Galactic Citizen 299495038858569

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page layout

Your comments on Talk:Natural_number are not following the talk page indentation conventions. In particular, when replying, you should indent your reply. Your signature should immediately follow your comment. You can experiment in the sandbox. Also, your comments would be more persuasive, if you cited some reliable sources. --50.53.61.13 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural Numbers Redirect

I reverted your change for the following reasons:

1. You did not explain yourself. There are absolutely no edits by you to the whole numbers talk page preceding your change of the redirect. Discussing it elsewhere is not appropriate, especially when the discussion elsewhere is of a tangential nature to the redirect. Per WP:TP changes to a page should be discussed on its own talk page, not another talk page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

the following were posted and signed by me on the talk page days before your deletes, notice five separate entries days apart and two editor agreements:

1. 4) the zero question is obviously of central importance for this article, this is what the discussion circles around. It belongs in the head. Furthermore, counting numbers and whole numbers now redirect to this page. I came to the page though such a link, read the header material and still had no idea why I was on the redirected page. That isn't right. If pages redirect here the topics need to be mentioned. With my edit they now are.
2. I've pointed out the inconsistency of redirecting whole numbers here, and then instead of defining them, using them to define naturals. Another editor points out above that well this was not the way he would like the situation - and then put the circular definitions back in while deleting text that provided non-circular definitions. All I can say is, 'what they hey?'two circular paths or reasoning do not a linear reasoning make .. Isn't it the case there are only two ways to fix this issue: a) provide a page for whole numbers and turn off the redirect b) define them here? I did the latter, and the editor deleted it, but he did not do the former. Am I not justified in just putting the other text back? Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
3. The thing I would like to know first is how the whole number circular definition thing is to be fixed and why you reject the use of integer in the definition in its place.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
4. [another editor starts here in agreement]ck, as Trovatore points out your position is inconsistent, as positive whole numbers do not include 0 and that is the lead in sentence. Thanks for the note about the four tildas. Uncle Stan is in fact a professional mathematician, and just having a quick look here his publication list is longer than yours ;-). I don't understand the adversity to bringing the "convention" sentence into the lead. And you say there are more conventions than you can enumerate? Help me understand that, perhaps give me three schools of thought that have a different convention than that used by the "set theorists, logicians, and computer scientists" mentioned in the article. ..as the lead goes into the box on Google, it is important to provide the most common convention in the first paragraph instead of giving a decree that natural numbers are positive whole numbers 'period'. I just noticed that is what shows in that box. I moved the convention language there, though seems the wording could be improved. If there are other modern conventions they could be given next, or a 'it hasn't always been this way' could be added. IMHO Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
5. The whole numbers page redirects here yet there is no definition for for whole numbers found here, even worse, the definition given for natural numbers builds from it. T.. 218.187.84.185 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

and here is another supporting reply from one of the other editors:

I agree that anyone looking for counting number, natural number or whole number should quickly get a clear statement of what the phrase means. Before 14 September, there was a "disambiguation page" [1] which explained that "whole number" has 3 different meanings, and it included a link to Natural number#History of natural numbers and the status of zero. For that reason, in August 2013 I concentrated all the information in this article about "whole number" into that history section, as explained at Talk:Natural_number/Archive_2#Counting_number_and_whole_number. But since 14 September, "whole number" redirects to "natural number" and the lead now needs to contain the information. I think that from just the lead it should be clear to the reader that they should not use any of these three phrases unless they state which definition they are using. JonH (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You ignored several talk page entries and the agreement of two editors when you deleted my contribution with no discussion of your own. It would sure make me feel better about the time an effort I've taken to put good information on this natural numbers page if you would apologize to me instead of making senseless verbiage. You will also notice, that finally, the paragraph I original wrote on what is a whole number is on the natural number page .. well unless someone deletes between now and the time you read it.

1. You arbitrarily changed a redirect which had just been implemented in the past several weeks by a consensus of editors to the relevant pages. You neer sought a new consensus, and your arguments are in the minority on the natural numbers talk page. Your editing of the redirect was inappropriate for this reason, if no other.

hardly. See the prior references to further discussion on the topic. Furthermore the whole number information was deleted from the page. There is however an very nice explanation on the Integer page which no one disagrees with. You show a great deal of disrespect for my contribuations as well as disrespect for the wikipedia readers who would come to wikipedia to learn about whole numbers, and disrespect towards the authors of the integer page who provided a definition for whole numbers.

1. Integer is not the most closely related concept to whole number. Natural number is. Your arguments do not even attempt to dispute this. The argument at the natural number talk page not only has you in the minority, but is completely irrelevant to the meaning of "whole number".

First off, any other reader who comes here please note that "MjoolnirPants" here again refers to "Your arguments" when his first point was that I had not made talk page entries. This seems to indicate that his frist point was knowingly false.

Speaking to this point I said there is an explanation on the Integer page. I made no statement about their definition. And this is true, go look at the page. Now on this new point you raise 'that wholes are not related to integers, is flatly wrong - even though it is immaterial to this discussion. The very word integer is Greek for 'whole' and many authors treat whole numbers identically to integers. The main facet of whole numbers is that they do not have fractions. So you suggest an unsupportable argument that the two are unrelated.

I am reverting again. My advice to you would be to leave the whole number redirect as it is until you can either get a consensus to change it. Changes to the whole number page should never be the result of an argument at the natural number talk page.

You employ techniques of a bully MjolnirPants, a) first making false allegations (your point 1 that here were no talk page entries), b) making it sound like I was some sort of loan wolf when there were two editor agreements in the talk pages c) diverting the subject of discussion (changing the topic of whole numbers being discussed on the integer page into the definition of whole numbers), and d)making false assertions of fact (that whole numbers are not related to integers). Bullies online often feel enabled because they are anonymous. May I have your real name? Can we discuss offline perhaps? Don't you think it would be more fun to work together and let the text evolve instead of doing this stuff? I might know a thing or two about the topic too you know. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 

the following were posted and signed by me on the talk page days before your deletes, notice five separate entries days apart and two editor agreements:

You may have made a number of edits to Talk:natural number, but you never made any edits to Talk:Whole number as evidenced by The Whole number talk page history.

You ignored several talk page entries and the agreement of two editors when you deleted my contribution with no discussion of your own.

I did explain myself in the edit summary, and two people does not make a consensus. Nor was it discussed in the right place, where people who do care about it can weigh in, such as everyone who participated in the discussion on Talk:Whole number.

You employ techniques of a bully MjolnirPants

WP:AGF, WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL. If you require continual reminders to play well with others, you will end up unwelcome here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How to link to a previous revision of an article

1. Look through the revision history of the article and find the revision you want to link.
2. Copy the link to that revision into your computer's copy/paste buffer (the column with the time and date has links to previous revisions).
3. Select the text on the talk page you want to display.
4. Click the link icon above the edit box.
5. Paste the link into the top box.
6. Click the "Insert link" button.
7. Click "Show preview" to see if the results are what you want. And test the link before saving.

NB: This procedure creates external links.
NB2: You will need at least two windows or tabs for this procedure.

--50.53.52.64 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your user page

Could you put something on your user page, so your name doesn't appear in red in edit histories? Red names are very distracting. --50.53.43.85 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is some info on user pages. --50.53.43.85 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Example talk page formatting

This is the first comment.

This is the second comment, a response to the first comment.

This is the third comment, a response to the second comment.

This is the fourth comment, a response to the first comment, again.

This is the fifth comment, a response to the fourth comment.

This is the sixth comment, a response to the third comment.

This is a new response to the first comment.

This is a response to the above.

This is a counter-response to the above.

This is a counter-counter-response.

And so on and so forth.

This way, threads can be easily identifiable.

This is an outdent, to bring the text blocks back.

 

If you read the link I provided to WP:INDENT above or right here, you can take what that page says and practice in the sandbox or on your user page until you get it. Once it clicks, it will be easy and more-or-less intuitive. Also, please read WP:THREAD. It is considered very poor form to edit another users comments as you did above. Instead, use the {{talkquote|quote}} or {{tq|quote}} templates to quote other users for point by point responses. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate section names were added in an edit to Talk:Natural number

In this edit you added two nearly identical section headers. Could you please remove one? Aren't you using the "New section" tab to start a new section? The "New section" tab is at the top of the talk page to the right of the "Read" and "Edit" tabs. --50.53.47.9 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just realized what happened, because I have done it too. When you use the "New section" tab, the section header is created automatically. You do not need to explicitly add it. The text you enter in the "Subject/headline" box becomes the section header. --50.53.47.9 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, Thank you very much for the helpful pointers. .. surely there are some tools for doing this wiki stuff? The raw text editing gets the jobs done, but surely someone has made a nice GUI editor ..

Inadvertent reversion?

If you carelessly edit an old version of a page rather than the current version, then all edits after the version you edited will be reverted. Normally, that is not what you should be doing, and I hope that you did it by mistake at Talk:Natural number. Please see your edit. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice that this could also happen if you do a whole-page edit rather than a section edit or if you ignore the edit-conflict warning when doing a section edit. If I get an edit-conflict warning, I usually back-up, cut-out the text I wanted to add, abort my edit, then edit the section again and paste my text back into the section. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Using WP:RTP as an excuse to remove the other side of an argument from yours is wiki-lawyering and will get you into big trouble. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ah please explain .. we have a conversation about math philosophy, and MrPants asks for a record of deletes he made of my work, which he already admits to on this talk page (scroll up). Am I missing something? What does one have to with the other?

Thomas, you are really straying into some bad territory here, and I'm on the verge of reporting you to AN/I over the comment deletions.

• I have never deleted any comment of your on any talk page. I moved an entire section discussing the target of the Whole number redirect to the proper place, and your claim that it's not there is demonstrably false. This diff shows that it is there, and the page history shows that it was never erased at any point after I moved it.
• I never admitted to deleting your comments, nor did I say anything which could be reasonably construed as such an admission. I acknowledged undoing your change to the redirect target of whole number and provided you with multiple explanations why I did so, which is a very different thing from deleting a comment.
• I asked you for a record of comments of yours which had been deleted in an attempt to find some common ground with you by which we could establish a rapport. If someone else had been deleting your talk page comments I would have stood beside you in dealing with that matter with no hesitation. However, your only response was to delete my comments a full 20 minutes after I made them (thus proving that despite JRSpriggs's commendable assumption of good faith on your part, it was most certainly not an edit conflict gone awry). As if to further illustrate this point, you deleted my comments again while admitting to doing so purposefully in the edit summary, then deleted comments from several other users, including myself. This behavior of yours must stop right now. You have already assumed ownership of the article in a disruptive and unacceptable manner. You have ignored repeated attempts to explain talk page formatting and etiquette to you, and you have continued to engage in a confrontational and unproductive manner, including calling me both a bully and a "b**ch". You have violated no less than 4 Wikipedia policies multiple times in the last few days without repercussions. If I have any further problems with you, I will report you to AN/I immediately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How to revert yourself after accidentally deleting another editor's comment.

In this edit you deleted a detailed comment about the 1901 edition of Peano's Formulaire de Mathématiques that I had added earlier. Since I am certain you did that by mistake, here is what I suggest doing to recover:

1. Copy the text from the comment you wanted to add or change into a text editor.
2. Undo your edit using the "undo" button displayed in the edit history and add an edit summary saying "reverting myself" in front of the "Undid revision ..." boilerplate. Be absolutely certain that you are undoing your own edit and not someone else's. And don't make any changes to the undone version. I suggest you do a practice undo in the sandbox before trying an undo on the actual talk page. Simply save some text to the sandbox, and then undo it. Use an edit summary for both the save and the undo, so can see what you did when looking at the sandbox history.
3. Save that version.
4. Reopen the section where you want to add the comment.
5. Add your comment and click "Show changes" (Doing this will show you if you have unintentionally mangled someone else's comments.)
6. After confirming that you haven't broken anything, click "Save page".

The wikitext in the "von Neumann's definition in lede?" section is getting unreadable and uneditable. I suggest starting a new section for the Jean Dieudonné quotes and translations.

--50.53.49.112 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the duplicate "editing ettiquette" header that you deleted twice (1, 2), was in fact restored in the same edit in which you deleted my comment. Do you recall how you made that edit? JRSpriggs suggests you might have done a whole page edit on an old version. There is a bright pink banner that reads "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." when you try to do that. Do you recall seeing that? --50.53.49.112 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think JRSpriggs' theory may explain what happened. This diff has "25 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown", but your comment is the only difference. --50.53.49.112 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not purposely make any reversion. There were no warnings from wikipedia upon save, but I might not have seen the top of the window. In fact I have never hit 'undo'. The delete made shortly before this on talk was the short off topic remarks in the 'confused with counting number section ' This upset JRSpriggs and he told me to stop deleting others data and seemed pretty upset about it. Alas, I remain a bit skeptical because of the timing, and the prior when someone did a 'move the section' that resulted in loss of data. But as I can't know, and a stale window is not unimaginable - I certainly feel bad and apologize and will certainly be careful about stale pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2014

FYI, I signed your comment, so I could reply. You can read about how that is done at Template:unsigned. Normally, modifying another editor's comment is bad form, but since the SineBot didn't seem to be doing its job, I did it instead.

Now to the subject ... We still haven't figured out how you deleted 10,677 bytes from Talk:Natural_number. Here is the line from the edit history:

•(cur | prev) 04:15, 9 October 2014‎ Thomas Walker Lynch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (80,721 bytes) (-10,677)‎ . . (undo)

What size computer display are you using?

Do you use the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons before saving?

--50.53.53.206 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

screen is 1366x768 (laptop) Chrome 37, never use show changes, sometimes use show preview Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. Your vertical display resolution might be a bit low for convenient editing. At 1920x1080, I still have to do scrolling. Do you have a spare display that you could connect to your laptop?

In some of your edits, you are making minor mistakes that you would catch if you consistently used "Show preview". In this edit you were not logged in, and you inserted your signature twice, so you had to do a another edit to fix those problems. That second edit is clutter in the edit history as far as other editors are concerned. "Show preview" would have showed you both those problems before saving. I suggest that you get in the habit of doing a "Show preview" before every save.

You can use "Show changes" to see what changes will be made when you save. That lets you see if you are inadvertently deleting other editors comments. The "Show changes" window shows the same differences as what you see when you click the "prev" link in the edit history. If you see a lot of minus signs along the left edge, that means you may be about to delete something you don't want to delete.

--50.53.41.167 (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all very frustrating, I'm logged in, why the heck doesn't it sign it for me? I'm a accustomed to chat software where you just type something and move on (I'm juggling a lot of things to find time to be here of course). I will endeavor to do a preview, stop and look ;-) I know you want sigs so when it pops up again without, I go back ..[ah hah now that preview of the latest entry on this talk page looks fine! .. should I preview again now that I've added a bit .. hmm] Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And this bit of not having to be logged in catches me. I was logged in, something seems to happen to change that, I edit, and there is an IP sig, go back, do it again .. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know why your IP address would appear in your signature, even though you are logged in. You can get help by putting

{{Help me}}

in a new section on your talk page. More info here: Template:Help me.

If you prefer, you can try the Help desk.

I preview repeatedly. Even after a minor change in the wikitext I am drafting, I click "Show preview". The last thing I do before saving is click "Show changes", so that I can be sure that nothing is going to be mangled when I save.

--50.53.57.116 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peano axiom 1 says that 0 is the first natural number

After I added this quote from Hamilton, it occurred to me that there is something incongruous about it:

• Hamilton (1988) calls them "Peano's Postulates" and begins with "1.  0 is a natural number." (p. 117f)

--50.53.57.116 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

and what is this incongruity, pray tell. Is that in his 'count' of postulates that the count starts with 1? This incongruity stems from the naturalist human intuitive counting numbers being different from the context sensitive natural numbers definition. In this case the context is a first number of zero and successor implied by convention of 1. Note that Rick Norwood never sent an exception to isomorphisms. In case he is off working hard on one I sent a sketch of a proof of isomorphisms between all arithmetics based on sets created from the Peano Axioms, on his talk page. I think the isomorphism can be seen pretty clearly from the sketch. This isomorphism is what allows us to build computers, as we create all sorts of wild arithmetics from transistors ..Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. There are two contexts, side by side, with one asserting that 0 is natural, and the other asserting that a numbered list starts naturally at 1. Anyway, it made me smile. I'm sorry if you didn't see it that way. I can't discuss the philosophy of mathematics, but appreciate your bringing it up. BTW, there was no year zero. --50.53.57.116 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

isomorphism of arithmetics[edit]

Would it be helpful if I provided a proof for this?

In general, Wikipedia does not present proofs of theorems, though there are a few exceptions. I don't think a proof is called for here. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good.

Mr. 53, I liked Rick's original Peano Axiom edit on the page (by coincidence we just edit conflicted here). Axiom 1: there is a first number. When counting numbers are said to exist before and independent of naturals, then there is no contradiction. The purpose of naturals is then to define arithmetic, not to define counting - (this arithmetic must necessarily be potentially richer than counting .. but is it?). Accordingly we learn to count, then we learn to do arithmetic. In computation theory there are proofs showing things such as a two dimensional Turing Machine tape and machine being isomorphic to a one dimensional tape and machine. This conclusion follows from the fact that {(p,q)} is a set of natural numbers, and that all arithmetic on natural numbers are isomorphic. {(p,q)} is natural because we can make a first number, (0,0) and then a successor function that follows diagonals (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (0,2), (1,1), (2,1), (0,3) ... etc. So this successor function is more complex than S(n) = n+1 so indeed yes, here is a case where the arithmetic is richer than counting.

If we say that the Peano Axioms occur without order in union, and that the 'numbering' is just a convenience, then the axiom of S(n) never equals a, where a is the 'first number', is problematic as we need the 'first' axiom to understand it, thus imparting order on the axioms. So we need to be able to count to 2, i.e. have a concept of first and rest before entering the axioms. Hah, so the Pythagoreans were right, if you want to count with natural numbers then natural numbers start at 2 ;-) as 1 must be God given. ;^) This is interesting, as it shows we only need a finite concept of counting - and that sure fits better with the idea of human psyche coming up with that set.

In any case, counting numbers are natural numbers with the context of a=0 and S(n)=n+1. However they are *not* natural relative to the context a=1/2 and S(n)=n+1, though we can put the set members into one to one correspondence - as will always be the case because any set constructed in this manner will be countable. Hence, there will always be an isomorphism between any arithmetic that defines naturals against any a, and any S(n), and the arithmetic we know and love based on a=1, and S(n)=n+1 - i.e. the counting numbers. The richness here, i.e. the extra information needed, is the definition of the isomorphism. That is what the Peano Axioms are giving us!

So, Von Neumann's definition has a first number that is a set, and a successor function that operates on sets. We then note the correspondence to counting numbers. This gives us an isomorphism to doing arithmetic on {0,1,2..}

So the 'natural numbers', i.e. the study of arithmetic, is not identical to the counting numbers as the counting numbers are missing the extra arithmetic structure provided by the Peano Axioms.

Do you think that constitutes a reasonable understanding?

No year 0 .. yes that fits either the pre-existing counting numbers, or the pre-existing concept of first that is required.

Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If we say that the Peano Axioms occur without order in union, and that the 'numbering' is just a convenience, then the axiom of S(n) never equals a, where a is the 'first number', is problematic as we need the 'first' axiom to understand it, thus imparting order on the axioms.

That's an excellent point. Kleene addresses that sort of problem on page 3 of Mathematical Logic. He distinguishes the "object language" and the "observer's language". --50.53.34.92 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In Logic for Mathematicians, Hamilton appears to avoid the ordering problem in a different way, although he uses natural numbers to distinguish his variables, constants, and functions. After he lists his axioms for first order arithmetic, Hamilton says of Peano's Postulates: "Note that the first two postulates do not correspond with any of the axioms for our system ${\mathcal {N}}$. ..." (p. 118) --50.53.34.92 (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your 04:25, 11 October 2014 edit to Talk:Natural number split another editor's comment

In this edit, you inserted your comments into the middle of another editor's comment. That is not the way to comment on specific parts of another comment, so you are going to be reverted again, and get frustrated again. Unfortunately, your subsequent edit prevents a simple undo, so I am not sure what to recommend. You can use the Template:Talkquote or Template:Tq templates to quote parts of another editor's comment in your comment. There are examples on Talk:Natural number. --50.53.34.92 (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah heck, just let me (or you) move it to the bottom of the paragraph. I'll do that now if the page allows.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look right yet. The part of the comment starting at "It seems that your concern ..." is still not joined with the rest of the comment above. Please use edit summaries explaining that you are trying to fix the problem. --50.53.34.92 (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't get reverted, but you did get this message from D.Lazard in his edit summary:

Please do not edit in the middle of other's post. This makes unsigned a part of the post and changes the global meaning of the post

--50.53.58.19 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

thank youThomas Walker Lynch (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In this edit, an unregistered user with IP address 218.187.181.237 inserted replies into the middle of another editor's comment. If that edit was done by you without logging in, please fix the problem. You must append your reply and quote the comments to which you are replying, as already explained to you above. To repeat: Use {{tq}} or {{talkquote}}. --50.53.55.68 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

refactoring Talk:Natural number

You should not be refactoring Talk:Natural number without consensus from other editors. While I understand your intent, it would be much better, given your lack of experience, to simply start new sections on the specific subjects you believe should be discussed. --50.53.58.19 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

it has been quite some time now that there has been no discussion of the 'delete the history redirect' link - but there was the appearance of discussion due to incorrectly indented unrelated material. I want to change the redirect without confusion that there was some sort of related controversy when there is not. Futhermore I fear that others may not be looking at the section about the translation to see the history changes to be proposed.

similarly, I am going to propose changes to the lede based on the discussion. This proposal will go in the lede discussion section. People will want to then follow the references into the talk discussion. Hence it is important that this is can be done with reasonable effort.

as I am inexperienced with this, your assistance would be appreciated. In fact it is for this reason that I have made no other edits. I am waiting for exactly this note you left. You know there is no talk page for the talk page. I did leave notes on Lazard's talk page.

I will now add the said proposal to the 'lede' section Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your refactoring attempts were reverted. Note that the edit summary says that the reversion was because of "disruptive moves of posts". I suggest that you read the section on Dealing with disruptive editors.

You said: "it has been quite some time now that there has been no discussion of the 'delete the history redirect' link"

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, so I am guessing, but I suggest that you start a new section on Talk:Natural number asking whether the History of numbers redirect should be changed and refer editors to Talk:History of numbers, where I have started a section.

--50.53.58.19 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

it is already highlighted in a place and there was some discussion before the highlighting. And I already created exactly that you refer to here but it has been deleted. There is no disagreement, my hands are tied as to moving discussion to an area by itself - I'm going to make the change.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to the section "Changes to history of numbers redirect and History section", it was caught up in the revert. I suggest that you create a new section with that name, copy your earlier comments into it, and annotate them with [Comments by Thomas Walker Lynch copied from section whatever] at the top. Don't copy any comments from any other editor, because that will take them out of context. FYI, I sometimes copy other editor's comments, but I rigorously annotate them as copies and try very hard to avoid taking them out of context. You can see examples here. --50.53.58.19 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not see any way to move or quote text without raising an issue of context after the two edits were reverted in creating the section, so I renamed the section.

thanks for pointing out the mathematical philosophy article, I see there are also article on 'arithmetic' and 'computer arithmetic'. I look forward to updating the history section .. hah. Perhaps it starts with "God created the integers .." ...Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if changes to the history section will be any less contentious than changes to the lead or the mathematical sections, but you will still need to provide reliable sources for any changes. Here is one for your bibliography:

• Numbers: Their History and Meaning (Dover Books on Mathematics) by Graham Flegg

(Flegg is not listed as a source in Number, but a search shows that he is cited in numerous other articles.)

--50.53.49.222 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

suggest starting an article on Abrégé d'histoire des mathématiques by Jean Dieudonné

Here is a project for you where you can't get into so much trouble.

There is a French article on fr:Abrégé d'histoire des mathématiques, but an English article does not exist: Abrégé d'histoire des mathématiques. This is a suggestion to translate the French article into English and create a new article on the English WP. To create a new article, simply click the red link and follow the instructions. See also: Starting an article.

BTW, the English article on Jean Dieudonné doesn't seem to mention the Abrégé, although the French article does: fr:Jean_Dieudonné.

--50.53.32.130 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP articles must establish notability, or they can be deleted. Here are reviews of the first and second editions, by Hans Freudenthal and Joseph W. Dauben respectively, in Isis (NB: a JSTOR subscription is needed to read them online):

Abrégé d'histoire des mathématiques, 1700-1900 by Jean Dieudonné
Hans Freudenthal
Isis
Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 660-661
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/231275

Abrege d'histoire des mathematiques, 1700-1900 by Jean Dieudonne
Joseph W. Dauben
Isis
Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), p. 602
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/231932

--192.183.194.150 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a brief review by Lynn Steen of the first edition here:

Telegraphic Reviews
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 86, No. 7 (Aug. - Sep., 1979), pp. 601-612
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2320611

--192.183.194.150 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I kibitzed on the math aspects of a Project Gutenberg translation it was good practice. The reason there is not a project Gutenberg translation for this work is that the copyright is being enforced. But a wiki summary, that would be good.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Click "What links here" to find redirects to an article

You asked on Talk:Natural number: "One of the things that has come to light in the discussion below is that there are many redirects to this page. Does anyone know how to list them all instead of just running into them?"

There is a "What links here" link in the column to the left of every article. From the Natural number article, clicking it gives this list of links. If you click "Hide links", you will get this list of redirects. See also: Help:What links here and Special:WhatLinksHere.

NB: The "External tools: Show redirects only" link doesn't work anymore.

--50.53.49.222 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks again, I found the WhatLinksHere page before, but got 404 when trying to view redirects ..

The case and spelling variations of the redirects are unnecessary, correct?Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying out some wikipedia searches, seems that wikipedia does need the suffix 's' variations to not go to a disambiguate page, but it is case insensitive.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect says that linking a plural is a reason to use a redirect.

BTW, your new section on redirects is exactly the right way to use the talk page.

WRT "transclusion": There is an advanced search dialog that lets you search for WP terms without searching articles. You can get to it by doing a search with a blank search term in the upper right corner of any WP page. To use the advanced search dialog to answer your question, deselect "(Article)" and select "Wikipedia" and "Help". --50.53.49.222 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Another search tip: In the search box, if you start your search term with "wp:", you can search for WP-specific articles. The search dialog will offer a list of possible matches if you type the first letter[s] of a term. For example, "wp:tr" or "help:tr" will show you a list that includes "transclusion".

BTW, the advanced search page is a good one to bookmark in your web browser. --50.53.49.222 (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, redirects are deleted through the RfD process. --50.53.49.222 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your user page can be used for a bibliography

You are collecting a lot of good references, but they are scattered throughout Talk:Natural number. You can use your user page to put them all in one place. Here is an example. You can also put a bibliography on a subpage like this. --50.53.49.222 (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I was planning to collect them into the see also section of the article then integrate the into the text. On talk page ..hmm. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The "See also" section is for internal links only. --50.53.49.222 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

In this edit, you added some links to the "See also" section that were already in the article, so they do not need to be in the "See also" section. That's called overlinking.

--50.53.49.222 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting whole number to integer

Hi Thomas

I noticed you are a new editor here. You obviously are knowledgeable about many different math topics and made substantial contributions to natural number. I am unsure if you feel that whole number should be redirected to integer. Under your new rewrite, I would support it. You will have to contact me on my talk page if you so decide to do so, because I won't be watching your talk page, if you respond here. Take this as a vote of support, if anyone accuses you of WP:CANVAS.174.3.125.23 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the message on my talk page; it helps me keep track of who wants to talk to me;). Yes, the wikipedia experience is most likely nothing you will ever encounter in the future, but gives so much back in terms of learning. It sure did for me and I must give it credit for the success I enjoy now. 1/3 of everything I learned in life came from Wikipedia.

But back to your message on my talk page about a title change, can you point me where?174.3.125.23 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you not move anything around on any talk page. Also, questions like the one you asked me on my talk page are better discussed on the talk page involved. Not "would you mind..." but rather "would anyone mind..." If everyone says ok, then it is ok. If not, not. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Permission is required from you the other editor first, as I've been reminded by others in this dance on eggshells using a primitive interface that belongs with EDT and VT100s. You might consider my proposal and if you are ok with it, I'll post the suggestion.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How to change an article title

I'm not sure what you are asking about here, but if you want to know how to change an article title, you can find out by searching for "page move" in the Wikipedia namespace. But don't try a page move without consensus. A contested page move can lead to page move warring and get you sent to the woodshed again. --50.53.41.238 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As a technical question, the title of the article must be identical to the name of the page? I saw in the docs an option for changing the title article itself. I'm just not to sure why the syntax didn't take. That is the \{\{DISPLAYTITLE: directive \}\}

I've raised the title change proposal in the lede section. The current title is in violation of WP:Title due to the redirects and discussion of Counting Numbers and Whole Numbers which are not mentioned in the title. You were the only one to reply. To reiterate, "Counting Numbers, Natural Numbers, Whole Numbers" to bring it back into compliance. (I'm asking questions on procedure to see if it wakes up a conversation.)

If one has to move the page to change the title, then Counting Number, Natural Number, and Whole Number would redirect to the "Counting Numbers, Natural Numbers, and Whole Numbers" page. And I can make the redirect changes together. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of "DISPLAYTITLE" before you mentioned it, but a search of everything found both a template and numerous usage examples:

• Vitamin B12     {{DISPLAYTITLE:Vitamin B{{ssub|12}}}}
• e (mathematical constant)     {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{mvar|e}} (mathematical constant)}}
• Approximations of π     {{DISPLAYTITLE: Approximations of {{pi}}}}

Could you be more specific about what you are trying to do?

Please discuss any proposed page moves on Talk:Natural number. There is a new section: Talk:Natural_number#Title_of_the_article.

--50.53.240.29 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your starting edit war at natural number

You have reverted twice one of my edits of natural number. In the first revert your edit summary was "There is no source saying these sets are identical. Edit removes source." You have been reverted by a IP user, with the edit summary "no sources were removed; please tag or tweak the wording you object to". Then you have reverted this revert without further comment.

This appears to be the beginning of an edit war. Normally, when two editors disagree about an edit, the normal process is, after the first revert, to start a discussion to reach a consensus (see WP:BRD). In this case, you have been reverted by a third editor, which means that the majority of the concerned editors are in favor of my edit. Thus you should not revert again unless if there is a consensus that my edit is worse than the preceding version. Here the majority of the involved editors are against your reverts, and there is no hope that the consensus will be in your favor. You must also be aware that that the three revert rule implies that after 3 reverts of the same text by the same editor, this editor may be blocked for editing (this occurs very often).

Thus, please, stop this starting edit war. D.Lazard (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

This is the second warning: now you have done three reverts of the same text. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

D.Lazard as you know there was an agreement that the lede would not be changed except by consensus. I reverted it because there has been no consensus. This lack of consensus is shown by open talk threads about the lead which you are active in. Far from starting an 'edit war' I'm just following the agreement. Though if the page is open for unilateral edits, then there are a few I would like to make also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.187.103.34 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• You have a point, although consenus is a deplorably vague concept. For the record, I reverted you (under a different IP address), because your edit summary was obviously false, at least in part: "Edit removes source."
• D.Lazard: Could you start a new section on Talk:Natural number with your proposed rewording? It is obviously a big improvement over what was there before, although it could use some refinement.

--50.53.39.150 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading D.Lazard's comment more carefully, I am striking my suggestion that he start a new section. Thomas: I suggest that you either tag the phrase that you believe implies "... these sets are identical", or start a new section similar to the one I started for the hatnote. --50.53.39.150 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How to use tags

Here are some examples showing how to tag wording you object to:

• "This sentence is a hopeless muddle, because pigs can fly."
• "This is a sentence that has a fuzzy phrase in the middle."

Note that if you hover your pointer over the tag, you will see a tooltip with more details.

Documentation is here: {{clarify}}, {{clarify span}}. See also {{cn}} and {{cn span}} for similar tags requesting citations.

And tag bombing is another way to get into trouble.

--50.53.39.150 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

An award for you!

		The Purple Barnstar
		I understand that you have been tireless in improving Wikipedia. I hope the current obstacles do not deter or diminish the work that you do here. You are very appreciated for your work!174.3.125.23 (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please insert new sections at the end of the the talk page

In this edit to Talk:Natural number you inserted a subsection with your own proposals that are unrelated to the proposals in that section. Please move it to the end of the talk page after all the other sections. We cannot analyze multiple different proposals in one huge section. And put your name in the section title, so we can tell from the contents whose proposals they are. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

that section discusses changes to the lead, I am discussing changes to the lead. My suggestion may even be modified to reflect the prior discussion on that. My discussion on a proposed new lead was largely ignored in the Discussion of Lead section. The new section was opened after I began that discussion. I did put the subsection at the bottom of the new section on the new discussion of the lead. It all looks good no? What is amiss?

You are hijacking another editor's section. That is just as rude as butting into line. And please sign your comment. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not hijacking it, we are both talking about the same section. I put my thoughts up there so as we don't have conflicting edits. This is so the edits can be integrated and discussed together. There was already an active section on discussion of the lead when this new section was opened without comment on my lead proposal. Yet the new comment would affect the lead proposal I was making. Nobody commented on that. Hmm. Ip address on the sign instead of a name? Gosh that is horrible, let me go fix it.

AN/I Report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the exact link. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I don't know what to say. I looked at the points that people have made there at ANI but I have to agree with our friend User:50.53.38.50 that you have provided interesting sourcesources and you have contributed constructively on the talk page, but there are times that you must be frustrated with some of the events that occur in the wikipedia "community". You clearly have a background in the theory of math. And I disagree with some editors who claim you are a crackpot. The reason is because I concur with our friend User:50.53.38.50 that you have found many different philosophical texts on math and numbers. I am not a mathematician, so I come from a basic and preliminary background of math, which is why I champion and feel the inclusion and citation of "whole number" and "counting number", and the explanation of these contexts is important. The research you are doing is deeply valued. Wikipedia is sometimes an intractable project so maybe my advice for you is to sit back and take a breather from the project when it becomes to frustrating to "handle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.125.23 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

talk:natural number

I haven't closely looked at your the section you posted my on talk page regarding ANI, but generally, what you contributed where many different ideas from many different fields. Many of these ideas are covered in existing articles. The other alternative is to add your ideas to the pertinent articles. But adding so many different ideas to such a specific article is unlikely to be passed.174.3.125.23 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points were made, but repeated requests for justification and ignored replies made the discussion long and repetitive. Ironically by not reading the section before replying you may be doing the same here. 218.187.176.91 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)