User talk:Lethe/archive2
- /archive1: March 8, 2004 – Jan 8 2006
Gstaad
I'm just answering your Gstaad question here in case you don't see it on the Talk:Gstaad page. You pronounce it as "Shtaad." I used to live in Gstaad, actually, and that's how everyone is supposed to say it. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.6.99 (talk)
TFD: Linkimage
Hi there, you voted to provide the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio inline rather than link to it. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Linkimage... Mikkerpikker 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Admin?
Hi Lethe. You've been around for more than two years, have 3897 edits, started a new project, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics, are an involved participant on the math wikiproject, active on votes for deletion, are an all-around nice guy, and on top of it all are from Wisconsin! What more do we need? How about candidating for admin? I would be more than happy to nomiate you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Oleg. Sure, I'd like to be an admin, although the popularity contest that is RfA sounds a little scary. But you made it through unscathed, right? -lethe talk 05:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lethe. You should formally accept the nomination, answer the questions, and post it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Also fix there the ending time to be one week since you post the nomination. Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
RE:My RFA
Can't support someone who's self-nominated twice in a week. -lethe talk 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Should of mentioned I stopped the firest RFA and it was my 15th day aprox of making edits I was new I should not of been running for adminship but you should try to look at how I have improved and read Please do not bite the newcomers Also it was not twice in a week) --Adam1213 Talk + 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a good thing that I did not this may let you vote support! I was new to wikipedia and stuffed up and wikipedia policy Please do not bite the newcomers should contribute to a reason not to hold those two RFAs against me --Adam1213 Talk + 09:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
More admin questions
See them at the bottom of your nomination. In case you did not notice them, might be a good idea to answer them sometime later. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So...
I asked about this particular space on the reference desk and you came with Image:3d_square_root.jpg this plotting, which is exactly what I meant. What's the name of this space? And also, where and how did you plot this? ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- This space probably doesn't have a name, because it's not very commonly used. Usually, people consider real-valued functions of a real variable (whose graphs live in R2), or complex-valued functions of a complex variable (whose graphs live in C2). Since C2 is 4 dimensional, you can't graph those so easily.
- But what you want to consider is complex-valued functions of a real variable. Anyway, the graph of any map f: A → B always lives in A×B, so you can just call the space R×C if you want. Uncommon, but not really any different from the more usual cases. I graphed it by entering the parametric equation
- so that the real part of f was graphed on the y-axis and the imaginary part of f went along the z-axis. The program I used is called Grapher for Mac OS X. A very nice program, easy to use, but for some reason, it gave me some very ugly colors for that graph, especially after the JPEG conversion. I should have changed them.
![{\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\\z\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}t\\\Re [f(t)]\\\Im [f(t)]\end{bmatrix}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3e30b0fa602da03587b2f6f46c7c60cb0a81b072)
- I see, makes sense. Unfortunetly I don't use a mac so I can't use that program, but that parametric should work anywhere else. :) ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, you're the guy who once asked about doing Fourier series with square waves, right? I had once intended to follow up with you about that, because I thought it was an interesting question. But I think I inadvertently closed the browser with my reply on your talk page before I finished it. I did try the calculation at some point, but it didn't work for me. I had some thoughts, I wonder if I still remember what they are. -lethe talk 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was me. In the end a simple lowpass filter gave me an excellent approximation, but I still wonder if t would be possible to approximate the sine with different methods. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's very interesting. This is why I wanted to plot this space, it seemed really interesting. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
sig?
Soo .. why are you running around, changing your sig? I don't get it .. linas 16:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the same question earlier, the answer should be buried in Lethe's talk archive somewhere. I believe Lethe is doing that to avoid working on more serious things, like writing some good math article. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Succesful RfA!
|
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
second order ZF
Hi Randall-
I was on Trovatore's talk page for some other questions, and your conversation with him about whether Morse-Kelley set theory was a second order language or not caught my eye. I noticed you mentioning second order ZF, and I am curious about what that is. Through your comments, I gather it's a second order logic with sets and classes, or something like that? I looked for it under Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, but of course there's no mention. And about languages versus logics, second order logical language redirects to second order logic. The article doesn't talk about any distinction. hmm... -lethe talk 09:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is ZF with logic of second order instead of first: this means that there is a second sort of variable representing general collections of objects of the base sort (collections of sets, i.e. classes) or alternatively predicates of sets (amounting effectively to the same thing). The schemes of separation and replacement are then replaced by single axioms in the obvious way. The resulting theory is formally similar to Morse-Kelley set theory but its semantics are different because of the different way that semantics of second-order logic are treated (a model of second-order ZF must have its universe of classes equal to the true power set of its universe of sets; this will not be true of all models of the first-order MK theory. This may all be as clear as mud, of course... Randall Holmes 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
hey lethe... just wanted to say i'm glad you're active. call me sometime. -lmd