Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) →Disambiguation link notification for March 10: Created section. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Earl of Arundel (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
Kindly be precautious with the words you use from now on. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
Kindly be precautious with the words you use from now on. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 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 [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Earl of Arundel|Earl of Arundel]] ([[User talk:Earl of Arundel#top|talk]]) 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:13, 21 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)