Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) →Starting over: Re Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) →Starting over: Re Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
As you said, we should really stop fighting. As i said earlier, i have no personal conflicts or animosity towards you. But even when i mentioned about starting over, you didnt respond anything. Hence i have no idea what you are thinking. So let me know. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 22:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
As you said, we should really stop fighting. As i said earlier, i have no personal conflicts or animosity towards you. But even when i mentioned about starting over, you didnt respond anything. Hence i have no idea what you are thinking. So let me know. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 22:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:: ?? <br /> I'm willing to walk on any path. Choosing it is up to you. Choose wisely. I mean, we can work on wiki as friends, or we can work "not as friends". —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
:: ?? <br /> I'm willing to walk on any path. Choosing it is up to you. Choose wisely. I mean, we can work on wiki as friends, or we can work "not as friends". —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
::: You see buddy, you have responded on Oswald's talkpage, but you didnt reply to me. It feels bas when you ignore me like this Earl. It is this kind of treatment you give me that makes me think you dont want to be friends with me. I am okay with that too, but just let me know if you want to be my friend or not. |
|||
::: PS: i just remembered, a long time ago, i read somewhere "Ego of goofballs doesnt get hurt usually. But if it does, they [goofballs] dont tend to forget it easily." —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:24, 28 March 2017
Welcome!
|
Earl of Arundel, you are invited to the Teahouse!
![]() |
Hi Earl of Arundel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
Exponentiation
Hi Earl of Arundel,
It doesn't seem to me like there's any point continuing our conversation on the reference desk, but I wanted to address one or two things from your last message to me. You wrote,
You still haven't addressed the division-by-zero issue. At any rate, the interpretation of 0^0 is, again, dependent on some convention. I understand that. I was specifically referring to any given g(x) that does not itself evaluate to zero. Or am I missing something? Earl of Arundel (talk) 11:24 am, Today (UTC−6)
Your first sentence is mistaken; the function that I defined could be written more formulaically as follows: There is no issue of division by 0 in its definition, and no convention is necessary to understand the limit of g(x)^x as x approaches 0. On the question of what happens if g(x) approaches some other value than 0 (which you say you wished to restrict focus to, though I do not think this was clear from what you wrote earlier), this is easy to read off already from Trovatore's very nice comment; we have , and with a suitable choice of branch of the logarithm the term approaches some constant, the exponent approaches 0 and so the entire expression approaches 1.
All the best, JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but whenever x = 0 then g(x) is also defined as evaluating to zero. That's a convention (albeit, a perfectly logical one). And that was precisely what I wasn't aware of when I made the remark about division by zero. But otherwise I agree and do appreciate the enlightening elaboration. Cheers! Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Lane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Use of ambiguous words, March 2017
In attempt to use sophisticated vocabulary, kindly do not add ambiguous words, which can lead a sentence to have a dubious meaning. This occurred previously in your edits when you used "so-called dictabelt evidence" in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, casting a doubt on the authenticity of the dictabelt recording itself.
This refelcted again in your recent edits on David Atlee Phillips when you edited "In 2014, at a conference dubbed The Warren Report and the JFK Assassination [...]", giving an impression that either the conference never took place, or that it was renamed later.
Kindly be precautious with the words you use from now on. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- You have a poor command of the English language, that's the problem. Just to illustrate, you've mistakenly used the word 'precautious' instead of 'cautious'. Perhaps you would be better off editing this encyclopedia instead? Or, at the very least, stop bothering other editors for their use of common-usage phrases which you've inadvertently read out of context (and moreover, which had only been inserted in the first place because you had introduced a grammatical error into an article). Anyway, Wikipedia is free to edit. If you think you have a better choice a words in mind then go right ahead. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have good command over English language. I am human, and mistakes happen. Mine was a mistake, but yours is repeatation of uncommonly used phrases, and words. You think your vocabulary is common, but it is not.
- I used the word "precautious" correctly. Similar to the word "revert", there are many words that have different meanings in different parts of the world. (If you dont know, in some parts of the world, the word "revert" is used as a synonym for "reply".)
- Thats the issue of English Wikipedia. It is not limited to any one particular country. It is global. So it must be constucted in such way that meaning will remain the same in any part of the world.
- I hope you are understanding what I am trying to say here. It is not about making the Wikipedia "simple", it is about making it global.
- It is not just about the command over English language, or the grammatical accuracy. You previously made one "grammatically correct" edit, which changed the meaning of almost entire article. If you dont remember, this edit of yours resulted in these two lengthy discussions: discussion 1, and discussion 2. From one of these discussions, it is evident that you discussed this edit on another user's talkpage as well.
- And if such discussions, suggestions and/or warnings were considered as "bothering", the talkpages wouldnt have existed on wikipedia, as it is their purpose. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- You say your English is good, and yet cannot even use the word 'repetition' correctly! (Which you've misspelled horribly, by the way.) I think we're done here. Thank you for the input. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, apparently this discussion is over as you've got nothing for a real reply other than pointing out a spelling mistake. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Starting over
As you said, we should really stop fighting. As i said earlier, i have no personal conflicts or animosity towards you. But even when i mentioned about starting over, you didnt respond anything. Hence i have no idea what you are thinking. So let me know. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- ??
I'm willing to walk on any path. Choosing it is up to you. Choose wisely. I mean, we can work on wiki as friends, or we can work "not as friends". —usernamekiran (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)- You see buddy, you have responded on Oswald's talkpage, but you didnt reply to me. It feels bas when you ignore me like this Earl. It is this kind of treatment you give me that makes me think you dont want to be friends with me. I am okay with that too, but just let me know if you want to be my friend or not.
- ??
- PS: i just remembered, a long time ago, i read somewhere "Ego of goofballs doesnt get hurt usually. But if it does, they [goofballs] dont tend to forget it easily." —usernamekiran (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)