User talk:Zundark/archive2004

Hello. A few months ago, in a moment of stupidity, I too removed the self-link from fixed point. Then I realized why it's there and put it back. I've put it back again. Michael Hardy 00:03, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But it's just a joke; it shouldn't really be there. Looking around, I see we have similar jokes at Recursive, Recursion and Self-reference. Sigh. --Zundark 09:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, in VeriSign you've removed the italics on .net and .com, but don't you think they deserve a special typesetting to distinguish them from ordinary words ? I did, and that's why I italicized them, like I would do with (non-assimilated) words in foreign languages. --FvdP 18:21, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Italics look a bit strange for top-level domains, which is why I removed them. If you want a special typesetting (which I agree may be desirable), wouldn't .net and .com be a better way of doing it? --Zundark 19:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That looks nice. --FvdP 19:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zundark, I'm looking for the name of the theorem "if L is a linearly independent subset of the vectorspace V and G is a generating set of V containing L, then there exists a basis of V which contains L and is contained in G." In German we call it "Basisergänzungssatz", but I get very few Google hits for "basis extension theorem", most of them written by Germans :-) AxelBoldt 12:06, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's a standard name for it in English. I've seen it called the Vector Basis Theorem, and maybe the Incomplete Basis Theorem, but these have even less Google hits than Basis Extension Theorem. Also, all of these names may apply to the weaker result that every linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. --Zundark 16:06, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zundark, because you revert my changes af the Game of life-Article, i would like you to thaught about the part i wrote, to build in the article. You can test the Structures, they are not nonsense. In german Wikipedia i am the user Arbol01. --217.233.244.23 12:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that the structures were nonsense. But you wrote "There exist exact three size of LWSS", which is not true (only the first is a LWSS, the others are MWSS and HWSS). Also you labelled them all in German, which is not appropriate in the English Wikipedia. And the rest that you added was not about Conway's Game of Life, so it should not be in the Conway's Game of Life article - and again, the German names are unlikely to be the usual names in English, so you should find out what the usual English names are and use those instead (but in a different article, please). --Zundark 12:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Zundark, i didn't mean, that you say nonsense, and i don't thought, that oddities mean nonsense. I am german, my english is not so good, and i am do not know the english names of Structures. I proof, the rest is about the Game of life. The most Systems use only 23/3, means two or three neighbars let the "culture" life, three neighbars let born a new "culture". 34/3 35/3 and 3/3 are only other rules in the same game. I don't want you, to let my changes in the article. I want you, to think about the ideas in my changes, and if you could use some of them. Nothing more, nothing less. In www.wikipedia.de i started an own article of game of life, that i think will change in many ways through the time. --217.233.244.23 13:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quaternion: Oops. Thanks for reverting my erroneous "error". That'll teach me to edit what looks like a mistake when I'm tired! dmmaus 11:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the TLD advice. --Zantolak 23:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding the 12 vs. 13 glyph issue under Arabic Numerals, I feel the "13" version is justified because the opening clause of the statement refers specifically to the modern versions of the system: In a more developed form, the Arabic numeral system also uses a decimal marker (usually a decimal point or a decimal comma) which separates the ones place from the tenths place, and also a symbol for "these digits repeat ad infinitum" (recur). In modern usage, this latter symbol is usually a vinculum. Historically, however, there has been much variation. In this more developed form, the Arabic numeral system can symbolize any rational number using only 12 glyphs. Since the "more developed form" is earlier implied to include a decimal marker, I don't feel that marker should be excluded from the glyph-count. (I suspect that the originally posted 12-count failed to take the "negative sign" into consideration.)

However, I won't change it back yet, because I'm new here and not yet willing to make waves until we've at least discussed the matter. :)

Oh, and sorry about the bold-face -- it was the easiest way I could think of to deliniate the text from the entry.

--Histrion 19:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic numeral system can represent any rational number using only 12 glyphs, so saying it only needs 13 is very misleading. If you feel that its unclear which 12 is meant, you could add that to the article. --Zundark 20:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zundark. I have a question about astronomical unit. It appears [1] that you cited the value 149,597,870.66 km. Google shows that's a very commonly quoted value, but I can't tell where it originated. Do you have a reference for that? I have seen slightly different values quoted, and it's difficult to tell which one is the "correct" value. -- On a related note, there appear to be at least two definitions of AU (aside from the old semimajor axis defn). One is the radius of a circular orbit with period equal to 1 Gaussian year [2]. The other is the distance traveled by light in 499.005+ s [3]. Which of these, do you suppose, is more appropriate for Wikipedia? Shall we mention both? Thanks for any comments you may have. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:14, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about this. My only contribution to the Astronomical_Unit page seems to have been to reformat the conversion factors, as my edit summary says. (Don't believe the diff. Diffs that far back are often completely screwed up, as can be seen from the other diff on that page - the conversion script never made edits like that.) So I can't really help you. --Zundark 9 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep looking. I guess I didn't know the edit history was unreliable. Thanks all the same. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Odd question guaranteed to be a total non-sequitor to whatever you were just doing: is your user name derived from something called Undark paint? -Litefantastic 01:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not derived from anything. It was intended to be meaningless. I checked various search engines to make sure there were no hits for it before I began using it. --Zundark 08:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MD5

Z, I think the editor was thinking of functions as a mapping from domain to range (which in a formal sense, of course, functions in x,y are). But I agree it's a little odd and will be jarring for the average reader willing to actually look at math in an article. Too theoretical and abstract an approach for an essentially engineering oriented article, I agree. ww 14:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JPEG feature nomination

Hi, Z, I just nominated JPEG for feature status, and the comments at WP:FAC are calling for images. I noticed the Polish Wikipedia has some (mentioned on Talk:JPEG). Perhaps you work out some good captions for those images in English? -- ke4roh 02:19, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me. It would be better to ask someone who knows Polish. --Zundark 13:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I asked you because you made the most contributions to the JPEG article, so I figured you understand it at least as well (and probably better) than I do. The first suite of pictures at pl:JPEG seems self-explanatory - the first swirl is a big .PNG, the next one is JPEG compressed to 25%, and the really blocky one is JPEG compressed to 5%. The square of four images shows that JPEG is better suited to compressing images without stark lines by showing the originals (top) and compressed to 5% (bottom) of a blended swirl (left) and a stark swirl (right). The bottom one (Napis Testowy (whatever that means)) illustrates the problems of compressing text with JPEG, showing it at 100%, 75%, 25%, and 5%. I guess we're halfway there. The next step in explaining these pictures is to tie those artifacts back to steps in the algorithm. -- ke4roh 23:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to do it anyway. Those images don't seem very useful to me, and they take ages to download, so I'm not in favour of adding them to the article. --Zundark 07:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on TLDs moved to Talk:Top-level domain - see my reply there.

Hi, I noticed your proof of the redundancy of the commutativity axiom for vector spaces. I had created a different proof a few months ago (during my Linear Algebra class at UVa), and the two mathematics professors I talked to had never seen anything like it before. I tried doing some searches for it on Google, and bothing ever came up. So I'm wondering, where did your proof come from? Did you create the proof yourself, learn it with the subject, hear it word-of-mouth, read it in a book, etc.? Thanks! (By the way, I didn't like the idea of removing commutativity as an axiom; it would take away the property of vector spaces as being derived from abelian groups. I found an alternate way to reduce the axiom list that keeps commutativity; the standard list is derivable from it.) -- Tim McCormack 01:51, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

I think I first saw it on sci.math or sci.math.research. The thread is presumably still on Google Groups, but I can't find it at the moment. (I did find a different sci.math message containing the proof.) --Zundark 11:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Main namespace cleanup

In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:Zundark/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw * 12:30, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)