User talk:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive3
Period at the end of formula
I found a solution to prevent breaking the line at the period while still putting the period outside the <math> tags. I created a template Template:nobr for it; see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics for details. cesarb 19:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let us see how the opinions develop on this. Oleg Alexandrov 20:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Modular arithmetic and spelling
I have no plans for modular arithmetic theory. I thought per our earlier agreement that the sections on rings, music, art, applications, and 'see also' would be stripped out of the article on modular arithmetic and placed into the article modular arithmetic theory, but I see this hasn't happened. I think the current modular arithmetic article is terribly non-standard point-of-view-ish and unbalanced in its treatment (e.g its obsessed with rings and ideals and yet has absolutely no mention of group theory -- this is just plain bizarre, and is not how the topic is treated in 'mainstream' education).
I thought that the solution to this point-of-view problem was going to be to strip out the modular arithmetic article to its bare bones, keep it at a grade-school level, and then encourage all newcomers to edit the 'theory' article instead, right?
However, I don't really want to touch this prickly cactus again; I'm busy with other things.
Sorry about the spelling, I'll try harder. linas 04:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, I'd be willing to nominate you as an admin, if you are interested.
Your time here is longer than 3 months, and you have over 4000 edits, so most people would be satisfied. There might be some reason to wait a few weeks longer - 4 months is better, in a sense.
Anyway, what do you think?
Charles Matthews 14:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Charles. Well, I am surprised and flattered. Thank you for your offer. I thought about it very carefully. I woud say, I feel that I will have to decline it, and I probably will not change my opinion for at least three more months. This for several reasons.
- First, the big number of edits you mentioned is partially because I have been doing many really small edits, and partially because recently I have been shamelessly employing a bot to do work for me with minimal or no user interaction.
- My second reason is that I still feel I am learning to play by the rules, here, so I do not feel comfortable or ready having more responsibilities.
- My third reason is that I am still learning how to balance Wikipedia with other things in my life, and this makes me feel a bit ambivalent towards commiting myself more to Wikipedia.
- But I do appreciate your offer, and I leave the options open for considering it at a later time. Thanks a lot! Oleg Alexandrov 17:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
interpretational notes on mathematics articles
Hi Oleg, I've been reading around the maths area a lot more lately, and it doesn't seem to have many notes to help with interpretation. The articles seem great for people who need a refresher, but not so great for people needing to solidify their understanding (maybe this parallels a possible general tendency for mathematical education to focus on notation and have a total lack of essay-writing etc.). Is this is a deliberate policy or could I start adding interpretational notes without causing a ruckus? (on principle that is, maybe my style or content will cause a ruckus, but that's another matter!) Conskeptical 12:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you that some articles could need to be more elementary or explained in more detail. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of lessons; one also cannot in great depth at every step. So, there is some balance to strike.
- You are certainly welcome to modify articles to make them easier to understand of course. To not cause much ruckus, as you say, probably it is good to do that carefully, on an article by article basis, maybe first asking on the talk page and such.
- So, back to your original question. I don't think there is a delibirate policy to write articles which are hard to understand by non-specialists. It is just, for a given article, the contributors to it probably thought that's the best way they can write it. That's why your contributions are very welcome, again, as long as there is some consultation on the talk page.
- If you would like a community-wide discussion of this, you could also post your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. And let me know if I was not specific enough about some things. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 15:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Oleg, I will bear all this in mind! Conskeptical 10:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Text editor support
Hi, I just wanted to tell you (as this page is linked to from three of your sub-pages) that contraction (mathematics) has been moved to tensor contraction, but the redirect goes to the disambiguation page contraction because of the disambiguation request on it beforehand. User talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 10:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I will keep that in mind. Oleg Alexandrov 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Your promotion is well-deserved and if anything, should have happened earlier! Oleg Alexandrov 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I saw your changes on Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Would you mind visiting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and comment in some detail what you have in mind? I mean, I assume you belive a wider discussion of Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics should be necessary, then you could as well be explicit and start one. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 03:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have no personal opinons about how math articles should be written. I was cleaning out Category:Style guides and found this page mis-categorized there. It did not look like it had enough community support to be tagged a "guideline", so I tagged it "proposed" and posted on WikiProject Mathematics as suggested on the talk page, to draw attention to it. If there is enough community support from people interested in math articles, it can be promoted to "guideline" in the future. -- Beland 03:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. When I initiated this article I should have made it explicit what is going on. The material in this page is not new, rather it was moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, with the relevant discussion having taken place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive6#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics_has_this_article_lost_focus.3F Thus, I think Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics underwent quite a bit of vetting, altough to some digree it is indeed still a work in progress. Oleg Alexandrov 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
a while ago I added to scalar field some formulas which are supposed to explain the difference between a vector field and a scalar field. You removed then, as I expected you to do, saying they don't make sense. I'm talking about this:
The first and third line are equations for the same scalar field, expressed respectively in cartesian and cylindrical coordinates. The second and fourth are for the vector field which has the same components in cartesian coordinates, but not in cylindrical, which is the whole point of these equations. The problem with scalar field and vector field is that they fail to mention this completely. Instead they focus on whether a function maps to R or to Rn, but that is just not the difference. I can form a scalar function to Rn simply by extending the codomain. I realize these articles talk mostly from a vector calculus standpoint, but that includes cylindrical coordinates, does it not? One bad explanation I can think of is that you do not yourself understand the difference between scalar and vector fields. Please tell me this isn't so. --MarSch 14:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is about the following diff, the section titled "=== Difference between scalar and vector field ===".
- My reason was that you inserted those four formulas in the article without any commentary whatsoever. I believe the worst way one can teach something is to write a bunch of formulas without explanation and say "go figure it out!". Oleg Alexandrov 14:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it didn't explain them yet. But even a very bad explanation is better than no explanation or even the wrong explanation. And I was reluctant to be bold, so I thought I'd throw in the formulas and see what would happen. Particularly I was interested in how you would explain it, after I'd pointed out the lack of a proper explanation. You haven't said you disagree that there is no proper explanation, but still you remove my hint. It would be really helpful if you would try harder to preserve information. I already put my formulas tidyly in a separate heading, so I don't really understand your need to clean up after.
- The reason I dodn't elaborate more is as said, that I like to see what other people do when I indicate a direction I think an article should go. This helps me form an opinion. Explaining what a scalar field is, almost necessitates that you explain also what a vector field is. Thus they might benefit from a common treatment in one article. I see little point in repeating such an explanation in a haphazard way in both articles. This is Occam's razor. Don't multiply what needn't be multiplied. I'm guessing that you would like to keep the articles separate, so perhaps you could indicate how you think the explanation should be made. --MarSch 10:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Come on MarSch, you don't like to be bold? You like to first write things a bit, then see how it goes? :) If so, these are qualities you aquired very recently. :)
- To be honest, I deleted that part because I did not understand it. And that's to be expected, since there were only formulas, and no words. I would suggest you don't put anything in a wikipedia article which looks really really unfinished. Looks bad on the page. One more remark: words are a much better medium than formulas to convey thoughts. Oleg Alexandrov 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also, vector field and scalar field are linked to from many places. They should be kept separate, even if this involves some repetion. This is good pedagogially. Also, if you put too much differential geometry emphasis on those articles, they will be harder to read by physicists and other non-mathematically trained people. We can discuss this in more detail. Oleg Alexandrov 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be protecting the status quo. I haven't seen any suggestion for how to improve the articles. I guess I will have to be bold. Maybe that is your suggestion.--MarSch 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you would like to merge those articles, please first post this on their talk page. It is always good to have discussion before rather than after. Oleg Alexandrov 02:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi MarSch. That is very helpful, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 14:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
extra blank lines
Hello. Generally I also removed extra blank lines when I find them, but the ones in law of total cumulance are there for a reason, and I think you should remove them only if you disagree with the reason. Michael Hardy 21:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I visited that page and saw that indeed whitespace had a purpose on that article, improving legibility. So thanks for reverting after my bot. I will now go and replace those empty spaces by explicit linebreak, to make sure my bot does not mess it up in the future. Oleg Alexandrov 22:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear Oleg, I suggeest to change mathbot's script so that
- he replaces only MULTPLE occurences by ONE blank line.
- That's how it works now! Do you have a counterexample? :) Oleg Alexandrov 15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- he marks these as MINOR EDITS (he's flushing my watchlist !)
- I don't know how to make the bot mark things are minor. But they will show up on your watchlist anyway, minor or not, so why it matters? Oleg Alexandrov 15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But I wonder whether this activity (rm blanks) is really useful :
- blank lines improve legibitlty when editing
- But if you leave more than one blank line, the spacing is too huge. Besides, most people leave the blank lines by mistake, and in some places there is no blank lines, in some places there is one, in some places there is a lot. Looks bad. Try to see three or four places before I removed the blank lines, and after, and let me know what you think. Oleg Alexandrov 15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- rm a blank line saves 1 byte on the page; but makes a duplicate of the page in the backup database in addition to notifying this change to all users having it on the watchlist - I think it is by no means economical and such operations (if there's noting else to do on the page) heavily increase load on WP without big improvement - why not restricting automated changes on more important things ? — MFH: Talk 13:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you don't need to worry about the database; there are 8000 only math articles on Wikipedia, of the half a million other articles, many about really strange and uninteresting things. And I change only the math articles.
- Now, you are right about flooding the watchlist. I always thought the advantage of having a clean looking article outweighs whatever discomfort one has by seeing one more edit on your watchlist. But I see your point. I won't bother with removing the whitelines unless asked otherwise.
- Now, about making automated changes on more important things; that's not easy. The more complicated something is, the less likely it can be done with a bot without active user intervention. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- PS See the big blank space three paragraphs above to illustrate what kind of spaces I am trying to remove. And thanks for calling my bot a he. Could you write a she robot so that my bot would feel less lonely (now, please don't say my faithful he-bot is just piece of poorly commented perl code) Oleg Alexandrov 03:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Good edits to Schwartz-Christoffel theorem. I was wondering if you had any better examples than the one I put in?
Robinh 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Robin. Mine was just a copyedit. About examples; the first non-trivial example which would come to my mind is how one would map an ordinary triangle to the half-plane (maybe start as simple as an equilateral triangle). But I am not sure if the resulting mapping would look as simple as the one for the strip.
- This is an interesting theorem by the way, and I am kind of surprised this article was missing so far. Oleg Alexandrov 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm The Drini
- The one in PlanetMath, :) CryptoDerk got me into the Wikipedia bandwagon, and so far I've liked it a lot, it's more dynamic. drini ☎ 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you this place is more dynamic (but we also have to worry about vandals and hoaxers :)
- If you continue being as prolific here as you are over there, we would need to pay you a salary or something. :) Oleg Alexandrov 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work in categorizing the math lists, and for creating the Category:Derivatives and integrals. That is very helpful.
No problem, and thank you for the offer. I'm afraid my time online at the moment is very much restricted - my Wikipedia presence has dwindled down to virtually null - but I'll consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics when I have more time on my hands. — Itai (f&t) 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am using auto-sign. You see my IP-adress but do not get too paranoid because anonymous servers can be used too ;). You are talking about metaphysics and pseudosciense. I'll take your interpretation as suggestion that you are afraid of something. I can talk about the implications to geometry, One Stone's theory of special relativity and Heisenberg's ideas too, if you insist so ;) -Santa Claus
Hi Paul. I want to ask you a favor. Somebody moved gradient to gradient (calculus). This was done without discussion, and without disambiguating the links. I think this is one of those situations in which gradient better stay what it was before; besides the other meaning now put in the gradient disambig page is also mathematical.
So, I wonder if you would agree with me that the thing needs to be moved back, and if yes, if you could do the move (since you have the admin powers). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Oleg. I agree that gradient (calculus) should be moved back. But I'm not sure that Gradient qualifies as a speedy delete. I have asked CryptoDerk for advice. Paul August ☎ 20:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok I've moved gradient (calculus) back to gradient. Oleg you want to write something on the talk page about the move? Paul August ☎ 21:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
MathBot's dummy edits
Could you try to replace MathBot's dummy edits to refresh the 'what links here' feature like this one with a so-called null edit (an empty edit without summary)? According to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What really links here, this also does the trick, but it does not clutter up my watchlist. Thanks. Jitse Niesen 11:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Jitse. Thanks, this is very good to know. For now I turned off the dummy edits thing, and soon I will try to see if the empty edit thing works. Oleg Alexandrov 15:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Jitse. I tried the blank edit thing. It works if I do it by hand, but unfortunately it does not work if I do it with the bot. I believe the uploading software I am using (MediaWiki) refuses to even submit an article if it did not change, and I don't know how to fix it. Any suggestions? :) Oleg Alexandrov 04:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no suggestions; I have little experience with either bots or Perl. Just use the old method again. -- Jitse Niesen 11:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good. If you feel that thing really bugs you, then let me know. I can have it scheduled to run once a week too. Oleg Alexandrov 14:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hardy-har-har. That edit comment caught my eye. linas 15:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That comment was meant to catch your eye. :) By the way, what is "Hardy-har-har"? Something like ha-ha-ha, or maybe some quantum theory jargon? Oleg Alexandrov 15:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm from the german Wikipedia and i'm looking for pictures of Moldova especially it's capital, Chişinău. I've already asked Danutz and he told me that you might be the right person to ask :). Greetings --Perconte 14:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Perconte. Yes, I am from Moldova. But unfortunately I don't have any pictures of the city. I have been mostly in US in the last six years, and it would be easier for me to find pictures of Los Angeles rather than my home city. :) Oleg Alexandrov 16:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh no! :) Well, though luck i guess. Nevertheless thanks for you reply! :) cu --Perconte 17:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
sorry but I was out of time and I could not really explain the Routh-Hurwitz theorem (a simple one, but the notations are really heavy...). Actually, it is useful to test the (Hurwitz) stability of a polynomial. If p-q=n where n is the degree, then the polynomial is stable. It has some other applications I will add later in the article. But to me, the Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion is just a consequence of R-H theorem. So we can either keep RHsc and explain it better or add the part to the main RHth part.. (consult e.g.  to have an idea of what is the criterion).
- You are right that Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion looks like just a consequence of the Routh-Hurwitz theorem. But merging them could be tricky, since the former is very much focused on applications of this theorem to differential equations (control theory), while the latter is purely the math machinery. If the Routh-Hurwitz theorem stays very mathematical, I would vote for keeping (and expanding) the Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion as an application, which would be understandable to engineers. Let us see how it goes. Oleg Alexandrov 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, I feel there's some misconceptions about Hurwitz polynomials. Some people write that for a polynomial to be Hurwitz stable, all its coefficient must be positive. But if you multiply a polynomial by (-1), it will have the same roots so it will stay stable and have all negative coefficient...
Anyway I'll enhance the RHtheorem in a few days, cheers and thanks for your help Julien Tuerlinckx 12:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I will be glad to help if anything is needed. Oleg Alexandrov 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
spelling bugs (again)
The mathbot robot just changed "focussed" to "focused" in General Relativity but both spellings are acceptable. There are some cases where two spellings are permissible, but one is preferable, as in "buses" vs "busses" because the second can mean vehicles or kisses, but you might want to allow "focussed." There are many similar cases, such as "traveling" or "travelling." Pdn 00:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I knew about "travelled" but not about "focussed". Thank you for letting me know, I will avoid replacing that in the future. Oleg Alexandrov 00:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Punctuation (or mathbot's edit summary)
- No problem. Luckily my mistake could have been worse, such as having an actual misspelling in the edit summary. :) Oleg Alexandrov 02:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It was indeed one occurence at neural network (I keep a log of everything I am doing). I will pay more attention. Oleg Alexandrov 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That would require rather big changes to my code. I don't plan to do it soon. What I will do though, is put in the edit summary a link to the log describing the changes. Oleg Alexandrov 03:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regexes is a fine and accepted plural of regex, please do not change it to regexps. (The former can be pronounced, the latter cannot.) See Regular expression nomenclature in Friedl, Mastering Regular Expressions. Arbor 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are right. I was fully aware of what I was doing, I just happenned to like "regex" and "regexps" more. I will not do it again. Thanks for letting me know. Oleg Alexandrov 15:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The context of this article needs to be improved. This all started when I started the disambiguation page precision. Def (1) on that page refers to the precision of measurements and points to accuracy and precision where those concepts are elucidated and discussed. Def (5) decimal precision redirects here to an article that I originally wrote within that specific context. However, it was correctly pointed out that it applies to numbers expressed in some other radix and it was edited.
I think that it is wrong to set this in the context of measurement as this gives rise to confusion with the different use of precision in accuracy and precision. "Decimal" precision is relevant to (say) pi but that is not a measurement. Needs sorting out. Cutler 16:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comments (and edits) on Dym equation. I'm afraid I have no idea how to solve it--I just happened to see it in a paper yesterday and thought I'd write it up. But watch this space!
Robinh 06:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Got it. :) Thanks for the article. By the way, I would like to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. A lot of the math community gathers on its talk page, and is a good chance to meet people. Oleg Alexandrov 15:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies for interrupting, but apparently you need inverse scatting to solve the equation. This is a highly nontrivial theory (read: it's a total mystery for me), which requires pages to explain. Furthermore, solve should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't want to scare you, inverse scattering seems to be a nice machinery and it is one of the things which I'd like to more about, but do reserve some time for it. -- Jitse Niesen 16:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments
Thanks a lot for your detailed comments and remarks on my math editing. I will follow them in future.
I have one question about ISBN. I looked at your corrections on the Differential equations of mathematical physics page. The ISBN links are now okay. However, when I tried to see how you did it and clicked edit this page, I could not see any changes. Do I have to use square brackets as it is normal for making links?
Regards, Andrei Polyanin
- To see what changed on a page, you can click on the edit history and then compare two versions of an article (for example, by clicking on "last"). To make the ISBN a link, I just removed the colon after it, so instead of ISBN: I had just ISBN. Thus, ISBN:123 becomes ISBN 123. Oleg Alexandrov 03:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'd also like to thank you for posting an encouraging message on my page. I'm still getting the hang of this wikipedia thing, but it's fun! njh 07:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(moved to talk:Derivative)
Mathbot is taking off a day or two till I iron out some bugs (could be the MediaWiki upgrade which causes problems, or who knows)
Oleg Alexandrov 28 June 2005 05:07 (UTC)
- mathbot back to business, now handling Unicode. Oleg Alexandrov 30 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)
Feedback on WP:PMEX
Although my net access will be very restricted in the few months to come (that's why I haven't been quite active), I was glancing over the combinatorics section and I wonder how it works. for instance, I created central binomial coefficient which it said that it need to be copied from PM, and now what, I edit the PMEX page and add a note? I recall CryptoDerk once told me not to edit directly those pages, but I cant' recall the reason. Thanks on the feedback. drini ☎ 28 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)
- You would need to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange/05-XX Combinatorics and post the note there. See the instructions on top of that page, and the examples in the section ===05A10 Factorials, binomial coefficients, combinatorial functions=== on the same page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 29 June 2005 02:44 (UTC)
Hi from trovatore
actually I'd already gotten the default welcome message, and moved it to a subpage.
I put the math-stub notice at the top of the prewellordering page because I wanted to make sure it wasn't ignored (I was concerned someone might think the page was a dictionary definition). I've changed it to an expansion notice now that I've added another section. --trovatore
- Thanks for letting me know. Oleg Alexandrov 1 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
Oh, also -- maybe you could look at my code on the prewellordering page. Depending on the size of the browser window, it's breaking things in awkward places, such as between the < and the *. --Trovatore 1 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
- I fixed that by forcing it to be an image. But, according to Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics it is frowned upon putting formulas which end up being pictures unless they are on their own line. I have no better ideas though. Oleg Alexandrov 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
- Thanks. My theory is that it's a temporary problem--once MathML is fully supported by all browsers, we'll want everything to be in TeX. Caveat is I've never actually seen MathML work well, but I'm trusting for now. --Trovatore 1 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
- There could be 10 more years till MathML is widely adopted :( Till then, using html instead of Tex seems to work better in places. Oleg Alexandrov 1 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
- Thanks. My theory is that it's a temporary problem--once MathML is fully supported by all browsers, we'll want everything to be in TeX. Caveat is I've never actually seen MathML work well, but I'm trusting for now. --Trovatore 1 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome
I am Srinivasa sha from india. thanks for the welcome me into this great web-system.
- Thanks for your message. But I don't know much about that, sorry. You can post your question on the talk page of that article. Reading fuzzy logic and fuzzy set might help too. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
Re: question regarding list of mathematicians
That is strange: I had only intended to remove the superfluous
__NOTOC__, but perhaps while I was saving the page, it shorted out, and so a considerable part of the article didn't save. Thanks for informing me, regards , Anser 3 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
- That kind of funky things indeed do happen. Thanks for your quick response. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
subarticle on manifold articles
Hi Oleg, I'll thank you for not destroying the structure of the manifold articles. --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I think we rather talk this. Oleg Alexandrov 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)