would accept saying I edited the article is a fair description. If I modify an article to correct some spelling errors, add wikimedia markup or whatever saying I edited the article is a fair description; saying I wrote/authored anything is more questionable. The only time editing doesn't really fit (when it comes to articles) is when you first create the page. But even then, many people create an article then edit it multiple times. And in fact most people would edit what they write before submission anyway. Touching on what TOAT said, part of the idea is that you don't necessarily have to write or author content. We usually welcome the aforementioned contributions which won't normal be described as writing or authoring. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia contributions are Edits and few are authorship, meaning one-person creating, of new articles. There is a policy WP:OWN that restricts anyone claiming individual authorship of an article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]