DVdm

— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here. "They never be working' when they oughta should." "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself." vn-at least 355This user talk page has been vandalized at least 355 times. — Canard du jour — Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell us the secrets of life, because we're not ready. But maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 11 months and 15 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

When to use TeX/inline math?

As a new wikipedian I am struggling to understand where and where not to use <math> within articles. Is changing an inline equation into TeX generally frowned upon if it doesn't otherwise improve the quality of a given article? DekuNut64 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@DekuNut64: See MOS:FORMULA and the second section of Help:Displaying a formula, and, in general, MOS:MATH. One of the basic style related rules here is MOS:STYLERET and MOS:RETAIN, which says that when different styles are possible, changing one style into another is not a good idea. Also note that consistency within an article is important, so it can be a good idea to make style related changes to improve consistency — within a single article, not within the entire Wikipedia.

There's a lot to learn here. Best is to read parts of some of the guideline articles, and to have a look at the edit histories of math related articles. Then gradually go ahead, making changes. Don't worry if someone reverts your changes. When that happens, inquire, ask or discuss, don't re-revert — see wp:BRD. It's all part of a learning process . Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrational numbers

OK, there are, unfortunately, many books that attribute the concept of "irrational number" to the Pythagoreans, as I have known only too well since the 1960s, and such is Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" that you can use those to justify your change to the article. So be it. However, nobody who has actually studied and understood the relevant literature can believe that "number" is a reasonable description of the concept which they introduced. On the contrary: it was the cause of their moving away from using number as the defining concept in mathematics, and shifting to a view which considered geometrical magnitudes themselves as fundamental, rather than numerical measures of those magnitudes. JBW (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: Yes indeed, but note that the artlce says: "The discovery of irrational numbers, including the particular case of the square root of 2, is widely associated with the Pythagorean school". I mirrored that in my edit summary, "The Greeks found a number that cannot be written as a ratio of integers, which we call an irrational number." I could have been (but had decided not to be) even more precise and careful, saying "The Greeks found something..."

But I decided to check the literature and get some some sources either way, and it looked like a great majority in the literature agrees that indeed they discovered the rational numbers.

And indeed I think we can easily argue that they did discover them, without actually calling them numbers. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler effect

Thank you for pointing out the guidelines. I was not aware of wp:CALC, and you are absolutely right that I cannot include the derivation. It has never been my intention to break or bend the rules. The Wikipedia guidelines wp:OR state that the information should be from ”reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic”. Therefore, I would argue that the references are not limited to textbook examples only. Would it help if I provide an additional credible article? Aside from Einstein’s article I can provide other peer reviewed papers that confirms that the amplitude transforms as $A'_{E}=\gamma \left(1-\beta cos\theta \right)A_{E}$. I personally think the information is relevant to the article, and that it should at least be mentioned, if the guidelines allow it. What is your opinion? MadsVS (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@MadsVS: Hi, if the peer reviewed papers are not just wp:primary sources, and thus are referred to elsewhere in wp:secondary sources, the latter can be used as a valid reference. You see, the idea is that the secondary sources demonstrate that the content is actually notable. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your guidance is very helpfull. I will give it another shot, so let me know if you see any problems. Thank you. MadsVS (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my Zappa edits

Could you please explain why the edits I made to several Frank Zappa album pages were reverted? I know you have given info regarding wiki rules on the use of long type, but the reason I made these particular edits were that two albums (Bongo Fury and Sheik Yerbouti) were already using this "Studio album with live elements" or "Live album with studio elements" categorisation (not put there by me, they have been there since before I even had a wiki account) and I simply wanted to make this consistent across the discography, esp given that some of FZ's albums can't be neatly categorized as studio or live albums. Aaw1989 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaw1989: yes... just make sure that everything is solidly backed by sources. For example, if the most important source of all ([1]) says that Jazz from Hell is the 47'th album, let's make sure Wikipedia doesn't say that it is the final (or last or whatever) studio album with live elements. You might go ahead doing what you intended, but keep the "official" discography in mind. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, i'll take more care in the wording of info moving forward. Aaw1989 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert spree

15, 2023, 17:52 - «Undid revision 1165507037 by Alexander Davronov talk) there are no "imprecise integer-value" numbers.»

15, 2023, 17:53 - «Undid revision 1165506901 by Alexander Davronov talk) was nonsense indeed»

@DVdm: This may amount to WP:HOUND. You were warned.

17:54, July 15, 2023 - «Undid revision 1165517898 by DVdm talk)»

@DVdm: Ridiculous. Keep these kinds of "warnings" away, cause you indeed may end up banned or temporarily restricted in editing for this kind of spamming. Nobody is going to get banned for simply adding unsourced information . In such cases you use WP:TAGGING or article-related talk page and only then you may remove such text (see WP:DETAG).

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

E=mc2 anti-matter and matter

Two days ago you made this edit a news article came out today stating this and you got on Wikipedia and shot mine down that should have been my story I should have been credited Tony Ratliff (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't really parse this....

1. Can you specify which edit I made?
2. Which news paper came out stating what?
3. How did I get on Wikipedia and shot what down?
4. What should have been your story?

Can you please use some punctuation in your answer ? - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Magic number

@DVdm I appreciate your concern and I know that my edit on minkowski space was not valid but can you explain me about the magic number, I think that was correct as it was only edited with different words but with same meaning as I have verified with many LLM.

Thank you Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kuvam Bhanot: it is not clear whether the magic number is referring to nucleons as in "neutrons and protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons or protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons and/or protons". So I assume that a change from the long standting current version of the article is likely to contain factual errors. You might go to the article talk page and ask a little clarification question about that. - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Mathematicians are wrong?

Zero is considered even, but in such circumstances resulting such contradictions.

Example:

• If I traveled zero times to New-York, does that means I traveled an even number of times?
• Parents having zero children means they have an even number of children?
• A person with zero hats on his head means having an even number of hats on his head?
• If a mannequin lost its head, does that means that mannequin has now an even number of heads?
• An invalid person with no legs will means to have an even number of legs?

Comments to this wrong article spread by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The article Parity of zero is there to report and explain things, based on the literature. Even if you don't like it, the article talk page is not the place to vent our personal views. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal views of dead persons. Wait until dies to be published to wiki. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

When we deviate from interpreting numbers solely as quantities of things, and rather look at them more abstractly —and that is what living mathematicians do and dead ones did—, I think the definition is good for practical reasons, just like 0!, the factorial of zero, is defined as 1. After all, how can a product of no numbers possibly produce 1, right? . - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for E (mathematical constant)

E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

scare quotes

Dear DVdm, I am not so naïve as to try to meddle with as edit by such an authority as yourself, but I am still able to say to you that I think the single quotes were appropriate. They helped the reader to deal with the fact that the singular was being used for a plural.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: yes, that's true, but o.t.o.h. the reader could also think that Wikipedia distances itself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression, as is suggested in MOS:SCAREQUOTES. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was just using the inverted commas to warn of the non-literal meaning of 'an observer', because there isn't prior mention of an actually single observer to whom the phrase 'such an observer' refers. I wasn't using the inverted commas to indicate scare or scepticism, but I defer to your knowledge of the rules. Now that you bring my closer attention to it, I see that the syntax of 'such an observer' is objectionable. I now think that it would be better with another construction. I won't right now try it, but perhaps I may think about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: I was just thinking about this and had this edit ready, when I went back here to have a look at your comment again. Perhaps this is a solution? - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your care. I don't like that because it seems to attribute, to the special theory of relativity, a concept of an interrupted observer, which I don't see as properly belonging to that that theory. I would prefer a deeper reconstruction of the sentence. Chjoaygame (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. See my next stab. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your care in this. I find your edit to be good. I suggest a little anaphora, replacing "The situation at the turnaround point can be thought of as ..." with 'This can be thought of as ...', if you like.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

{{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}}

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft Physics

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Draft_Physics, is @Draft Physics's accusation that other Wikipedia editors (who are defending Newtonian mechanics and standard kinematics) are promoting their own personal theories well-founded? If not, is it not a form of libel? I'd like to know an answer and your thoughts on this matter. Thanks. Selbram (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selbram: See my reply on your talk page. There's no need to do this in two places. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Division by zero

Hi DVdm, I took your advice to move the discussion of the "Calculus" paragraph to the talk page. Thank you, Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ebony Jackson: - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a 'reliable source' ?

What makes a source reliable, and another source unreliable, and given that I disproved your so called reliable sources which claim GR was experimentally verified, and shown all those experiments were completelly fucked up by idiots who have no clue about basic refraction physics, doesnt that show that they are completely unreliable ? Marvas85 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See wp:reliable sources.

You probably need to stick to your blog for this. WIkipedia is not a publisher of original research. And please mind your language. Edit summaries such as "FUCK YOU and your stupid bots/moderators that delete the proof that GR is WRONG" are utterly unacceptable here. - DVdm (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

An edit I wish to make

@DVdm

This is a paragraph I wish to make to add to the Daboia Paelestinae page:

"The LD50 of this viper's venom is 0.34mg/kg. The mortality rate of people who were bitten is 0.5% to 2%. The venom includes at least four families of pharmacologically active compounds: (i) neurotoxins; (ii) hemorrhagins; (iii) angioneurin growth factors; and (iv) different types of integrin inhibitors."

I'm informing you ahead of time to make sure you don't jump the gun and try to block me without warning based on a mistaken assumption that this is original research. The issues that might confuse you are (a) that the LD50 is not mentioned in abstract of the first paper. However it appears in the body of the article in a graph. (b) The name of the snake used in the second article is not Daboia but one of the other scientific names of this snake (which appears in the synonyms tab of the Daboia Paelestinae page). While you might think that concluding that the paper talks about the same snake as the wikipedia entry is synthesis and therefore original research, in fact it isn't.

Please respond if you agree or not.

References

Vegan416 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:SYNTHESIS and draw your own conclusion. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. I read the relevant policy pages many times. I know well that NONE of what I did here is original research according to the policy pages. As regarding this particular case let me quote the following from "These are not original research" page: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources."
2. But I still feel I need to get your approval because the combined effect of the following facts: a. You seem to have an extreme interpretation of what is original research, much more strict than the policy pages. b. You have threatened to block me without warning if I'll make again what YOU think is original research. c. The incident of the Brooklyn papyrus show that you are not beyond jumping the gun.
3. Of course I don't know if you really have the power to block me without warning. I see that you have been editor for many years and have made an impressive number of edits, but I don't know if you have any administrative powers in wikipedia. Still, because it is better to be safe than sorry I'm afraid I'll have to continue to check edits with you beforehand, at least until you walkback on your threat.

Vegan416 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman

My removal of content was repeatedly explained, and therefore I consider your revert with the assertion that it was not to be in bad faith. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:56C:3F16:53EF:5265 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

After the first time that your edit was reverted ([2]), you should have gone to the talk page — see wp:BRD, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS. Re-reverting it amounts to edit warring. It's good that you went there after the second revert ([3]). There you should find the explanation why the content belongs ([4]). - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Spacetime and squared interval

About your message at User talk:2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:487D:6A2A:2128:BC24#April 2024.

On Spacetime, I read this after the paragraph where I made change:

The squared interval $\Delta s^{2}$ is a measure of separation between events A and B that are time separated and in addition space separated either because there are two separate objects undergoing events, or because a single object in space is moving inertially between its events.

So, why is $\Delta s^{2}$ not the squared spacetime interval?

On the French Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps), we read:

Le carré de l’intervalle d'espace-temps (translation: squared spacetime interval)

Moreover, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps#Expression_en_relativit%C3%A9_restreinte, we read:

Dans la géométrie de l'espace-temps de la fr:relativité restreinte, on écrit le « carré de l'intervalle d'espace-temps », noté $\Delta s^{2}$, entre deux événements A et B de coordonnées ($t_{\text{A}},x_{\text{A}},y_{\text{A}},z_{\text{A}}$) et ($t_{\text{B}},x_{\text{B}},y_{\text{B}},z_{\text{B}}$) dans un espace-temps à quatre dimensions (une de temps, soit t, et trois d'espace) sous la forme

$(\Delta s)^{2}=\,c^{2}(t_{\text{B}}-t_{\text{A}})^{2}-(x_{\text{B}}-x_{\text{A}})^{2}-(y_{\text{B}}-y_{\text{A}})^{2}-(z_{\text{B}}-z_{\text{A}})^{2}$

(Translation:) In spacetime geometry of special relativity, we write the squared spacetime interval, noted $\Delta s^{2}$...

You say: Note: check the cited source, where the interval is defined as a square.

Where is the cited source? If it's the ref 32 D'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. New York: Oxford University Press., I don't have access to it.

Moreover: still on Spacetime, we read:

In a different inertial frame, say with coordinates $(t',x',y',z')$, the spacetime interval $ds'$ can be written in a same form as above.

So the spacetime interval is $ds$ or $ds^{2}$?

I can understand different convention on different article on Wikipedia on different language. But not different convention on the SAME article.

In short:

• what is the name of $s$?
• what is the name of $ds$?
• what is the name of $ds^{2}$?

On French Wikipedia (fr:Intervalle_d'espace-temps#Métrique), $ds^{2}$ is named: le carré de l'intervalle infinitésimal d'espace-temps (translation: the square of the infinitesimal spacetime interval).

Thanks for your help. 2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:8561:9255:3884:112C (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my talk page. See

References

"In this picture, the square of the interval between any two events $(t1,x1,y1,z1)$ and $(t2,x2,y2,z2)$ is defined by $s^{2}=(t1-t2)^{2}-(x1-x2)^{2}-(y1-y2)^{2}-(z1-z2)^{2}$ and it is this quantity which is invariant under a Lorentz transformation.Note that, formally, we always denote the ‘square’ of the interval by $s^{2}$, but the quantity $s$ is only defined if the right-hand side of (2.12) is nonnegative."

So, indeed the phrase "the square of the interval ... is defined by $s^{2}$ = ..." can be paraphrased to "the squared spacetime interval is defined as $(\Delta {s})^{2}$ ..."

I have undone my edit and put the citation with the link in place in the article ([5]) and struck my comment on your user talk page ([6]). You were correct. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)