1 |
Sections older than 12 months may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Permutations
The problem is than the premise is false. n-tuples are not permutations without repetitions. n-tuples are only n elements ordered lists. Not all the possible different ways of arranging n elements of a given set. I am going to use a correct simpler wording for you.
Permutations Orendona (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- The appropriate place to discuss this is on the Permutation talk page, so other editors who watch the page can see what you write and reply there.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary revert of unnecessary edit
Why did you revert the IP-editor's change to Hyperbolic functions?
You're right the edit Special:Diff/987147529 by IP editor was 'Unnecessary' – it didn't improve the article's contents. However, even if not necessary, I think it was useful – it made the linking simpler, so the overall structure of articles got improved a tiny bit.
OTOH your revert Special:Diff/987148009 was even more unnecessary, IMHO – it didn't improve the article, either, but it added unnecessary copy of the page in the history and it made indirect reference to the other article instead of existing direct one. --CiaPan (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oops! My mistake. I am accustomed to seeing Wikipedia articles in singular form and didn't look at the target article, so I thought "inverse hyperbolic function" was more direct than "inverse hyperbolic functions". Sorry about that!—Anita5192 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But some small families of functions (trigonometric, hyperbolic and their inverses, or Weierstrass functions) are described collectively, making an exception from the rule. Funny thing, the article which you modified is among those in plural, too. Happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Undo on Group (math) page
Regarding your undo of an addition done to the Group (maths) page. I must recall you the wikipedia rule "do not delete, improve":
Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?
In fact, your comment to the undo has been "redundant and sloppy grammar": it is obvious bad English is not a reason to undo, just a reason to improve.
About "redundant", it is something opinion based. Another wikipedia rule: the balance should be tilted towards keeping it. It is best to have a phrase that some users do not need or miss a phrase that some user needs ?
In concrete, to be considered "redundant" you should explain where page has a content equivalent to the one suppressed.
- Your edits have been reverted, in part, because they were redundant. They added little more than what was stated immediately before. If you think the text you added is important, then please continue this discussion on the talk page for Group (mathematics).—Anita5192 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Undo of 18:32, 24 November 2020 in article Bisection
Dear Anita 5192, given your contributions to this article, I obviously bow.
But "Not helpful" still seems harsh to me. This form is elegant, concise, valid in any case (even if y_1 = y_2) and it shows the role of p_1 and p_2 ...
Never mind...
Good regards,
MuPiKa (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Undo of Energy on 05:31, 7 December 2020
Thanks for noticing. I meant to change the word "work" to "energy" but didn't. You are much more experience and expert than me, so I will defer to your opinion on whether noting that energy is a scalar is worth the space in the introduction. editeur24 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi, thanks for your feedback, I have read it and will take it into account for future contributions. Thanks! --Fractally (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You undid my edit
Hello, there. I noticed you undid my edit on mathematics, saying the term "maths" is incorrect. Can you explain this, please? I never hear anyone use the long term, and maths redirects to "mathematics". GOLDIEM J (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Pronunciation
My advisor was an Aussie and he used "maths" in conversation. Pronounced /mæθs/; rhymes with "baths". Though it probably doesn't rhyme in RP because they would pronounce "baths" as /bɒθs/ or something, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. I have always lived in the United States, and so I have never heard anyone use the term "maths," and I was not aware that it was common in the United Kingdom. I also thought anyone using it would use a hard "th" as in "math," instead of a soft "th" as in "baths," which, I think, would be difficult to pronounce.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- By "hard" th you mean voiced? I think it's unvoiced in both the s and non-s forms. I don't see why it's any harder to pronounce than "baths", which is a slightly awkward word, but the only plural that "bath" has.
- Anglophones often think that consonant clusters that are rare or don't occur in English are "hard to pronounce", but a lot of times they're just not used to them. I had a Greek friend in grad school named Xenia, pronounced /ksɛnjə/, just like it's spelled. People were always wanting to put a vowel between the /k/ and the /s/, but it's really not necessary. The /ks/ cluster doesn't appear word-initially in English, but it's not actually "hard to say", just unfamiliar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, maybe you're using "hard" to mean "unvoiced"? For clarity, the th in "this" is voiced; the one in "think" is unvoiced".- Now that I think about it, maybe "baths" is pronounced with a voiced th, /bæðz/? It's a word I use rarely enough that I'm not quite sure. In any case, I'm pretty sure "maths" is unvoiced, /mæθs/. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Wiki problem display negative power
My change was not a test but an attempt to get an expert involved. A table that should show X power -1 omits the minus sign: the minus does not show before I edited. With my edit two minus signs show, which is better than zero minus signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8001:5DF0:D1C5:6C61:411D:1571 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate you trying to fix the minus sign at Abelian group, but two minus signs are not better than none. Wikipedia has a software bug. Editors have tried several times to kludge it to no avail. This has been reported multiple times now on WP:VPT. We'll just have to wait until the administrators fix it properly. In the meantime, try increasing the magnification of your browser.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is also a recommended practice on Wikipedia to leave an edit summary to indicate your intentions.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Requesting some topic expansion help
Greetings,
Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
what can we say about an eigenspectrum of a square matrix with strictly positive diagonal values
hello anita,
dr eppstein said my inquiry was not his forte, so i thought maybe i'd ask you.
if i have such a matrix whose diagonal values are strictly positive, then can i say anything about the resulting eigenvalues also being strictly positive?
i don't think this is as-easy as i'd want it to be.
i am thinking the optimal decomposition (numerically precise) may yield eigenvectors whose eigenvalues are negative, and that imposing a strictly-positive constraint on the eigenvalues would yield a suboptimal solution?
if you don't know, who might? wanna ask around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.159.44 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Anita5192: sorry for the ping, not sure if you saw this. i would love to have an answer :P
- I don't know the answer to your question. This one is beyond me. Good luck!—Anita5192 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- no problem. it seems so "easy" but then you think about it and wonder if we can really give any guarantees on the bounds of one, knowing the bounds of the other! 198.53.159.44 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you can find a dependable source for this, you should consider adding this to the appropriate article—perhaps at spectrum of a matrix.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Revert at Chinese remainder theorem
Hi, Anita5192. Why did you revert my edit at Chinese Remainder Theorem? To be clear, I did not mean to suggest in my edit summary that there exists a unique integer x satisfying the congruences. Although I realize it was unclear, "a single integer" was meant to refer to the fact that x is a singular integer, so I'm not sure if it's grammatical to write "there exist integers x". At any rate, to say "there exists an integer x" does not preclude there being more than one, so no extra meaning is conveyed by "there exist integers x". Lester Mobley (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, both versions have problems. I thought of other variations, but they were not completely correct, either, so I reworded the sentence as in one of my textbooks.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- What's the problem with "there exists an integer"? Lester Mobley (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- That implies there is only one solution.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It certainly does not. "There exists" is a quantifier which does not mean the same thing as "there exists a unique". Lester Mobley (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- That implies there is only one solution.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, I think your rewording is fine. Just clarifying that "there exists an integer" is also fine. Lester Mobley (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Revert in Polynomial#Definition
Hi Anita, You reverted my edit quoting that the notation though incorrect, was "traditional". You had asked for discussing on the talk page before reverting your revert. I have done so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polynomial#Summation_Notation_in_Definition_Section). But shouldn't you have started the discussion on the talk page about it when you understood that my edit was legitimate and had mathematical merit. --Niteshb in (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have much more to say than what I wrote in my edit summary. I'm waiting for some of the other mathematicians to reply.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
greatest common divisor (why you´ve removed my part)
Hello,
why have you deleted my small part in gcd? In other math articles there are also "youtube" sources.
So please go and delete them also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scityscit (talk • contribs) 08:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
why did you removed my editing on the "greatest common divisor" article?
I left an editing in the section "other methods" and I gave an source. Other mathematical articles do also have youtube video as sources. Why do they still exist?
Best regards Scityscit (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Although YouTube is acceptable in some cases, it is not a dependable source of mathematical proof. See WP:YOUTUBE. Also, if other mathematical articles cite YouTube, that does not validate its use there, not does it justify its use elsewhere. See WP:OSE.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- (A side comment from a Talk page stalker.) @Scityscit and Anita5192: One should always remember that YouTube is NOT 'a source'. That site is a collection of thousands 'channels', each of which has its own author(s), its own topical profile, and its own level of reliability, credibility and quality. So calling the name of YouTube as a 'source' has more or less the same sense as saying something is sourced 'in a press' or 'in the Internet' – every time one needs to indicate the specific journal, magazine or newspaper, the specific website or the specific channel and reference some estimation of that specific source's reliability. --CiaPan (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Your revert on generalized inverses
It seems you reverted my edits on generalized inverses; see [diff here][1]. Reason: "This technical jargon did not make the article easier to understand.". Classifying generalized inverses by the subsets of Penrose properties they satisfy has a rich research-history behind them. See the book [Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications][2] and observe the whole book is organized based on these properties. Is there something specific you don't agree with? Kaba3 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- My reversion had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. I reverted your edits for two reasons: 1. None of your edits were explained with an edit summary, which editors should always provide. 2. The set-theoretical notation (An -inverse of , where . . .) is too technical for non-mathematicians. The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience. So, I reverted to a previous version of those sections, because it was simpler and easier to understand by readers not already familiar with the more advanced notation and concepts.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- On edit summaries: "Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary". On notation: Writing about {1,2}-inverses is better than repeatedly writing about "inverses which satisfy properties (1) and (2)". I think it is quite clear. It is also the notation used in the literature. About general audiences: clearly mathematics cannot be written to the general audience. The fact is that mathematics builds layer by layer on itself, and to understand the current layer, you need to understand the previous layers. How do you suggest the article Vector bundle should be written to the general audience? I added back a dedicated section on I-inverses. Note that the I-inverses are mentioned in the generalized inverses of matrices; removing then breaks also that section. Kaba3 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hyperbola
Thank you for reviewing and correcting Hyperbola#Rectangular_hyperbola. I think the mistake you noticed, is that a hyperbola has two branches, so it is not a catenary. I edited the article to reflect that difference. Please check what I did.
Wikipedia is accurate because of editors like you, who notice and fix errors. Comfr (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Your edit to Screenwriting has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --182.1.165.240 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
?—Anita5192 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Refer to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Indonesian "stub"-related vandalism. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Edit on page Bijection
Good day,
I am quite new to editing wikipedia, so I wanted to make sure why my edit on the page Bijection was reverted. This is in order to make better contributions in the future, so these questions are not only with regards to this edit: I will gladly except that it is unnecessary/not suitable.
-Only one source: Do I need more sources that state exactly the information that I am adding? (In this case that biunivocal => one-to-one correspondence) Or do we need more instances of usage?
-Uncommon usage: This is true, it was difficult to find this usage, which was part of the reason I added it. Does this make it unsuitable for the page or could it perhaps be included somewhere lower down (for example: "uncommonly referred to as biunivocal")
-OR I am fairly sure I understand this. In this context, what would the source need to say in order for it to not be considered OR?
Kind regards, KoosTheReader (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since your source is the only one I could find in a browser search, the synonym seems obscure at best. It might be appropriate to insert it somewhere farther down in the article, with a section title like, "Alternative nomenclature".—Anita5192 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.KoosTheReader (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit reverted on Tangent space article
Hello, I recently had an edit reverted and was warned for sockpuppetry. I don't understand how the sockpuppetry warning occured since I have only (to my knowledge) edited from the SFeesh account.
More importantly, I think that my edit was mathematically correct. Specifically, in the section Definition via derivations, a derivation at a point in a smooth manifold is defined to be a linear map satisfying the Leibniz rule . My main issue with this is that the definition needs to involve the point , but here it does not. Moreover, the expression must be a real number by definition, and as written it is not.
The definition is fine, but the Leibniz rule needs to be to make things correct (since are real numbers by definition). If you do not believe me, you can read the definition of a derivation at a point in the book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by John M. Lee, near the beginning of chapter 3 on tangent vectors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFeesh (talk • contribs) 10:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, I think what you are saying is correct, so I put the text back the way it was. I warned you about sockpuppetry because I saw the same edit from three different accounts. In the future when you post a message on a talk page like this one, please sign your post with four tildes, as noted on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Revert in Levi-Civita symbol/Cross product (two vectors)
Hello
You revert my contribution and I should like to understand why.
My change only concerns the first sentence of this paragraph. So it is very surprising that it can be redundant. Anyway, this sentence contains two contradictory parts and needs to be changed.
- the first part is: “If a = (a1, a2, a3) and b = (b1, b2, b3) are vectors in ℝ3”
- the second part is: “represented in some right-handed coordinate system using an orthonormal basis”
We have two options
- keep the first part (). In a coordinate space such as , the vectors are not represented by n-uples but are n-uples. In addition, usually, the orientation of the space is the canonical orientation and the basis is the canonical basis (standard basis). That may be recalled but in any case, the second part must be removed.
- keep the second part. This requires to be placed in a general vector space and no longer in . In addition, specifying a little the notations can’t be a bad thing.
I choose the second option, and you disagree. Do you agree with the first option? May you explain why you do want to stay in ? And please, what is redundant with what?
Regards--KharanteDeux (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because:
- Your edit of Cross product (two vectors) changed very little, since implies ℝ3.
- You duplicated three existing sections: Vector cross product, Triple scalar product (three vectors), and Curl (one vector field).
- Your edit was unexplained. That is, you left no edit summary.
- About your three points:
2) I apologize! I made a bad manipulation. I just wanted to edit "Cross product (two vectors)" and I haven't seen all these duplications.
3) Sorry. As you said, it’s was a little change and I thought it’s was not necessary.
1) As I said above, the sentence must be modified. I’ll keep my option, being careful not to repeat my error.
Thanks for your involvement. --KharanteDeux (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- About your three points:
Reverted edit because not helpful
The initial part of the edit i made in the section of perihelion precession of mercury in Tests Of General Relativity corrects an inaccurate physics statement of the previous version, saying that the object trace out an ellipse with the centre of mass at the foci. This is not true in Newtonian mechanics, and becomes only approximately true if one of the body is much heavier. Please consider changing this statement to the one i edited.--Ruhenheim (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Bad Toys 3D
Hello Anita!
Do you remember this game. download it here.
https://archive.org/download/BadToys3D_1020/bt3d.zip
There is also a prototype...
https://archive.org/download/BadToys_1020/badtoys.zip
Happy playing and don't forget to make an article on it.
Nitheesh Yevan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitheesh Yevan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Quintic equation
In your recent edits of Quintic equation, you have removed the sentence Daniel Lazard wrote out a three-page formula
. It seems to be a mistake, as the remaining reference does not correspond to the text that precedes. Please, fix it, since I cannot do it myself per WP:COI. Also, because of the elapsed time between the two references of this paragraph, it seems worth to mention the date of my paper in the text. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry about the deletion! I have reinserted what was missing. If this is not completely satisfactory, please let me know and I will fix it as you think best.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Edit request
Hello Anita5192, regarding User:Anita5192/common.js, first thanx for using my version of log-out. I need one favor, on your common.js page the very last line
// [[Category:FlightTime's custom user scripts]]
,
could you please remove that complete line, it's putting your page into that category which is not correct. Thank you very much, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Triangular numbers
Hey :) I see you've reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangular_number&oldid=prev&diff=1045053331
You wrote "relevance". I've added this since 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ is the article about triangular numbers when n goes to infinite. It seems like a relevant "see also", could you please explain why not add it?
Tal Galili (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see someone else already reverted your revert and explained. Tal Galili (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)