User talk:DVdm/Archive 2023

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DVdm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2020

Archive 2021

Archive 2022

Archive 2023

Archive 2024

Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Deleting VLS Entries You Objected To

My policy is to respect the opinions of others. I deleted my recent additions to VLS page although I believe my short entries derived from references to 7 famous books were appropriate and well enough written. I did not write my opinions or take sides in the arguments that have continued more than 50 years. Astrojed (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Astrojed: Thanks for this and happy 2023! - DVdm (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DVdm!

Happy New Year!

DVdm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for removing the edit on the Wave-Particle Duality?

Hi DVdm, I am trying to update the new development on the Wave-Particle duality. Is there a reason why the edit was removed?

Thanks, Hong Hongdusocal (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hongdusocal: yes, hi there. As I explained in the edit summary of my revert, I removed your edit per lack of notability. See wp:primary source and wp:recentism. When this publication is sufficiently mentioned in the relevant literature, and thus in wp:secondary sources, it might be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. See also wp:NOT. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Time dilation

I do want to have some mention of the psychological sense on the time dilation page because people do use the phrase time dilation in that sense. Maybe the {{see also}} template wasnt the best choice, but I couldnt think of anything else. Would you be okay with some other type of hatnote, saying something like "for the term used in psychology, see time perception"? Thanks, —Soap— 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soap: Hi there, something that suggests that the term should not be confused, would be okay, as it is done in the article Relativism: So, how about indeed: or, even better: And of course, the other way around in article Time perception, perhaps:

Afaiac, go ahead. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Van Cittert-Zernike

Literature does NOT decide how to write Dutch names, mister. Dutch language does!!! But yes, it's a fact that you English have NO TALENT at all for foreign languages. And it seems (looking at your own actions) you are too stubborn to learn anything in this respect. So poor. Weaky3 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Weaky3: As an encyplopedia, Wikipedia follows the literature, by design. And I'm not English: my primary language is Dutch. I'm also fluent in French, English and German, and, thanks to my classic education, I can fluently read Italian and modern Greek newspapers whithout a dictionary. By the way, always assume good faith from your fellow editors. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

On the edit on Michelson Morley experiment

This is the source you asked: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

As you can see in the first line,Or even in the title, the experiment was on finding the velocity of earth. They assumed the existence of aether to be a fact.

While the experiment have disproved the existence of aether, it was not their intention. In fact Michelson Morley was a failed experiment. They didn't get what they were looking for.

~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophile249 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with just the four tildes (~~~~), without actually typing the <nowiki> tags. When you type the tildes, your signature will be substituted, unless you type the tags. — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Sophile249: According to the literature, the primary aim was to prove the existence of the ether, by measuring the velocity of the earth through it. We must follow the literature.

Also, take a look at wp:BRD: when a Bold edit is Reverted, and you disagree, start a Discussion, preferably on the talk page of the page that your were editing. Reverting again as you did here is considered wp:edit warring and is not allowed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought that you may not see my comment, that is why I reverted again.

Sophile249 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Gravity

there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ppppphgtygd: I have added a source, albeit a self-published one: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that source reliable I mean it is given as self published and secondly we need to see whether aryabhatta talk about gravity in his book Aryabhatiya.I didn't find any source about him talking about gravity in Aryabhatiya. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ppppphgtygd: I think the source looks reasonably reliable (—see [2]—), but, as you can see, I did tag the reference with a {{Self-published inline}} template anyway. This invites other contributors to find a better source. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok Ppppphgtygd (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have rejected that content outright as disputed and not well supported, based on higher quality sources that contradict or cast doubt on it. Other strong claims of discovery/contribution in that section of the source are also easily rebutted (example: our Aryabhata article has multiple sources that heliocentrism is at best uncertain but more likely not true). For whatever reason, Indian educational materials tend to over-claim Indian contributions in history. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks and Ppppphgtygd: Yep, probably a good call, thanks. I had a closer look at the book. On page 6 it says: It will become immediately obvious that the genius of ancient Bharata indeed forms the basis of world civilization, in contrast to the idea that 'miracles' in Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. influenced India somehow and anyhow from somewhere and anywhere. No wonder I failed to find a proper secondary source in a non-self-published source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

good, nowadays a lot of articles are been vandalised by a lot of people in Wiki thanks for removing it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When to use TeX/inline math?

As a new wikipedian I am struggling to understand where and where not to use <math> within articles. Is changing an inline equation into TeX generally frowned upon if it doesn't otherwise improve the quality of a given article? DekuNut64 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@DekuNut64: See MOS:FORMULA and the second section of Help:Displaying a formula, and, in general, MOS:MATH. One of the basic style related rules here is MOS:STYLERET and MOS:RETAIN, which says that when different styles are possible, changing one style into another is not a good idea. Also note that consistency within an article is important, so it can be a good idea to make style related changes to improve consistency — within a single article, not within the entire Wikipedia.

There's a lot to learn here. Best is to read parts of some of the guideline articles, and to have a look at the edit histories of math related articles. Then gradually go ahead, making changes. Don't worry if someone reverts your changes. When that happens, inquire, ask or discuss, don't re-revert — see wp:BRD. It's all part of a learning process

. Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrational numbers

OK, there are, unfortunately, many books that attribute the concept of "irrational number" to the Pythagoreans, as I have known only too well since the 1960s, and such is Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" that you can use those to justify your change to the article. So be it. However, nobody who has actually studied and understood the relevant literature can believe that "number" is a reasonable description of the concept which they introduced. On the contrary: it was the cause of their moving away from using number as the defining concept in mathematics, and shifting to a view which considered geometrical magnitudes themselves as fundamental, rather than numerical measures of those magnitudes. JBW (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: Yes indeed, but note that the artlce says: "The discovery of irrational numbers, including the particular case of the square root of 2, is widely associated with the Pythagorean school". I mirrored that in my edit summary, "The Greeks found a number that cannot be written as a ratio of integers, which we call an irrational number." I could have been (but had decided not to be) even more precise and careful, saying "The Greeks found something..."

But I decided to check the literature and get some some sources either way, and it looked like a great majority in the literature agrees that indeed they discovered the rational numbers.

And indeed I think we can easily argue that they did discover them, without actually calling them numbers. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler effect

Thank you for pointing out the guidelines. I was not aware of wp:CALC, and you are absolutely right that I cannot include the derivation. It has never been my intention to break or bend the rules. The Wikipedia guidelines wp:OR state that the information should be from ”reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic”. Therefore, I would argue that the references are not limited to textbook examples only. Would it help if I provide an additional credible article? Aside from Einstein’s article I can provide other peer reviewed papers that confirms that the amplitude transforms as $A'_{E}=\gamma \left(1-\beta cos\theta \right)A_{E}$ . I personally think the information is relevant to the article, and that it should at least be mentioned, if the guidelines allow it. What is your opinion? MadsVS (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@MadsVS: Hi, if the peer reviewed papers are not just wp:primary sources, and thus are referred to elsewhere in wp:secondary sources, the latter can be used as a valid reference. You see, the idea is that the secondary sources demonstrate that the content is actually notable. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your guidance is very helpfull. I will give it another shot, so let me know if you see any problems. Thank you. MadsVS (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my Zappa edits

Could you please explain why the edits I made to several Frank Zappa album pages were reverted? I know you have given info regarding wiki rules on the use of long type, but the reason I made these particular edits were that two albums (Bongo Fury and Sheik Yerbouti) were already using this "Studio album with live elements" or "Live album with studio elements" categorisation (not put there by me, they have been there since before I even had a wiki account) and I simply wanted to make this consistent across the discography, esp given that some of FZ's albums can't be neatly categorized as studio or live albums. Aaw1989 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaw1989: yes... just make sure that everything is solidly backed by sources. For example, if the most important source of all ([3]) says that Jazz from Hell is the 47'th album, let's make sure Wikipedia doesn't say that it is the final (or last or whatever) studio album with live elements. You might go ahead doing what you intended, but keep the "official" discography in mind. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, i'll take more care in the wording of info moving forward. Aaw1989 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert spree

15, 2023, 17:52 - «Undid revision 1165507037 by Alexander Davronov talk) there are no "imprecise integer-value" numbers.»

15, 2023, 17:53 - «Undid revision 1165506901 by Alexander Davronov talk) was nonsense indeed»

@DVdm: This may amount to WP:HOUND. You were warned.

17:54, July 15, 2023 - «Undid revision 1165517898 by DVdm talk)»

@DVdm: Ridiculous. Keep these kinds of "warnings" away, cause you indeed may end up banned or temporarily restricted in editing for this kind of spamming. Nobody is going to get banned for simply adding unsourced information . In such cases you use WP:TAGGING or article-related talk page and only then you may remove such text (see WP:DETAG).

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

E=mc2 anti-matter and matter

Two days ago you made this edit a news article came out today stating this and you got on Wikipedia and shot mine down that should have been my story I should have been credited Tony Ratliff (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't really parse this....

Can you specify which edit I made?
Which news paper came out stating what?
How did I get on Wikipedia and shot what down?
What should have been your story?

Can you please use some punctuation in your answer ? - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Magic number

@DVdm I appreciate your concern and I know that my edit on minkowski space was not valid but can you explain me about the magic number, I think that was correct as it was only edited with different words but with same meaning as I have verified with many LLM.

Thank you Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kuvam Bhanot: it is not clear whether the magic number is referring to nucleons as in "neutrons and protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons or protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons and/or protons". So I assume that a change from the long standting current version of the article is likely to contain factual errors. You might go to the article talk page and ask a little clarification question about that. - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Mathematicians are wrong?

Zero is considered even, but in such circumstances resulting such contradictions.

Example:

If I traveled zero times to New-York, does that means I traveled an even number of times?
Parents having zero children means they have an even number of children?
A person with zero hats on his head means having an even number of hats on his head?
If a mannequin lost its head, does that means that mannequin has now an even number of heads?
An invalid person with no legs will means to have an even number of legs?

Comments to this wrong article spread by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The article Parity of zero is there to report and explain things, based on the literature. Even if you don't like it, the article talk page is not the place to vent our personal views. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal views of dead persons. Wait until dies to be published to wiki. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

When we deviate from interpreting numbers solely as quantities of things, and rather look at them more abstractly —and that is what living mathematicians do and dead ones did—, I think the definition is good for practical reasons, just like 0!, the factorial of zero, is defined as 1. After all, how can a product of no numbers possibly produce 1, right?

. - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for E (mathematical constant)

E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)