Ttogreh

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 3 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted the changes you made to the lichen page, and to explain. The plural fungi and algae etc. refers not to the organism being multicellular, but to multiple species. Since that paragraph is talking about what happens in a lichen, the singular is more accurate. Thank you for your efforts, though. Peace! Psora 4 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Fire

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your interest in the fire article. For a long time I was the only one who was watching it (or cared I guess) and as I'm sure you've seen its an incredible magnet for disconnected or incoherent additions. Its nice to have another editor who actually posts on the talk page and comes back after making a couple edits. -Lommer | ^talk 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation. I have always been a bit of a firebug, and I geuss this little corner of cyberspace is a way to constructively focus my interests. I am not as academic or creative as I would like to be, but I will certainly do my best to make the Fire article as good as I can make it.--ttogreh 02:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

0.999 != 1

If mathematics isn't representative of reality, what is? And further: A decimal need not have a fractional part. A decimal number is any number in the base-10 system. It may or may not have a fractional part; integers are perfectly acceptable decimals. Such "integers," in other bases, are not decimials (e.g., 5 in hex). In addition, numbers like 5.12 in other bases are not decimals, either. Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's go:

Look, an integer is not a decimal. A decimal is not an integer.

The set of rational integers consists of the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, …), their negatives (-1, -2, -3, …), and zero. A decimal number is any number expressed in the base-10 system (i.e., as the sum of multiples of powers of ten). Now, I take it that you are using "decimal" to mean a base-10 number with a fractional component (e.g., 8.123). Indeed, a decimal fraction might not be an integer. However, any integer in the base-10 system is, by virtue of being in base-10, a decimal. I see that you have a problem with infinite decimal expansions. Well all numbers are infinite decimal expansions. "4" is shorthand for "4.000…"; "9.452" is short for "9.452000…"; etc. Any number that is not expressed as an infinite decimal expansion is just a shortcut, since physically expressing the entire expansion is, naturally, impossible.

Mathematic proofs are irrelevant and irrespective to reality.

No, mathematical proofs reflect reality. Proofs, by definition, must show that mathematics is true – this is the defintion of proving something. How are proofs irrelevant to reality? The goal of mathematics is to model reality! If proofs conflicted with reality, then all of mathematics would have absolutely no foundation in anything, and this is not the case.

0.999... will always be 0.000...1 off from 1.

Wrong. "0.999…" has an infinite number of decimal places following its decimal point. "0.000…1" does not; the expression is meaningless. The ellipsis is supposed to signify that the zeros continue forever. If this were the case, there would be no end to attach the "1" to. If there is an end, the number expressed has a finite decimal expansion, in contrast to the infinite expansion of "0.999…". If you add these two numbers, the result is not 1 but 1.000…999… – which is obviously not equal to 1. Here's another way to look at it. If two numbers are different, you can always find another number that lies between the two. For example, 1.5 lies between 1 and 2. You cannot find a number that lies between 0.999… and 1. If it existed, it would be a number consisting of "1" at the end of an infinite line of zeros; 0.000…1 is not that number. That number cannot exist due to the definition of infinity and so forth.

Your revert of my edit marks you as pretentious, pedantic, and altogether unpleasant. In short, there is a good chance no one but those who hate you will come to your funeral, and many, many people will attend it.

No response. "If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if you have any, will take care of itself." –Joseph Farrell

Reality is representative of reality.

I thought reality was reality, but okay. No arguments here.

Everything else is an abstraction; an allegory meant to aid in our movement through reality. Integers, decimals, binary, octal, base 10, hex... none of these truly exist. They are thought constructs meant to help real problems get real solutions. … Mathematics does not dictate reality; reality dictates mathematics.

I have no qualms with your assertion that pure mathematics is not real in and of itself. "1" does not exist on its own; "binary" is not something that can be experienced. Mathematics is indeed a tool to model reality.

As such, the intellectual concept of an integer is not the same as the intellectual concept of a decimal.

What is an "intellectual concept"? Concepts, by default, relate to the intellect. What's a "nonintellectual concept"? I'm assuming you mean something like "The popular concept of an integer is not the same as the popular concept of a decimal" – concepts that are held by most people. Well, most people have a flawed concept of "decimal." When most people think "decimal," they are really thinking "decimal fraction." Thus, the problem is not that the concepts themselves, but the fact that most people have the wrong concept. What's more, if taken at face value, your statement is correct: Integers and decimals are not the same thing. However, decimals can be integers, and integers can be decimals (and are if they are base-10).

All recursive decimals from 0.111... to 0.999... are failures.

No, because – again – all numbers are actually infinite decimal expansions, albeit sometimes expressed in shorthand. And what is a "failure"? infinite decimal expansions are nothing more than sums. For instance:

$0.111...=10^{-1}+10^{-2}+10^{-3}+10^{-4}+...\,$

Let's say you continued this infinitely. What is illegitimate about this expression? This isn't a "failure" of the base-10 system, this is just a sum with an infinite number of parts, but a finite conclusion.

They are an exposure of a human flaw in abstract thought.

No, they are simply proof of a fact of reality, which is that no number base system can accomodate all numbers. Hexadecimal has even more recursive decimals than base 10, because 16 has only one prime factor, as opposed to 10, which has 2. There is no way to express all numbers without recursion or infinite expansion in a single base system. And see the previous point. What is "flawed" about an infinite sum? Sure, you could say that you can't "really" add so far, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

1/9 != 0.111... because recursive decimals do not end, while integers do.

Indeed, the expansions of recursive decimal fractions have no end. However, how can you say that the quantity itself doesn't end? It's one number. It is a finite quantity. Let's say that 0.999… "doesn't end." Then you'd be saying that 0.999… goes on forever to infinity. But it doesn't; it's clearly greater than, say, 0.5, and less than, say, 2. A number expressed as an infinite expansion need not be equal to infinity.

It might go against one's intuition to say that 0.999… = 1. This doesn't matter. Intuition counts for nothing. Without proof or evidence, assertions are worthless. If 0.999… ≠ 1, then one should be able to mathematically prove it. The fact of the matter is, there are no rigorous proofs for this. None. And you can't just say that "in reality," 0.999… ≠ 1. This is not a proof.

–Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• How are mathematical proofs irrespective to reality? They represent reality. If they did not, then they would not be proofs, since they would advocate falsehoods.
• Elegance has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Just because 0.999… might be "less elegant" than 1 has absolutely nothing to do with whether the two are equal.
• Again, you claim that 0.999… and 1 are two different things. You're right, they are two different things: two different expressions for the exact same concept. They are two different ways to express a unit; others include 3/3, 5/5, pi/pi, $x^{0}$, and so forth. Since they represent the same thing, they are exactly equal.
• For the above reason, it is incorrect to say that 0.999… "might as well be" 1 because this means that they are not quite equal. For practical purposes, pi might as well be 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510. $e$ might as well be 2.71828 18284 59045 23536. At low θ, $\sin \theta$ might as well be $\theta$. "Might as well be" implies that the compared values are not equal but are very very close. However, 0.999… is equal to 1.

-Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I had continued to argue this because I initially believed that it would result in some sort of legitimate debate. However, I see that you are failing to hold a cohesive discussion and are resorting to making unfounded insults and judgments about my character, thus proving to me that your argument regarding the prime topic is specious beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. Insulting me does not make you correct. That said, you are certainly welcome to your own opinion – in the process refusing to listen to clear and accurate reasoning – but please refrain from further discussion on this topic, in which your knowledge is clearly lacking; it would benefit all who are actually interested, and would have the nice side effect of not making you look like an ignoramus. Thank you for your time. Adieu for now. -Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, according to intuition, the distance will never be eliminated. What mathematics really says is that one can take the initial distance as 1, and then:

$\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{2^{k}}}=1$

which is equal to the initial distance. "Atomic forces" have nothing to do with the math; they are an external influence. They must be accounted for, surely, but they do not have any bearing on the ideal, theoretical logic. If anything, what prohibits this infinite halving from actually happening is the quantization of space, as well as the subtle fact that one cannot keep doing something for eternity. And this, I think, is the issue here. You are thinking about 0.999… in the sense of someone sitting down and writing down 0.999…. No matter how many nines he writes down, the number he has will always be 10^-n away from 1. No matter how many nines he writes down, there will always be more nines to write. However, this is taking the number he writes as a finite expansion. If you take 0.999… up to any decimal point, the number up to there will indeed be less than 1 … but then there are infinitely more decimal points to go. This process of expansion is what approaches but never reaches one. This is not equal to the final result of that expansion. The final result is a finite number, and finite numbers cannot "approach" anything. Three does not approach four. Ten does not approach 11. And 0.999… does not approach 1; it is 1. And again, if there is any difference between two numbers, one should be able to find an infinite number of real numbers lying between them. Since 0.999… and 1 are two finite, distinct numbers, one should be able to find at least one number between them. But this is impossible. The supposed "0.000…1" is illegitimate, because it expresses an infinite decimal expansion… with an end. The difference is 0.000…, which is simply zero. And if there the difference between two numbers is zero, then they are the same. If x - y = 0, then x = y. If this is not true, there should be a proof for it. Anything that is true should be provable. And yet there are no proofs that 0.999… ≠ 1.

Whether mathematics is perfect or not has nothing to do with whether humans are perfect or not. Mathematics transcends humanity. The bases of mathematics would exist whether humans existed or not. There would still be "ones" of things, even if we weren't here. The "mathematics" of extraterrestrial life, if it existed, would parallel ours. It would certainly not have the same symbols and conventions, but the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter would be the same. They would have the concept of "one," even if they didn't call it "one" or "1". No, mathematics must be perfect because it models an idealized universe. One can never actually express 0.999…, because any attempt would really result in 0.999…9, which is not an infinite expansion. But the complete number 0.999… still equals one. The fact that no one can actually write it out does not change this.

I don't know about you, but I am losing the drive and time to continue this. I have made my assertion and presented my arguments; I will bother you no further about the matter. Thank you for playing, and au revoir.

–Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you care to read: 0.999...#Skepticism_in_education. –Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me just try to get this clear. It is connected to semantics; and as I don't know how far you've thought of this, I start on a really very basic level. Hopefully you'll find the first questions rather stupid; but please excuse that and give your opinion on the following questions:

(1) Is a rose a flower? (Comment: Small children are sometimes stating things like There were three roses and two flowers there.)

(2) Is a square a rectangle?

(3) Is 0.25 = 1/4?

(4) Could the same number have different representations? Could you give an example?

(5) Are integers rational numbers? Why/why not?

We'll start from there, if you wish. JoergenB 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Afd Conduct

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Jersey Devil 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:CIV

I see you haven't edited in a few days, but when you return, please be aware that continued violations of the above policies and related guidelines, as seen in some recent edits of yours, may result in administrative action. Please take care to keep a cool head in disputes, and be mindful of the dispute resolution process to work out problems with other editors peacefully. Thank you. Luna Santin 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my brief time at Wikipedia, I've learned that incivility is disruptive and harmful to the community, and will eventually lead to your being ostracized and blocked. The internet as a whole has developed a very caustic environment -- that same environment isn't conducive to the work of communally producing an encyclopedia. You're more than welcome to contribute, and I'd like to thank you for anything you've added or will add in the future, but please do be aware of the impact your actions and statements will have on others. Luna Santin 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ttogreh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Khaled bin Abdullah - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Mutaib bin Abdullah - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soybean oil

The article Soybean oil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Any reference links are not working also information is not correct.

Cancer Studies in Humans No epidemiological studies were identified that evaluated the relationship between human cancer and exposure specifically to N‑nitro so di-n-butylamine.

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/nitrosamines.pdf

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ra1han (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)