User:SamHB

SEMI-RETIRED


This user is no longer active at Conservapedia. God Bless.

But I do want to help clean up some incomplete that I did for the MV Calculus course.

In a recent email to Andy, leading to the reinstatement of my account, I said, in part:

Although I have dropped out of the multivariable calculus project, I need to give Jacob a heads-up about the notation I used in my part of the lectures. Mostly in lecture 3.2, as I recall. I used somewhat unorthodox definitions of generalized coordinate systems -- "natural" coordinates rather than "orthonormal coordinates + Lamé coefficients". The latter are more common, but natural coordinates are, in my opinion, actually simpler and, well, more natural. Jacob probably prefers "orthonormal + Lamé". So he needs to decide: keep it my way, or change it to his way. The change would mostly involve changing my formulas (cross product, etc.) to the ones that are common in physics textbooks. ("Natural" coordinates, on the other hand, are common in tensor calculus textbooks.)

I also disagree with what he has written about limits, and want to discuss that.

....

I want the discussion to be on some talk page on Conservapedia, where any interested party can join in.

....

The block reason was, in any case, "Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admin(s) will reactivate upon request". There was further discussion of my situation, between Jacob and Ed Poor, at the talk page for Cramer's rule, which I would like you [AS] to look at.

I really can't help if I have to do everything in secret email. And I do want the MV calc course to succeed. And I notice that it is really going to happen, and that there is a lot of interest in it.

So I would like you to please restore my account and user/talk pages.

Andy did so, sending me a nice reply. He even apologized for having taken so long (5 hours) to get to it! (You see, he had previously acted on a request in only 2 hours :-)

So I want to discuss my past contributions to the multivariable calculus course. There may be some problems with integrating my material with that of others (Specifically JacobB, of course), since my approach to vector components in curvilinear coordinates was somewhat unorthodox. See my talk page, at the bottom.

My Past Contributions

I have contributed to the following articles. Some contributions were minor, but most were major, and many of these articles were created by me. Some got moved from my "sandbox" pages into article space by other people.

Algebra, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, exponent of "r" in Newtonian gravity, Calc3.1/2/3/4/5, tensor, wave equation, e (mathematics), vector, vector space, vector field, conservative vector field, irrotational vector field, Maxwell's equations, Hodge star, exterior derivative, Cramer's rule, Riemann integral, Green's theorem, dense subset, limit (mathematics), boolean algebra, mathematical paradoxes, function, complex analytic function, continuity, countable, group, real number, rational number, complex number, Cauchy sequence, Dedekind cut, bijection, injection, surjection, ham sandwich theorem, two-pancacke theorem, divergence, curl, cross product, dot product, infinity, functor, continuous function, Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, principle of induction, general relativity, real analysis, Pierre Simon Laplace, diagonalization.

My Future Plans

This section under construction. I may need to consult with some sysops on this. Fixing the Compass and straightedge article is an important item.

The comment above, about consulting with sysops, referred to the fact that I was blocked and reverted by Daniel Pulido after an earlier attempt to discuss math, so I wanted to contact him by email to get his approval. But he has himself been blocked, so maybe things are OK.

While there are a huge number of things that need in the mathematics area, I've picked out four that would be good to work on. I want to collaborate on these with Ed Poor, who is the other math expert currently around, so I have placed and extensive discussion on his talk page, which see. I'm also going to bring this to the attention of User:JamesWilson, who may be another up-and-coming math contributor.

• Compass and straightedge—This has been rescued from "parody hell", but it needs much more work to present the material in a way that is logical and understandable to the target audience.

• Elementary Algebra—This has been a topic of discussion between me and Ed for quite some time, generally centering on the question of "how do you explain to an elementary student what the question 'x+3 = 7' is really asking?"

• Peano axioms—The fundamental logical basis for all of arithmetic. I dimly recall a discussion between Ed and someone else on this topic; it didn't seem to get anywhere. It is an extremely fascinating topic for the target audience!

• Center—This has been a disaster for a long time. I really don't know how to write the "headline" sentence for this; that is, what's the first thing you say about what the "center" of a geometrical shape is? I solicit any insight that Ed (or anyone else) can provide.

For Ed Poor

I attempted to edit the following onto Ed's talk page, but it said that it was locked so that only "registered users" (and admins...) can edit it. As far as I know, I am a registered user, and I have edited his talk page in recent weeks. In any case, here it is. I will try again later to move it to his talk page, and will send him email calling attention to this. Sorry about making a mess.

Ed:

Please see the bottom of my user page for a summary of what I'd like do, in collaboration with you. I'm also going to call User:JamesWilson's attention to this.

I've picked out 4 things that I think are interesting and fruitful to work on. I believe you have also been interested, to some extent, in each of these. I solicit your advice on how to proceed—which ones you would like me to work on, which one you want to work on yourself, and any advice you might have, or criticism of my past writing.

I'm quite serious about wanting comments from you on my past writing. You have, on many occasions, made your general philosophy known—making things understandable to the audience, as opposed to showing off the author's own expertise. And I am completely in agreement with it, as far as I know. But all previous attempts to get you to comment on my writing have been unsuccessful. In particular, there was quite a bit of discussion of the Algebra page, including my sending you, by email, a proposed draft of the article, along the lines that you had requested some time earlier in this comment. That email, at 2:15PM, Oct 3, 2010, also contained the following request:

But, before doing that [rewriting the algebra page, which was attached], I'd like to know whether you think I'm on the right track. Please let me know. Better yet, edit it [my attachment] on top of the existing page.

I later (after getting unblocked) made the edit myself, and you have neither reverted it nor commented on it. I'm fairly sure that you find it satisfactory, but a word from you would be most helpful.

There aren't many math contributors around these days. With the possible exception of James Wilson, you and I seem to be the only prolific and knowledgeable editors on this topic. But we have a combined math SAT score or 1530, so we really ought to be able to do a good job. Please work with me.

Here are the four articles that I have picked out; I have also summarized them on my own talk page.

• Compass and straightedge—This needs more work. You say that you never took plane geometry, but went straight into analytic geometry. My suggestion is that you work on this, for just that reason. You could give the article a fresh perspective. And Andy has often said something like (can't find an exact reference just now) "It's more educational to write a book than to read a book." Now I took plane geometry in 10th grade or whatever, and, because I was a math major in college, I could step in for the impossibility proofs. But I'd like your perspective on how to start the article.

• Elementary Algebra—This was the subject of the mail alluded to above. What do you think of the changes that I made? Is the next step to talk about quadratic equations? Or perhaps polynomial factoring? Or something else? Would you like me to do it, or do you want to work on this yourself?

• Peano axioms—There is at present no article on this subject. I think it would be very interesting and fascinating for our readers. And it can be done in an accessible way. It's really not esoteric. Anyone old enough to appreciate what "theorems" are, and that you "prove" them (as opposed to taking your teacher's word for them), can appreciate this. People probably cross this threshold around 9th grade or so, usually in the context of elementary plane geometry. (I can't believe that you never took plane geometry! But I'm sure you developed an appreciation of proofs in whatever classes you were taking at the time.) Now most people have been doing ordinary arithmetic for a long time before learning about theorems, and they think they know that addition is commutative. So you go to these people and ask "So how do you know that addition is commutative? Can you give me a proof? Aha! That is what the Peano axioms are about.

• Center—This has been a disaster for a long time. I really don't know how to write the "headline" sentence for this; that is, what's the first thing you say about what the "center" of a geometrical shape is? Do you have any ideas? I'd really like to see your take on this article; I really don't know how to begin.

I await your reply and guidance.

SamHB 21:44, 28 November 2010 (EST)