Hello, COVIZAPIBETEFOKY! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I gave an answer to your RD/math question there. The idea is salvageable - if all possible absolute values of an algebraic number are 1, then it must be a root of unity. To be more concrete, if u is a complex number which is an algebraic integer (its irreducible polynomial f(x) over Z is monic), and if all the complex roots of f have absolute value 1, then u must be a root of unity.

The final /constant coefficient of f is just the product of all the roots of f, so if all of these have AV 1, then the final coefficient is an integer with AV 1, i.e. 1 or -1. Because the irreducible poly of (1/u) is the same as f, except for the coefficients being reversed, this implies that the irr poly for (1/u) is monic, and that (1/u) is an algebraic integer too, and thus a unit in any ring of integers of a number field, (which is equivalent to saying that all the p-adic absolute values of u are 1). Then the argument I gave at the ref desk shows that u must be a root of unity.John Z (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COVIZAPIBETEFOKY, Would you care to activate your email ie "email this user" feature? Coviza2 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My email is activated, and has been working recently. Maybe the servers were too busy if you are having a problem. You can use my talk page if you wish. The argument above is too prolix - if the constant coefficient of f is +/- 1 then just looking at the poly f shows (1/u) as a poly in u, a unit of Z[u].Cheers,John Z (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've made this edit. Your contributions at the math desk seem well thought out and helpful. Thank you! hydnjo (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks! --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi COVIZA, I've started a discussion on the .9... article here. You should probably participate in the discussion. Best, ceranthor 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for context. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look up percentages for basic literacy, and tell me based on that how much more qualified, statistically, white people are for being president than black people. 87.91.6.33 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up Slippery slope. It is possible to know the facts without being racist. This was not a question about whether white people or black people are more qualified to be president; it was only a question about statistical trends. Barack Obama is more qualified to be president than the vast majority of white people. So were John McCain, George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and all the other presidents before them. These are all people who are clearly exceptional cases, and it is meaningless to speak of them as somehow representative of their race or people who share the color of their skin. While it may be technically true that white people are statistically more likely than black people to be qualified for presidency, that is also an equally meaningless statement, for the same reason: when we're talking about people who are qualified for presidency, we are talking about a tiny fringe of the entire population, not the general population. The kind of statistical trends that we have been talking about have little to say for the outliers.

Every civilized person today knows from personal experience that black people are highly capable of being very intelligent people; that doesn't mean we should refuse to understand the statistical trends. How else do you expect the quality of the lives of black people to improve, if no one understands that they are disadvantaged to begin with (not by any inherent disability, but by society and upbringing)? Is it racist to say that black people are statistically more likely to be brought up in a disadvantaged neighborhood, and therefore have more difficulty achieving any respectable level of academic success? There is no government-enforced form of segregation anymore today, but there are still societal forms of segregation; black people are more likely to live in areas where the schooling systems leave plenty to be desired, and even those who go to better schools are less likely to get the motivation they need from their parents and other figures to succeed.

These problems continue to exist for pretty straightforward reasons: If your parents don't give you the necessary motivation, then it is that much harder to succeed in an academic setting, and poorly educated parents are less likely to provide that motivation. This creates a vicious cycle that is difficult to break out of. Black children in the 1960s had little parental motivation, and those who managed to achieve their dreams in spite of it gave their children better opportunities, but most didn't, and the next generation was slightly better motivated, but not much so, etc. The result is that, to this day, there is still a distance between the academic and, as a direct consequence, industrial achievements of white people and black people.

Is it really racist to suggest that society has failed to uphold the values of the movement for equality that MLK started in the mid-20th century to their full potential, so that blacks are still unequal to whites to this day? A variety of careers out there require facing these facts every day; are you seriously suggesting that every single teacher who has personally witnessed the gap in demographic proportions between honors and regulars classes, or between schools of differing achievement levels, is racist? I sure hope not. And teachers are expected to teach differently to their honors vs regulars classes; is this racist as a consequence of said difference in demographic proportions? Should we force more black people to take the honors classes, and more white people to take the regulars classes, in the interest of not being racist? --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP of the question that caused this discussion and I am surprised and sorry for its outcome. I couldn't imagine that the discussion in the math RD would take such a turn. Indeed, as an European, I was not even thinking about Afro-Americans at all and also not about discriminating people. It was much more in the direction of modern stereotypes of the kind "the French are such and such", the "German are normally like ...". made by people who meet perhaps 200 members of these ethnic groups each year. Unsurprisingly, I am happy with the math part of the answer to my question: if I manage to get 1,000 aleatory member of a group (ethnic or not), I can know the percentage of members who have this feature. It applies to positive and negative features, obviously. And, it doesn't imply that you won't treat each individual case as an individual. You can use the information for constructive purposes too. If you know that India has a high level of educated, but badly paid employees, you could consider investing there, for example. Quest09 (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 87.91.6.33 has given up. Perhaps just a troll? --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think trolls give up when they are being successful, i.e., getting attention. I think 87 was just projecting his/her own beliefs on to others. Eric. 82.139.80.114 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who wrote a bit about the prejudice side of the question, I haven't responded to the above because it's not worth responding to. What you just wrote "It was much more in the direction of modern stereotypes of the kind 'the French are such and such', the 'German are normally like ...'" is simply racism, of the same kind the Nazi's in Germany show at the moment. That you seek mathematical confirmation worries me deeply. (You're not from Munich, Germany by chance are you, OP?) I can't make it more clear than this: you can NEVER say "the French are such and such" even if you've met every single French person alive. You can certainly say people in the Paris area are such and such. What's the distinction? Anyone can choose where they live, but no one can choose what nationality YOU will group them into. I'm simply not going to dignify a 1939 discussion with any further input. The very request for "Germans are normally like ..." is deeply shameful, and if you can't see that, try asking your mother. Why don't you move toward an enlightened philosophy and make her proud? (Seriously, I can't believe that we are having this discussion in 2011). 82.66.59.1 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself, and not addressing any new concerns. I'm done playing your game. I've been happy to explain why statistics about demographics is important, because I do think it is valuable to understand. However, I see that you have no interest in understanding it, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps. If you reread the Quest09's post above, you'll see that he/she was not making any "request" for justifying such a statement. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks COVI. And no, I was not trying to found a mathematical base for my prejudice or for the prejudice of others. Some stereotypes are even positive. I was just asking how many cases you have to analyze in demographics until you come to the conclusion that x% of a group have this or that feature. There is no racism or possible drama in it. Obviously, I still believe that you can say things like "x% of ethnic group X are ...". For example, "97% of Europeans are literate". Is that racism? Quest09 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going form "97% of Europeans are literate" to the statement "Europeans are literate" would be racist. 82.66.59.1 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Europeans are literate", to a percentage of of 97%. It is not an immutable trait, it has been different, but it is like that right now.Quest09 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations and the fact that IQ tests have a standard deviation of 15, and the fact that IQ is roughly a normal curve, and the fact that 95.44% of a population is within two standard deviations of the mean on a normal curve ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) would you agree with the statement 'South Africans have a lower IQ than Germans, to a percentage of 95.44%'? (Since if you add 2*15 -- two standard deviations -- to 72, the mean for South Africa, you get 102, the mean IQ for Germany). ??? Really, you would outright make that statement? 82.66.59.1 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@COVI: You are probably tired of this discussion taking place in your talk-page. It's all 82.66 fault. @82.66: Calculating IQ implies a new set of problems. IQ is not a well-defined concept that can be measured accurately independently of your knowledge. The book that you cite above seems to have several problems, which is not the case of my questions and assertions. However, saying that "the rate of literacy in Germany is higher than in South Africa" does not seem racist to me. So, it the income higher. I don't claim that these are immutable traits, or motivated by race or genes or whatever. These are just facts. Quest09 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, Quest09. I'm kind of enjoying this, actually. You don't see a case of such deliberately self-imposed cognitive dissonance very often. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha what in the world does your username mean?? JamesMazur22 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mystery. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion to remove your comment, firstly since calling someone a moron is a straightforward violation of no personal attacks, and secondly because replying to this guy (who it's pretty clear is also the person who doesn't believe in mathematics) looks like it's almost certainly feeding the troll. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:0.999..., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new to wikipedia. I was commenting on the overall quality of discussion going on there. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do argue that every single post that you didn't delete in that thread is serious, and not just a joke. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you left a comment using someone else's signature, and then reverted SineBot to maintain what appears to be a signature forgery? Singularity42 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Algr is a retard. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk · contribs): signature forgery and personal attacks. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COVIZAPIBETEFOKY, it's really not ok do that. I see you around the math ref desk sometimes and you post good stuff there. I haven't looked at Algr's posts so I don't have any opinion of them, but faking other users' signatures and calling people retards is unsubtle enough that it's going to swamp out any deficiencies in Algr's posts, and attract outside intervention and probably get you blocked. Can you please agree to cut it out? This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and of course articles like 0.999... are going to attract contributors with strong opinions and weak mathematical understanding (WP:RANDY). If you have trouble dealing civilly with such editors, it's best to work on articles where they don't congregate. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you know my history at all, you'll know that I will give numerous very patient and thorough explanations, and observe others doing the same, long before I resort to personal attacks.

And yes, Algr has a very long history on 0.999... He had a pretty long period off the thread, but he returned fairly recently. There doesn't really seem to be any point in trying to explain things to him, although I and several other editors do continue to do so, as you can see on that very same thread.

I don't really give a shit if you block me; all that happens in that event is you've just lost a decent editor, for a very petty reason on your part, since it's obvious that no one was actually fooled by the edit. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COVIZAPIBETEFOKY, I'm not going to block you--I don't even have a user account (much less an admin account), so figuring out how to block you would be a pretty amazing trick. I don't want for you to get blocked, which is why I stopped by here, to ask you to stop editing that way, so we don't lose you. It's not worth getting blocked about something like that. It's better to just walk away from the conflict and take a break from editing, or edit a different subject for a while. Of all the many awful things wrong in Wikipedia and in the world in general, somebody being silly on the 0.999 talk page is not even in the top million. After you see it enough times, you should sort of get used to it and stop letting it bother you. If the person is really being obstructive, ask for someone else to look into it and comment, or seek admin help if there's real misconduct involved. Or just shrug it off and do something else for a while: enough people watch that article that it will eventually get sorted without your having to worry about it. Either way, don't lose your cool. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for forging another editor's signature, and then making personal attacks on that editor when challenged. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you right away if you accept that your behavior here was unacceptable and you make a commitment not to repeat it (or anyone else can unblock on the same conditions without needing to consult with me). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. Staying away from the article and its talk page for a while probably would have been enough, so I was planning to suggest that. COVIZAPIBETEFOKY, for what it's worth, I do think the fake signature could have fooled people. And even if someone checks the edit history to see what happened, making them do that is disruptive. http://xkcd.com/386 describes the situation you're up against pretty well. Don't let it control you. I hope you return to editing and avoid this sort of thing in the future. Regards, 67.119.15.30 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]