Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Anita, I need your help very much. I have a draft, Fabien Vienne, i have many problems at references. some peoples give me some references, but idk how to do it. Please help. The references links in here [1]. Bera678 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For help, please read the links in the latest post on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give reference I explain my modification and you erased it for no reason even you can see that the version of Spanish have it look https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial#Soluci%C3%B3n_n%C3%BAmero_negativo_factorial

Arrobaman (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this on the article's talk page, where another editor has already replied.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anita, I just noticed this revert. Of course I agree that a period after an exclamation point is incorrect, but the '!' character in the factorial expression n! is not a punctuation mark here. All authors that I know of, write the period in sentences that end with such an expression. See for instance

• Joseph K. Blitzstein; Jessica Hwang (2014). Introduction to Probability (illustrated ed.). CRC Press. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-4987-5976-2. Extract of page 225.
• Piero Olla (2014). An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 51. ISBN 978-3-319-06188-7. Extract of page 51

I can show a gazillion of such examples if you like . So I have undone your revert. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to show me examples. I'll take your word for it. Aside from the mathematics and grammar, I also thought "n!." looked awkward.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good excuse to generate a few citations with my home-written (in AutoHotkey) automatic formatter that generates a proper citation when I have a book page open in Google Books Search. I just love doing that, and it still works . - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anita, thanks for your continued maintenance of Moore–Penrose_inverse. In Special:Diff/1193373705 you removed unnecessary spaces. I agree that trailing spaces are bad, so thank you for removing those.

However, I see a lot of value in leading spaces used for indentation. While they are unnecessary for the MediaWiki parser, they are not redundant for us human editors. They clarify the structure and make it easier to parse multi-line expressions, making it easier to maintain articles. Imagine having to maintain computer program source code where all indentation was removed.

For similar reasons, I also see some value in spaces inside of XML tags and sometimes parentheses. They simply make it easier to see the math and ignore the markup.

What do you think? RainerBlome (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spaces I removed did not make the source text any more readable.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We expect that the article Commutator will provide a cogent definition for the term within the next three years. 98.115.164.53 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Commutator article already has cogent definitions for the term. As it is a fairly advanced mathematical concept, most readers may not understand much beyond the simple definitions.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anita!

Is this the place to write a message? I am not an expert on Wikipedia. But I'm a mathematician, and modulus is usually denoted by m, while for a degree of a polynomial you can use d, n, k usually in modular arithmetic. As m and n were both used in the previous line, that's why I went with d, but feel free to change it to k if you prefer that. 193.224.79.242 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not boxes, it is a set of overlapping Venn diagrams. For instance, mechanical engineers would disagree with limiting gravity to physics. There are way too many articles that start with "In XYZ" that imply "XYZ and nothing but XYZ" Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my recent edit to the pigeonhole principle wiki page, and the reasons given why are not exactly satisfactory, so I have been left somewhat confused.

You said:

"This is not a good example. In hashing, n is typically far greater than m, each bin is expected to contain many items, and full bins spill over into the next bin. Also, single quotation marks should be double."

Ignoring "Single quotation marks should be double" for a second as I assume you're right on that, I don't understand why this is not a good example of the principle.

Surely we are not trying to argue that this is not an example of it at all? Taking that as an assumption, it's not clear why any of the other things you listed make it a bad example.

1. Is the principle restricted to cases where n > m but also n ≈ m? That doesn't seem to be the case.

2. Does the principle hold that each bin is not expected to contain many items? I don't think so.

3. Do bins not spill over when full with regards to the principle? Again, no.

So why is it a bad example? Seems like quite a good, practical example to me. Far more practical than talking about the number of hairs on the heads of Londoners, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMcCarthy17 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reinsert it, go ahead, but use double quotations marks.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you intend to revert my report to AIV or am I missing something? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought I was removing a post from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism put there by a vandal, but I see now that that post was already removed and I deleted your post instead. I just put your post back.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]