If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Archives

User Talk:Looie496/Archive 1 User Talk:Looie496/Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You wrote that is convergent because of a certain unspecified connection with the fact that infinite tetration is itself convergent in between and [1]. I was just wondering what that connection might be exactly. — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear that the expression inside the integral converges to zero for , right? And in fact for any given n it converges to zero very rapidly as . So all that matters is whether the expression inside the integral converges to a finite limit for . And if it is restricted to even numbers of x's, it does, right? That isn't a formal proof, of course, but it seems to me to be convincing. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my suspicions as well... Would you by any chance also happen to know the exact value of the limit in question ? — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it can be worked out except numerically, and that seems like it would be a lot of work. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. One more question: We know that  : Can this value be expressed as an exact formula of transcendental constants ? (Like Pi or e, or specific values of the gamma or zeta functions, etc) — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have the slightest idea. If anything it would be some sort of contour integral, but I've never really understood how to do those. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F

"As a result, patents and patent applications are considered both self-published and primary sources for the Wikipedia's purposes. They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 2010...") and attributed statements about their contents (e.g., "According to US patent #6,368,227, issued to five-year-old Steven Olson in 2002, he invented swinging sideways because swinging back and forth might get boring.")" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedind (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sedind (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion from it. The only thing those patents establish is that patents exist. They don't make an invention notable. You need to provide some evidence that those purported inventions are worth discussing before inserting them into the article. There are very situations where self-published and primary sources are usable, and this isn't one of them. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Will do my very best to reliably source any biblical plagues that may arise. :) Moses Thebed (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Paul Bedson again. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson. I'm beginning to think he's certifiable. He created an stub about me having a "serious Christian pov". That's just insane. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free always to move discussions out of my talk page and into article's talk pages! Kind regards, Lova Falk talk 05:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I am not new to Wikipedia as far as "using it for school projects" is concerned.. Having said that, I am trying to figure out a few things to make contributions in a user friendly way including the part about references as you mentioned. AS far as the title is concerned, though its original writings were from yogi Ramacharaka, the title itself is written by a famous "attorney, merchant, publisher, and author", William Walker Atkinson who also wrote many other books regarding psychology and sociology. Many of the concepts from these books were later proven as facts by modern psychologists. Now this is the key word...facts because whatever I have quoted from the book are mere facts not opinion. Also, some of the information borrowed from the book were quotes from another book also on psychology and the processes of the mind! Perhaps, you should read CHAPTER 13 of the book which is in the public domain...before you deleted my input. I only put information on Wikipedia that would prove useful for students and likewise...thank you for reading though...perhaps you would consider reading from the link I give in the references before making any future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekksavvy (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions thanks for answering my note at that page. feel free to add any further comment. would be interested to hear your feedback. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for your related subsequent follow-up note at the Arbcomm page. your note is the first time that I have been able to get some constructive input from other editors or admins on this item. I appreciate it. by the way, I have added a small note of my own to your extremely helpful and well-written note there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i have opened a request at the arbcomm page related to your recent note. it is located at this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: WP:ARBPIA.2FJerusalem. feel free to comment there if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi there. just letting you know, Arbcomm has now replied in regards to that proceeding. feel free to be in touch. if you want, feell free to comment at that proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i personally thank you for your RD\Science answer ! Ben-Natan (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, nope. hmmm. Arbcomm does not wish to intervene in the process, I suppose. I wonder if there is any threshold at which point they would actually say that the process has actually taken longer than it was supposed to take. hard to say if they would be willing to say so, at any point.

well, anyway, feel free to comment if you wish. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, any further thoughts on this? your insight on this has been very valuable. what do you think of the current disposition of this proceeding? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you! ...before I did? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]