User talk:JoergenB

Welcome!

Hello, JoergenB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I see you're taking an interest in operations, an area where we could use some help. Thanks! Melchoir 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any experience with using these talk pages, so I don't know if I'm supposed to answer your question to me by editing my own talk page or yours. If you think the subscripts are hard to read, you could change them to upper case. I just re-read your other suggestion. Are you wanting to re-index the sequences from 1 to k, instead of 0 to k-1? If so, I would prefer that you not. Having had a class from Dijkstra, I am a firm believer in the benefits of counting from zero, one of them being that the upper bound on the index is also the length of the sequence.NoJoy 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

No problem, Joergen. Indeed, we probably got into an "edit conflict" (editing the same page at the same time). See Help:Edit conflict for a detailed description of the issue. Conscious 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your user logo

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's no etiquette about how to write names when mentioning other Wikipedians as far as I know. My user name is plainly "Kieff", and I just used a stylized version in my signature to break the boredom and to make it stand-out from normal wiki links. If you want a suggestion, when you talk about someone else, just stick to the actual, non-formatted username of the person (the username that you see in the user page, example User:Kieff or User:JoergenB - of course, you'll drop the "User:"). That's what I do, it keeps things simpler. Besides, a lot of people are using absurdly fancy signatures nowdays, so you'll just save yourself from all the effort to deal with that crap. :P

Anyway, the reason why I "fixed" your edit was to make a clearer text-flow (no junk formatting in the middle of paragraphs). It keeps things easier to comprehend when editing because the fancy formatting code is kept for the signatures at the end of lines. That way you can safely ignore them. Hope everything is clear, and have fun editing! :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for giving credit?

You wrote: "..and there are some nice templates, which make it very easy to inform the reader of sources from sister Wikipedia, and which you may place under the heading references. " Joergen, can you point me to one of these templates? Thanks, EdJohnston 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'... one of these templates' - yes, one I can provide, for translations from German; but I have not been able to find the category to which it should belong:-( I have been looking around at templates for some hour now, and I find it more confusing now than when I started. For your 'one example', look at recently completed translations from German; e.g., at

Herta_Müller#References

where the first line was produced by {{German|Herta Müller|[[July 28]], [[2006]]}}. This is nice enough, I think; but if I don't find the same for all or at least many languages, I'll have to retract my statement.

I've been at wp for less than two months, and I sometimes still find some things fairly confusing. The template namespace is one such thing. JoergenB 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I hear you. I have had the same experience with alot of Albanians about the Kosovo article. They cant see that we will never accept calling it Kosova (I will for sure as long as I live). I don't think this is a trend only among Swedes but I can see that in a world like this when we tend to use more English in our native speak and the use of ghetto-dialects (I think of Rinkby-svenska, which I consider a rape on our beutiful languge), people is getting more aware of what they call their land, city, province, etc.

I see that there is a big missunderstanding when some Swedes say Göteborg ans some Gothenburg. As we know Göteborg tends not to call them self Gothenburg anymore officially but the name is very old and well settled among the English speakers, thats why the article is named Gothenburg here. Well that is okey for me but when you use the latin form (for example Dalarna) I think this is going to far (even if I know this is the "proper English" name. Although I have never the intend to destroy any work here on Wikipedia. Österbotten will always be Österbotten but I see that it's best to call it Ostrobothnia (region).

Do you teach at university level? Well I guess they should have said Henrik if it was a Swedish text or? We all know that we use the latin for of the pope, but acctually I heard and interview with the spokes women of the Catholic Church in Sweden after they new pope Benediktus was elected and she said that they give him a Swedish name called Benedikt, just like the did with Johannes Paulus - Johannes Paul. But if they said "John" it would be acctually disgraceful. Best regards - Litany 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, otherwise I always links a page like this: Österbotten.

Aha, I understand. I read history at Uppsala University before, so there is a big chance a teacher one day (for upper secondary school). Now I am in Crotia to attend Zagreb University in learning the Croatian language for one year.

Yes Henrik would be the proper name in Swedish, although I dont think that it's wrong if they would say Henri rather then translate him as Enrique. The mistake in DN and by TT was clearly the "anglification". I think that even more proper in Swedish would referring the late pope as Johan Pål, instead of Johannes Paulus, but now do we use the Latin form of the pope so no deal to argue about the "proper" Swedish name. Hehe

So do you live in Rinkeby or some other suburbs? My origin is also from one of Stockholms suburbs and I grew up with this horrible "dialect" around me in school and etc. But this is my POV. Best regards - Litany 12:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Conventions

Hello Joergen,

The english version of wikipedia does have a formal policy that "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more details) so that would be on the english version as having the place names generally in the english with the swedish to follow in brackets, in terms of swedish place names there is the following policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish). I think in terms of getting a more expert response, posting your query on the naming convention discussion page might get a better response than I can provide. I hope that this is of some use, if you need anymore help feel free to ask and thanks for pointing out the typo on the geography wikiproject. Good luck :-) AlexD 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

Certainly. I tag things as historical when I note there is no ongoing discussion; if discussion starts anew, it's a good idea to remove the historical tag (or replace it by {{proposed}}). Note, however, that there may be very few people watching the talk page, so it would probably be a good idea to ask for feedback at e.g. the village pump, WP:CENT, and/or some relevant WikiProject. >Radiant< 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, JoerganB. Thanks for the welcome. This is my first attempt at doing anything on wikipedia, but I have done some work on lowering the upper bound of R(3,3,3,3).

I've never seen Ramsey's original paper, and I am not sure exactly what he used the theorem for. I do think that it would be interesting to have a historical section in the wikipedia article with a discussion of the context in formal logic in which he needed to apply the theorem, and how he actually formulated the original theorem(s) in his paper.

--Ramsey2006 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the standard welcome template on peoples' pages. I haven't had time to check it out much, though. I did find a page that tells how to use some TeX notation here, so that should be useful.

Yes, I'm the "K". Here's a link to to an updated version of my unpublished manuscript. (I did notice on some math dept page at your university that you have an interest in Ramsey Theory)

The Ramsey Number R(3,3,3,3) Is No Greater Than 62

I don't actually know much about the history of the subject. I got into it in a rather roundabout manner. There are some small finite symmetric integral relation algebras (which I tend to call the "coloring algebras") whose representations are essentially good edge colorings of complete graphs with some additional existential conditions. The additional conditions essentially say that every possible triangle (except for the monochromatic triangles) must exist off of every edge. The 2 color relation algebra has a single representation, the pentagram. The 3 color relation algebra has exactly 3 representations, the untwisted and twisted colorings on 16 vertices, and another one on 13 vertices. The 4 color relation algebra has a representation on 41 vertices. That may be the only one known. I'm not sure. Fan Chung's good 4-colorings on 50 vertices are NOT representations.

Now that I think of it, it may be open whether the n color relation algebra is representable for every n or not. I'll have to ask a friend of mine about that.

When I started looking at R(3,3,3,3), I had seen the comment in the introduction of Kabfleisch and Stanton in which reference is made to a private communication with Erdös, where he states that a Hungarian Philosopher had succeded in proving that R(3,3,3,3)=66, but that the proof had not been checked by a mathematician. Since it is hard to imagine how such a proof would go without actually constructing a good coloring on 65 vertices, I set about to find the coloring on 65. Had it existed, it would have been another representation of the 4 color relation algebra, since the existential conditions would have been forced to hold simply by virtue of the sheer size of the representation.

I can still remember the day when I suddenly found the color of edge after edge being forced on me, adding an edge every couple of minutes, seemingly converging on unique coloring, when suddenly the whole coloring just evaprated in a sea of contradictions. (I didn't know at the time that Folkman had proved the same thing a couple of decades earlier.)

Later, I ran across a (false) comment in some edition of Berge's book, "Graphs and Hypergraphs", where he says something to the effect that there is no good coloring on 65, but that one does exist on 64. (A quote by the character Scotty on one of the original Star Trek episodes comes to mind here..."Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".)

Still, the same feeling of converging in on a unique coloring, with the color of edge after edge being forced on me before the entire coloring evaporating into a sea of contradictions has repeated itself several times now. Of course, in hindsight, I can always see why I should have been aware of the contradiction much, much earlier.

I've looked around a little, and did notice some things here that could use some work. The Relation Algebra page needs work, not to mention a complete revamping of notation. The notations used there is almost unreadable. (Enclosing in parentheses to represent boolean negation, for example, which makes it impossible to use parentheses in equations normally.) I also noticed that there is no page for Cylindric Algebras or for Boolean Algebras with Operators.

--Ramsey2006 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About a mathematician mindset

Joergen, it was meant as a compliment. Just because I tend to be more impatient and impulsive doesn't mean I can't appreciate a more tempered and rulebound approach to encyclopedic cyber life. As a matter of fact, I'm sometimes quite in awe of that slow, methodical and analytical style of yours. What do mean you think I peaked at your user page??! He, he. I agree there needs to be more structure in order to avoid constant conflicts and bickering, but only as long as it doesn't strangle creativity and make people don't want to contribute because it takes to much work and effort to check out and learn all the different sets of rules and stylesheets in effect. It's a balancing act, for sure. Thanks for working so hard on getting the Scania name conflict settled. I do appreciate it very much. Love, Pia

Discussion of name change of Skåneland

Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. - AjaxSmack 00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Meier

I have moved John Meier (disambiguation) back to John Meier. We only need the parenthatical comment if John Meier is taken (as it stood, it was just a redirect page, so I cut out the middle man). I also removed the disambiguation header from the top of the article. The only way someone is going to find these pages is if they click on a link or if they type out John Meier (Australia), so the need for dab is unnecessary. Hope you don't mind these changes. And yes, I was only aware of the biblical scholar before today.--Andrew c 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the disambiguation header from the top of the article. So yup ;)--Andrew c 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoergenB. To keep consistency, are you able to rename John Meier (Australia) to either John Meier (politician) or John Meier (Australian politician) as all other disambiguated SA politicans are done that way. I would do it myself but I haven't learnt how to do this. If you can do it, it would be great. Cheers. Timeshift 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :-) Timeshift 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0.999... != 1

   1) Is a rose a flower? (Comment: Small children are sometimes stating things like There were three roses and two flowers there.)

A "rose", whatever it is, is irrespective of human designation. A "rose" would still be a "rose" whether or not any human being was there to smell it or not. That being said, according human taxonomy, a rose is indeed a flower, and a flower can be a rose or some other plant with specialized leaves that serve as sexual organs.

   (2) Is a square a rectangle?

Following the logic above, a square is what it is. According to human mathematic theory, a square is indeed a rectangle.

   (3) Is 0.25 = 1/4?

Now, then. These things actually do not exist. Therefore, they are entirely reliant on human logical consistency. Since 1 over four can be represented as twenty five percent, and there are no recursive numbers, there is no cognitive dissonance, so yes, they are in fact the same thing.

   (4) Could the same number have different representations? Could you give an example?

"Numbers" are a human concept created to help us navigate through reality. As long as there is no cognitive dissonance, a number can be represented in many different forms.

   (5) Are integers rational numbers? Why/why not?

Integers are rational numbers because there is no cognitive dissonance required to claim that integers are rational numbers.

Norn language

Thanks for letting me know about your edit. Personally, I think the hyperlinking of Lord's Prayer provides enough explanation, but I can understand your point. I've changed the formatting slightly, but I've left your change in place. Thanks! :o) — OwenBlacker 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Ballads

That sounds all right to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

To your nutshell comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology neccessary

That is why I said "close" to snide. I didn't think your intentions were malicious. I agree with what you are saying, but I was just trying to stay consistent with the linking article on Natural selection. I gave up trying to make certain changes in the article. I share some of your concerns that the present effort to simplify evolution may lead to more misconceptions, but I'm trying to be Neutral and supportive of the present crew of editors attempt. A lot of experts have contributed in the past so I think it fair that novices have a go. I don't consider myself an expert on evolution, but I am a (biological) scientist and it has been a hobby for thiry years. I did teach an introductory course on evolution to undergrads twenty years ago. I bet it would be comical to compare a syllabus of then and now. I have been in research (mostly cell signalling) until recently. That said, my bias is molecular. I find the Wiki process enlightening, frustrating, and interesting. I apologize if I sounded thin skinned.GetAgrippa 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]