Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Geometric progression

2008-08-27T13:02:39Z

DirkE: ==geometric series== just a start

A geometric progression is a sequence of numbers that has a constant ratio of each term to its preceding term. For example, this is a geometric progression: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32.

In finance, [[compound interest]] is an example of a geometric progression. An example would be a bank account that earns an API (annual percentage interest) rate of 5% per year. Every year, the number of dollars in the account is multiplied by the factor 1.05. That is about the same as doubling every fifteen years.

The sequence 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 is simply the "powers of two:" two, two squared, two cubed, two to the fourth power, and so on. This can be written using ''exponents'' this way:
::21, 22, 23, 24, 25
This is why geometric progressions are sometimes called "exponential growth."
==Geometric Series==
Often, the sequence of partial sums of a geometric progression <math>(p^0, p^1, p^2, p^3,...)</math> is of some interest (vide: we are starting with the exponent zero here.) This sequence would be: 
<math>(p^0, p^0+p^1, p^0+p^1+p^2, p^0+p^1+p^2+p^3, ...)</math> and is called a '''Geometric Series'''. How to calculate this? Now, if we look at the n-th element of this sequence, we see: <ul><li><math>(p-1) \cdot (p^0 + p^1 + p^2 + ... + p^n) </math><li><math>=p^1 + p^2 + p^3 + ... + p^{n+1}</math><math> - p^0 - p^1 - p^2 - ... - p^n</math><li><math>=p^{n+1}-p^0</math><li><math>=p^{n+1}-1</math><li><math>\Leftrightarrow</math><li><math>p^0+p^1+p^2+...+p^n = \frac{p^{n+1}-1}{p-1}</math></ul>Obviously, the last step is allowed only if <math>p \neq 1 </math>. So, the sequence of partial sums is (if <math>p \neq 1 </math>): 
<math>\frac{1}{p-1} (p^1-1, p^2-1,p^3-1, ...)</math> - and it will converge for <math>-1 to the [[Limit (mathematics)|limit]] <math>\frac{1}{1-p}</math>.
[[Category:mathematics]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-08-26T20:46:25Z

DirkE: That sounds nice - theoretically

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Urysohn lemma

2008-08-26T20:41:42Z

DirkE: Urysohn drowned in France in 1924. *LOL*

The '''Urysohn lemma''' states:
<blockquote>
If ''A'', ''B'' are two disjoint, closed subsets of a [[normal space]] ''X'', then there exist a [[continuous function]] ''f'' : ''X'' → [0, 1], such that ''f(A)'' = 0 and ''f(B)'' = 1.
</blockquote>
The converse of the Urysohn lemma also holds: if there is such a continuous function for any two disjoint closed sets ''A'' and ''B'' in ''X'', then ''X'' is normal.

[[category: Topology]]

Open set

2008-08-26T20:35:25Z

DirkE: Foxtrot, you didn't spot this? *LOL*

An '''open set''' in [[Euclidean space]] is a set that contains a ball around each of its points. Intuitively, if a point is contained in an open set, then all points sufficiently close to it are also contained.

Open sets are the basic objects in [[topology]], in terms of which all other objects are defined.

[[Category:Topology]]

Talk:Real number

2008-08-25T22:14:55Z

DirkE: /* The "real" world */

==Moved comment from Anjruu==
The introduction is actually a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Real numbers are no more or less "abstract" than imaginary numbers. The author, one must conclude, was trying to allude to the fact that there cannot be an imaginary number of objects, but there cannot be a negative number of objects either. Or perhaps s/he was trying to say that the imaginary numbers cannot be represented on the number line, which is irrelevant, since they can be represented on the complex plane, an equally valid, and more complete, numerical device. Finally, perhaps the author simply meant that the square root of a negative number does not exist, which is wrong. It does exist, in the guise of an imaginary number. While this may seem cyclical, simply because a number is "unusual" does not mean that it is abstract and non-existent.

Illustrations of this fact, and the incorrectness of the introduction, can be seen when solving differential equations which contain a bifurcation parameter, where the method of eigenvalues must be used. There, an complex, "imaginary" solution to one of several equations often contains eigenvalues and thus a corresponding eigenfunction. Therefore, the real-life existent solution to a real-life existent problem depends on an imaginary number. This exemplifies why complex numbers are just as valid as real numbers, and are not merely an "abstract concept," as the introduction erroneously points out. Or to be more precise, ALL of mathematics is an abstract concept, but there exists an isomorphism to the "real world"; an isomorphism that holds just as strongly in the domain of complex numbers as in the subset of complex numbers, the reals.

==The "real" world==
Re: this sentence from the intro:
<blockquote>
''They are called "real" because they actually exist as quantities in the real world, i.e. as measures, weights, temperatures. In contrast, the imaginary numbers are just an abstract concept, but do not exist concretely in the real world.''
</blockquote>
The bulk of that statement simply isn't correct, which is why I removed it earlier. Historically, it was thought that imaginary numbers didn't "really exist," but for the last 200 years or so it's been understood that they do; I believe Cauchy and Gauss were heavily involved in putting that question to bed. Furthermore, there are indeed physical applications of complex numbers. Anything with a magnitude and phase (think alternating current, any harmonic oscillator, communications signals, etc.) is conveniently represented by complex numbers, and they are absolutely essential in quantum mechanics.
:: I second this motion: this sentence should be erased. ''Real numbers'' are as real - or imaginary - as complex numbers. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 15:41, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
'''EDIT:''' I've altered the sentence in question to reflect my comment.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 15:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

As someone who scored in the 99th percentile on my math SATs as a teen, I seem to recall that "imaginary" has nothing to do with imagination. The square root if minus one - termed ''i'' - is called imaginary because it represents a parabola which never touches the axis to leave roots.

The "real" numbers have nothing to do with existence either. It's just that [[rational number]]s can be expressed as the '''ratio''' of two integers, while real numbers cannot.

To some I say don't be misled by the connotations of the terms. To others I say do not deliberately mislead our young readers by adding patent nonsense to the math articles. There is nothing obscure, arcane, or hard to understand about the basic math concepts taught from primary up to high school levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:40, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:Without knowing much about maths, I'm pretty sure that's not right, Ed. The term 'imaginary number' comes from Descartes' work [http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_G%C3%A9om%C3%A9trie ''La Geometrie''] (pg. 380), where he uses the term to distinguish between those possible roots of an equation which are actually possible according to his understanding, and those which are not, or imaginary. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:13, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
::Historically, you're absolutely right, mathematically, less so... Mathematicians often are not at their best when naming new inventions (''elliptic functions'' springs to my mind), so we end up with somewhat unappropriate labels. And then, there's the tendency to overload words, as ''''normal'''' (must be the most favorite mathematical term ever). But that's alright, as there's always the definition to rely on (and these tend to converge over time to a final state...) A problem arises when someone tries to ''interpret'' the label, using the -well- normal meanings. Much of the Sokal hoax relied on this...--[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 18:14, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Again: Real vs. Imaginary==
The statement ''The term "real number" is in contrast to the imaginary numbers.'' (RSchlafly) is IMO a false dichotomy and shouldn't be put in the article.
I like the sentence: ''In classical physics, measurements of real world physical objects that can vary smoothly and continuously, like speed or temperature, are treated as real numbers. '' as it doesn't presuppose the existence of real numbers, but - analogously - you can state: ''In physics, measurements of real world physical objects that can vary smoothly and continuously - and exist from an angular compound and an absolute value - like current or voltage, are treated as complex numbers.'' --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 16:30, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand your point. The terms ''real number'' and ''imaginary number'' are in common use. Are you denying that? Are you saying that they are not in contrast? What do you want? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:35, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Of course, I don't deny the terms. And I acknowledge that the ''terms'' - which can be understood in their historical context - are contrasting. But I don't like the idea to think of the ''real numbers'' as more '''real''' than the ''imaginary numbers'' - especially not because of an etymological reasoning: To quote Kronecker: ''"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk"''--[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 16:47, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Huh? Real numbers are those people concretely use. You can express any amount of dollars with real numbers. What would 3 + 2i dollars mean? Or the length of a segment or a curve: it is "real" and expressed in real numbers. Imaginary numbers are just ''imaginary'' constructions to help our calculations. They don't refer to "real" concepts people use. Thus, the historical meaning of real vs. imaginary is still valid for normal people - and homeschooled students who use Conservapedia to learn. I absolutely agree with RSchlafly. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:53, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually, you can express any amount of currency with rational numbers. That doesn't make the real numbers any less "real," does it? Using your logic, I could say "Pi is a real number. What does pi dollars mean? Nothing. Therefore, the real numbers don't exist." Again, imaginary numbers are ''not'' "just imaginary." They exist just as much as any other number, and have several practical applications.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 17:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::For currency, you use a subset of the rational numbers, i.e., finite decimal fractions (even less, generally: <math>\mathbb{Z} / 100</math>. To speak of <math>\pi</math> dollars (or even $<math>\sqrt{2}</math>) is as surreal as to speak of ''3 + 2i'' dollars. ''Real numbers'' which aren't rational, are just a figment of our imagination, invented to ''help our calculations'', too--[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I realized that and that's why I gave a second example, that of the length of a segment. Do you people really consider real numbers and imaginary numbers equal from the point of view of normal people? Let's not forget who is the target of this project. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 17:30, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Presumably the purpose of articles like this is to provide accurate information, not to confirm misconceptions caused by terminology. Plenty of people use complex numbers regularly, and just because many people don't isn't a reason to have an inaccuracy in the article.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 17:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::In the physical world, it is not possible to find a line segment of length <math>\pi cm</math> (or even of length 1 cm), you may find approximations. For ''normal people'', this may be of no interest. So, for them, we can skip the hole ''real is more real than imaginary'' stuff. We shouldn't mislead more interested pupils by this entry: in mathematics, you go from the simple to the more complex, but not from the ''real'' to the ''surreal''. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

==The Four Number Systems==

Ok, this is something I remember getting taught in advanced maths a couple of years back.

At the beginning of modern arithmetic there was only one number system consisting of '''integers'''. You could add/subtract/multiply/divide, but you couldn't work with parts of numbers, which became a problem if you wanted to, say, divide 3 by 2.

To overcome this a second number system involving '''fractions''' and decimals was developed. Once again this worked for some time, but as maths and engineering grew people came to realise that they could not use trigonometric ratios or square roots with many numbers. They found that many of their answers could not be expressed as a fraction, and that there was seemingly no pattern to their decimal digits.

This lead to the development of a third number system, using surds to represent '''irrational numbers'''. This worked well for some time, and as all the numbers could be plotted on an ordinary axis (although a computer would be needed to plot the irrational ones) they were referred to as '''real numbers'''. However, there were still some numbers which could not be represented, those involving the square root of a negative number.

Finally, a fourth number system was developed, which incorporated '''imaginary numbers'''. Unlike the numbers found in the previous three systems these could not be represented on a normal graph, which lead to the development of the complex plane.

The moral of the story is that "real numbers" are "real" because they can be represented on a standard graph, "imaginary numbers" are "imaginary" because they cannot.

Now, looking at Wikipedia it seems this story is a rather simplistic summary of history, but then again my maths teacher was only using it to introduce us to the imaginary number system. Nonetheless it does show that imaginary numbers do actually exist, even if they may seem somewhat absurd to us. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 18:54, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

==Periodic Decimal Fractions are Ratios==
Just to eliminate this [proof needed]tag: <ul><li>Any decimal representation which repeats or recurs, like 1.86292929292929..., because these can be shown to be fractions[proof needed]</ul>
Now, here's an outline of the proof:
<ul><li>wlog, let 0 < x < 1 be a periodic decimal representation, i.e.,
<li><math> x = 0.\overline{a_1 a_2 ... a_n}</math>. Then
<li><math>x = \frac{a_1 a_2 ... a_n}{10^{n}-1} </math> as
<li><math>x =a_1 a_2 ... a_n \cdot 10^{-n}</math><math> + a_1 a_2 ... a_n \cdot 10^{-2n}</math><math> + a_1 a_2 ... a_n\cdot 10^{-3n} + ...</math> and
<li><math>10^{-n} + 10^{-2n} + 10^{-3n} + ... = \frac{10^{-n}}{1- 10^{-n}}</math></ul> --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 17:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Real number

2008-08-25T21:47:06Z

DirkE: eleminated {{proof}}

'''Real numbers''' include within them all of these other kinds of [[number]]s:

*The positive [[integer]]s, 1, 2, 3, ...
*[[Zero]] and the negative integers
*[[Fraction]]s, like 355/113
*Any decimal representation which terminates (comes to an end), like 6.023, because this is just a way of writing a fraction (in this case, 6023/1000)
*Any decimal representation which repeats or recurs, like 1.86292929292929..., because these can be shown to be fractions
*[[Irrational numbers]], like <math>\sqrt{10} = 3.162277660168...</math>π = 3.1415926525..., whose decimal representations never repeat or terminate.

==Formal definition==

Formally, real numbers are defined as the unique [[Field (mathematics)|field]] which is [[ordered]], [[Complete (mathematics)|complete]], and [[Archimedean]]. The reals can be constructed from the [[rationals]] by means of [[Dedekind cut]]s or [[Cauchy sequence]]s, i.e. it is the completion of the [[metric space]] of rational numbers.

==Infinity==

The real numbers ''do not'' include <math>\infty</math> or <math>-\infty</math> (infinity and minus infinity). However, there are non-standard models of real numbers which include <math>\infty</math> or include both <math>\infty</math> and <math>-\infty</math>.

There is no largest real number, because you can always make a real number larger by adding 1 (or 137.035 or 6.023·1023) to it, and no smallest real number, because you can always make a real number smaller by subtracting from it.

Every real number is finite. One way to see this is to observe that you cannot subtract infinity from itself—the result is indeterminate—but, for any real number '''''x,''''' then '''''x - x = 0''''', exactly.

It is sometimes convenient to have a set of numbers that ''does'' include infinity. For example, in computer programming, "real arithmetic" is often done by a specific system defined by standard IEEE 754-1985; this system is built in to modern processor chips. It provides for values which print out as INF and -INF and which participate in arithmetic as if they were numbers. Thus, division by zero, which was often an error that stopped calculation on older machines, can be a legal operation which simply produces a +INF or -INF result. The system of numbers implemented in IEEE 754 is known in mathematics as the "affinely extended real numbers."

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Real number

2008-08-25T21:46:14Z

DirkE: eleminate proof needed tag

==Moved comment from Anjruu==
The introduction is actually a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Real numbers are no more or less "abstract" than imaginary numbers. The author, one must conclude, was trying to allude to the fact that there cannot be an imaginary number of objects, but there cannot be a negative number of objects either. Or perhaps s/he was trying to say that the imaginary numbers cannot be represented on the number line, which is irrelevant, since they can be represented on the complex plane, an equally valid, and more complete, numerical device. Finally, perhaps the author simply meant that the square root of a negative number does not exist, which is wrong. It does exist, in the guise of an imaginary number. While this may seem cyclical, simply because a number is "unusual" does not mean that it is abstract and non-existent.

Illustrations of this fact, and the incorrectness of the introduction, can be seen when solving differential equations which contain a bifurcation parameter, where the method of eigenvalues must be used. There, an complex, "imaginary" solution to one of several equations often contains eigenvalues and thus a corresponding eigenfunction. Therefore, the real-life existent solution to a real-life existent problem depends on an imaginary number. This exemplifies why complex numbers are just as valid as real numbers, and are not merely an "abstract concept," as the introduction erroneously points out. Or to be more precise, ALL of mathematics is an abstract concept, but there exists an isomorphism to the "real world"; an isomorphism that holds just as strongly in the domain of complex numbers as in the subset of complex numbers, the reals.

==The "real" world==
Re: this sentence from the intro:
<blockquote>
''They are called "real" because they actually exist as quantities in the real world, i.e. as measures, weights, temperatures. In contrast, the imaginary numbers are just an abstract concept, but do not exist concretely in the real world.''
</blockquote>
The bulk of that statement simply isn't correct, which is why I removed it earlier. Historically, it was thought that imaginary numbers didn't "really exist," but for the last 200 years or so it's been understood that they do; I believe Cauchy and Gauss were heavily involved in putting that question to bed. Furthermore, there are indeed physical applications of complex numbers. Anything with a magnitude and phase (think alternating current, any harmonic oscillator, communications signals, etc.) is conveniently represented by complex numbers, and they are absolutely essential in quantum mechanics.
:: I second this motion: this sentence should be erased. ''Real numbers'' are as real - or imaginary - as complex numbers. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 15:41, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
'''EDIT:''' I've altered the sentence in question to reflect my comment.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 15:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

As someone who scored in the 99th percentile on my math SATs as a teen, I seem to recall that "imaginary" has nothing to do with imagination. The square root if minus one - termed ''i'' - is called imaginary because it represents a parabola which never touches the axis to leave roots.

The "real" numbers have nothing to do with existence either. It's just that [[rational number]]s can be expressed as the '''ratio''' of two integers, while real numbers cannot.

To some I say don't be misled by the connotations of the terms. To others I say do not deliberately mislead our young readers by adding patent nonsense to the math articles. There is nothing obscure, arcane, or hard to understand about the basic math concepts taught from primary up to high school levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:40, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:Without knowing much about maths, I'm pretty sure that's not right, Ed. The term 'imaginary number' comes from Descartes' work [http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_G%C3%A9om%C3%A9trie ''La Geometrie''] (pg. 380), where he uses the term to distinguish between those possible roots of an equation which are actually possible according to his understanding, and those which are not, or imaginary. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:13, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

==Again: Real vs. Imaginary==
The statement ''The term "real number" is in contrast to the imaginary numbers.'' (RSchlafly) is IMO a false dichotomy and shouldn't be put in the article.
I like the sentence: ''In classical physics, measurements of real world physical objects that can vary smoothly and continuously, like speed or temperature, are treated as real numbers. '' as it doesn't presuppose the existence of real numbers, but - analogously - you can state: ''In physics, measurements of real world physical objects that can vary smoothly and continuously - and exist from an angular compound and an absolute value - like current or voltage, are treated as complex numbers.'' --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 16:30, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand your point. The terms ''real number'' and ''imaginary number'' are in common use. Are you denying that? Are you saying that they are not in contrast? What do you want? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:35, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Of course, I don't deny the terms. And I acknowledge that the ''terms'' - which can be understood in their historical context - are contrasting. But I don't like the idea to think of the ''real numbers'' as more '''real''' than the ''imaginary numbers'' - especially not because of an etymological reasoning: To quote Kronecker: ''"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk"''--[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 16:47, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Huh? Real numbers are those people concretely use. You can express any amount of dollars with real numbers. What would 3 + 2i dollars mean? Or the length of a segment or a curve: it is "real" and expressed in real numbers. Imaginary numbers are just ''imaginary'' constructions to help our calculations. They don't refer to "real" concepts people use. Thus, the historical meaning of real vs. imaginary is still valid for normal people - and homeschooled students who use Conservapedia to learn. I absolutely agree with RSchlafly. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:53, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually, you can express any amount of currency with rational numbers. That doesn't make the real numbers any less "real," does it? Using your logic, I could say "Pi is a real number. What does pi dollars mean? Nothing. Therefore, the real numbers don't exist." Again, imaginary numbers are ''not'' "just imaginary." They exist just as much as any other number, and have several practical applications.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 17:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::For currency, you use a subset of the rational numbers, i.e., finite decimal fractions (even less, generally: <math>\mathbb{Z} / 100</math>. To speak of <math>\pi</math> dollars (or even $<math>\sqrt{2}</math>) is as surreal as to speak of ''3 + 2i'' dollars. ''Real numbers'' which aren't rational, are just a figment of our imagination, invented to ''help our calculations'', too--[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I realized that and that's why I gave a second example, that of the length of a segment. Do you people really consider real numbers and imaginary numbers equal from the point of view of normal people? Let's not forget who is the target of this project. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 17:30, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Presumably the purpose of articles like this is to provide accurate information, not to confirm misconceptions caused by terminology. Plenty of people use complex numbers regularly, and just because many people don't isn't a reason to have an inaccuracy in the article.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 17:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::In the physical world, it is not possible to find a line segment of length <math>\pi cm</math> (or even of length 1 cm), you may find approximations. For ''normal people'', this may be of no interest. So, for them, we can skip the hole ''real is more real than imaginary'' stuff. We shouldn't mislead more interested pupils by this entry: in mathematics, you go from the simple to the more complex, but not from the ''real'' to the ''surreal''. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

==The Four Number Systems==

Ok, this is something I remember getting taught in advanced maths a couple of years back.

At the beginning of modern arithmetic there was only one number system consisting of '''integers'''. You could add/subtract/multiply/divide, but you couldn't work with parts of numbers, which became a problem if you wanted to, say, divide 3 by 2.

To overcome this a second number system involving '''fractions''' and decimals was developed. Once again this worked for some time, but as maths and engineering grew people came to realise that they could not use trigonometric ratios or square roots with many numbers. They found that many of their answers could not be expressed as a fraction, and that there was seemingly no pattern to their decimal digits.

This lead to the development of a third number system, using surds to represent '''irrational numbers'''. This worked well for some time, and as all the numbers could be plotted on an ordinary axis (although a computer would be needed to plot the irrational ones) they were referred to as '''real numbers'''. However, there were still some numbers which could not be represented, those involving the square root of a negative number.

Finally, a fourth number system was developed, which incorporated '''imaginary numbers'''. Unlike the numbers found in the previous three systems these could not be represented on a normal graph, which lead to the development of the complex plane.

The moral of the story is that "real numbers" are "real" because they can be represented on a standard graph, "imaginary numbers" are "imaginary" because they cannot.

Now, looking at Wikipedia it seems this story is a rather simplistic summary of history, but then again my maths teacher was only using it to introduce us to the imaginary number system. Nonetheless it does show that imaginary numbers do actually exist, even if they may seem somewhat absurd to us. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 18:54, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

==Periodic Decimal Fractions are Ratios==
Just to eliminate this [proof needed]tag: <ul><li>Any decimal representation which repeats or recurs, like 1.86292929292929..., because these can be shown to be fractions[proof needed]</ul>
Now, here's an outline of the proof:
<ul><li>wlog, let 0 < x < 1 be a periodic decimal representation, i.e.,
<li><math> x = 0.\overline{a_1 a_2 ... a_n}</math>. Then
<li><math>x = \frac{a_1 a_2 ... a_n}{10^{n}-1} </math> as
<li><math>x =a_1 a_2 ... a_n \cdot 10^{-n}</math><math> + a_1 a_2 ... a_n \cdot 10^{-2n}</math><math> + a_1 a_2 ... a_n\cdot 10^{-3n} + ...</math> and
<li><math>10^{-n} + 10^{-2n} + 10^{-3n} + ... = \frac{10^{-n}}{1- 10^{-n}}</math></ul> --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 17:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)