User talk:Double sharp/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

More Jupiter moons

Hiya, a new moon of Jupiter just dropped today: S/2016 J 3. As with last time, can you help update the other satellite pages? Thanks!

By the way, keep an eye on the Recent MPECs in case there will be more moon announcements! Nrco0e (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Oh my, and S/2021 J 1 too! Sure, I'll get to them. Double sharp (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, five more were just announced today... I wonder when Jupiter will hit 100? Nrco0e (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Created articles for today's and yesterday's (except S/2018 J 4 which you did). And updated the timeline and list. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Nrco0e (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I have a feeling that S/2018 J 4 might actually be related to Carpo. Don't be deceived by its apparently low eccentricity--its high orbital inclination likely subjects it to the Kozai resonance, which causes its eccentricity to fluctuate wildly between 0.06-0.45. But that's a bit far into WP:OR anyway, so I suppose it would be best to wait for Sheppard to classify this one. I'm quite eager to see how this one will turn out. Nrco0e (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Interesting, I'm eager to know too. :) BTW, about how long would it probably take before we have new numberings? Some of those 2003 moons have languished for quite a while! Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea honestly. The MPC doesn't really publish their Minor Planet Circulars nowadays with their bimonthly publishing rate, nor does it seem like they make moon observations, orbits, and numberings a priority. I've submitted some Pandia precoveries two years ago and the MPC still haven't published them in their Circulars, though they did publish my more recent S/2016 J 1 and Ersa precoveries in M.P.C. 141872 from 19 July 2022, oddly enough. Considering this month's deluge of new moons, I do have a bit of hope that the MPC will focus more on moons in the next scheduled Circular sometime in February. Nrco0e (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Thanks for the info!

I notice Exoplanetaryscience's graphic File:Jupitermoonsdiagram.png shows S/2018 J 4 in the Carpo group; should we adopt that classification then, for consistency? Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm a fan of it. They are visually close enough together we might as well assume they are. Saying S/2018 J 4 is its own J4 group is as much WP:OR as saying it's part of the Carpo group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Good enough for me. Done. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw a ref for estimated numbers of moons in one of your comments. I think those numbers would be useful in the leads of the Jupiter etc. moon articles. We present how many moons have been discovered, but readers are more likely to want to know how many moons there are. The number 14 for Neptune is therefore misleading, especially given that a lot of readers of these articles are likely to be quite young and might take that number as the actual number of Neptunian moons. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I'm not sure which comment and ref you mean. But I agree with putting in those numbers. Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Do you know the paper I'm talking about? I think you were one party in the discussion. I remember there was an absolutely enormous estimated number of Neptunian moons > 1km (in the thousands if not more), but I didn't read carefully and don't recall anything specific. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I did link these references in my comments about the irregular moon populations of Jupiter and Saturn. Ashton et al. (2020) estimate 600+600
−300 retrograde Jovian irregular moons with diameters >0.4 km and apparent magnitudes <25.7, while Ashton et al. (2021) estimate 150±30 Saturnian irregular moons with diameters >2.8 km and apparent magnitudes <26.3. I've already added these references in their respective moon lists.

For better interpretation of Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moon population counts, see Figure 3 (2020) for Jupiter only and Figure 5 (2021) for Jupiter & Saturn. These graphs show the size frequency distributions of each planet's irregular moon populations, which count the cumulative number of moons larger than a minimum diameter specified along the x-axis.

Figure 5 (2021) is especially nice for clearly showing how Saturn's irregular moon population outnumbers that of Jupiter's, and continues growing sharply as the minimum diameter becomes smaller. Saturn initially outnumbers Jupiter's irregular moon population by factor of 1.5 starting at diameters >5 km, then increases to a factor of 3 at diameters >2.8 km. The data doesn't extend far enough to indicate how many >0.4 km irregular moons Saturn has, but it most likely amounts to way more than a few thousand, if you assume that it maintains its steep distribution slope down to this diameter.

For Uranus and Neptune, we don't have a good estimate for their irregular moon populations yet. We currently know too few to accurately infer what their size frequency distributions look like. Nicholson et al. (2008) estimate at least 100 irregular moons >1 km in diameter for each of the four outer planets, but there isn't really any rigorous justification other than inference from an incomplete inventory of their moon populations at the time. exoplanetaryscience did mention Neptune having over a thousand >1 km moons, but that is merely an educated guess. Nrco0e (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the number to the lead of the Saturn article. Still thinking about Jupiter; it would be nice to have comparable numbers, but it looks like we've discovered close to their estimate for the number of Jovians of D > 3km, so I'm uncertain it would add much. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I should mention perhaps my real reason for looking forward to more Roman numberings: I really want to see the large numerals used for something that isn't a date. We already have enough to get C in use; for D and M, we'll have to wait a while. :D Double sharp (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: S/2016 J 4 Double sharp (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Pandia (moon) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pandia (moon) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirene (moon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2023

Hello @Double Sharp I would like you to help me in keeping updates on the upcoming Chess Championship matches , I have tried to improve the page myself but I would like you to consider my contributions to the page if anything is not right please remove it ,Thank you for your time . SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Orbital period

I did a brief calculation that suggested the orbital period of 2.04 years is equivalent to ~ 743.778 days given the known semimajor axis. 108.160.120.57 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Orbital period in days is already given as "P/d 743.69" in the MPEC source. Nrco0e (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably have time to finish it off tomorrow, then. (Unless you beat me to it. :D) Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: As it turns out, I didn't, but thanks for beating me to it! :D Double sharp (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I noticed that Scott Sheppard's site mentions Moons without names and have been numbered have well determined orbits, but they are too small to be named by the International Astronomical Union. Do you know what the size requirement is? Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The IAU-WGPSN's Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature page says no Jovian moons fainter than H ≥ 18 (diameters ≤1.6 km for albedos ≥0.04) shall be named unless it is of "special scientific interest." Nrco0e (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for uranium

I have nominated Uranium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bismuth

Bismuth 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. ¹⁴¹Pr 19:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antimony

Antimony 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. ¹⁴¹Pr 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternative Japanese character sets

Yes, that's what I had in mind (sorry I didn't get around to replying to you on the Language Ref. Desk during the narrow time-window available). AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

dates of peak ratings / rankings

Hi – thanks for updating the peak rating for Ian Nepomniachtchi. As regards the date, the practice so far has been to use the earliest date at which the player achieved the peak, so I changed the date for the peak ranking back to February 2023. Joriki (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Joriki: Yes, my mistake – I made it because while Nepo reached a new peak rating this month, his ranking was still No. 2 (as it was last month). Thanks for the correction. Double sharp (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

template:Unicode chart Kaktovik Numerals

Could you do me a favor and tell me if the characters display properly for you? (Assuming you don't have a Kaktovik font installed.) I submitted a web font to Phabricator, and a couple days ago the Unicode characters started displaying properly, so I removed the character images from Kaktovik numerals. But then someone contacted me on WP-ar that on their article all they now see is little boxes. So I figure if you can see the digits properly, it must be something on their end. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Just boxes for me, too. Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Shoot. I don't know the process at Phabricator well enough to even follow the instructions for adding a web font. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, symbols for the 3 named Earth co-orbitals. Under the Commons cat 'proposed apollo asteroid symbols'. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Re Shatranj/Tamerlane alt icon search

Hello, Double sharp. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--IHTS (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Heavy line-weight symbols

Hi. The planetary symbols in the info boxes looked too light for me, so I made a heavier set. Planets, DPs, asteroids, centaurs. How do they look to you? Didn't do all the asteroids, because some just become a blob of ink. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think they're often too heavy (e.g. Victoria, Chaos, Varda). Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, just revert me on the ones that seem too heavy to you.

All the others had been bold; Victoria wasn't even that. I only made it bold, though. — kwami (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you've reverted almost all of them. That's fine. I wasn't sure if some of them might've looked better to you. I can check and remove them all. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted Varuna and Chiron, Pholus & Nessus. That should be all of them. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Alt Pluto bident

The glyphs we've been using are based on Moskowitz, but generally I see something with a larger orb (e.g. in the NASA poster). Moskowitz's design is easy to confuse with Neptune's trident, esp. at small font sizes. So, I've created an alt series of large-orb variants that are closer to the traditional form. (I used the orb of M's Mercury glyph, and adjusted the rest so that the two curves would be concentric.) Plus Charon to match. Anyway, just FYI in case you have some use for them.

— kwami (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for Nix, we have 'Greek' and 'Latin' variants. (Not bothering with large orbs here.) But "Nix" is the Coptic rendering, not the metropolitan Greek, and the Coptic alphabet doesn't have case (except artificially in modern transcriptions). The Coptic letter, even lower-case, is ⟨ⲛ⟩. So, should we stick with Moskowitz's initial design, ? More recognizable, I'd think; doubt many would see a down-arrow as a letter 'n'. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you about Nix. Thanks for these! Double sharp (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, swapped the files so that the ⟨ⲛ⟩ variants are the default. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ⓚ notable as symbol for Eris?

Just discovered this site at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute at Moscow State University, posted in 2016. They're a legit astronomical institute, though I don't know how notable.

Do you think this makes Ⓚ notable enough to be included in our astro symbol articles? After all, the only thing notable about ⯱ is its inclusion in Unicode, as it's used primarily by a single person. However, it's likely astronomer Уральская Валентина Семеновна, who curates the site, copied the symbol from Wikipedia: if you follow the Eris link you'll see they use the WP image of the mythological Eris,[1] and all three symbols (Ceres, Pluto and Eris) look like they could be gifs of the WP glyphs. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm not really sure. Also, is Ⓚ really copied from us? I didn't think we used it. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Russian article on Pluto also cited the Sternberg Astronomical Institute, but dated to 2012, earlier that WayBack records it. You're right: we didn't have it that far back on WP-en. (I'd only checked to 2015, by which time we did.) But the Ⓚ symbol was uploaded to Commons in 2006, and the Russian WP astronomical symbols article has had it since Jan 2011, and the Russian Eris article since Jan 2012, when user Михаил Круглов added it to both. The Eris goddess article on Ru WP has also had this img: since 2006, and that's the same img used by the Russian astronomical institute.[2]

BTW, the uploader in 2006 (user "Eris", now renamed Eris~commonswiki), was challenged about the symbol being a fake, and responded, "No it is real, ask the IAU,"[3] which of course is bogus, so they possibly are the creator. BTW, those two edits (uploading and insisting it's legit) are the only two edits they ever made on any wiki.

Note that Zane Stein's website still doesn't show the Ⓚ symbol,[4] so evidently Zane's never come across it. That suggests that there is no astrological usage to speak of. I suspect it may be a WP invention with the only notable usage (if it is notable) being an institute of Moscow State U copying it off Russian WP. So, yeah, I'd have to say not notable. Answered my own question.

BTW, AFAICT, it was used as the equivalent of a (c) symbol in the Principia Discordia, for what that's worth.[5] — kwami (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, just came across this: as a symbol for an eclipse of the Moon in the US Printing Office style manual. I don't how it makes iconic sense, but there you go. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Two more moons.

94 now, S/2004 S 41 and S/2020 S 4. 108.160.120.19 (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, by the time I saw it it was 99. I've added them to the timeline. Thanks for the notification, it's always nice to see the list expand! (But I wonder when more Roman numberings will happen.) :) Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The UBC made a press release about these new moons. It says the final count is 145, so we've got 21 more to go! https://science.ubc.ca/news/saturn-now-leads-moon-race-62-newly-discovered-satellites Nrco0e (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Hurray, they're all announced! I've updated the timeline.

And the obvious follow-up question: when can we expect some more Roman numberings? :D Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the party still hasn't ended, now that a 146th moon was just announced today. S/2006 S 20's orbit is very similar to Phoebe in terms of distance, eccentricity, and inclination, which is a remarkable first among Saturn's known moons. It's definitely a collisional fragment of Phoebe because of this, unlike other purported "Phoebe group" moons that have similar inclinations but wildly different distances and eccentricities.

For your earlier question, the MPC doesn't seem to have moon numbering as their top priority right now, so I can't really speculate when they're going to do that. Nrco0e (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Cool. Added to the timeline. :D Double sharp (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The MPC just published a newsletter discussing the new moons, here's what they have to say about new Roman numeral numberings:

The MPC does not have immediate plans to assign permanent roman numeral designations to these new satellites, but those objects that have sufficiently constrained orbits will likely get numbered at some time in the coming year. Once the satellites are numbered, they can be assigned names by the IAU Working Group Planetary System Nomenclature.

Nrco0e (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Saturn moon labels

Speaking of symbols, could we maybe come up w something intuitive for the families of Saturn's moons? I mean, ♣ is a shamrock -- that would be more fitting for Celtic than for Norse. But what would Norse and Inuit be? — kwami (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the playing card suits were chosen for the Jovian and Saturnian moon articles without any real associations. I wouldn't mind swapping the Celtic and Norse labels for this reason, though. I feel like anything more appropriate (Thor's hammer?) is likely to be an incongruous emoji. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

...although, come to think of it, maybe the double-dagger ‡ does suggest Mjölnir to some extent! Not sure how diamonds would fit the Inuit group, though. Unfortunately, I don't know their mythology very well. Basically, I only know the names that were used for the Saturn moons.Double sharp (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a bit hammer-like, actually. Plus the least salient symbol for the most numerous group, and the two similarly heavy symbols for the two prograde groups as well. And, well, diamond = ice. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hey, you seem pretty convinced that this particular sense of Outer Manchuria is citogenesis, which definitely my opinion- but it's all just my personal original research! I think what I personally would want to "do next" is petition to get this put on the Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents page. I don't know what they require or how that would be done since this is literally literal OR. I guess what I need to find is evidence that someone outside Wikipedia has made this discovery independently??? At least someone beside me knows! I'm not a great editor, but I feel I did find something odd! All thoughts or comments appreciated. Unless you or Lambiam reach out and contact me, I plan to avoid the Outer Manchuria topic on Wikipedia for a while and just research related topics on Wiktionary; I'm afraid that I couldn't hold my own against some of these editors, who may have deep beliefs and opinions. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: What surprises me most is that it seems to be en.wp citogenesis, as I would've expected the term to have first been made up in Chinese. But no: it first shows up on zh.wp in 2005, and on Baidu Baike in 2006, both after the creation of the en.wp article. And it really surprises me a lot because the term is such a natural back-formation if one forgets about the historical meaning of "inner" and "outer" in "Inner Mongolia" and "Outer Mongolia": I would've expected at least some use predating Wikipedia. But I cannot find any. Well, since so much is on Google nowadays, the evidence strongly suggests to me that you are right, though I was really quite shocked to learn it.

Yeah, the list at WP:CITOGENESIS is fairly strict on sourcing. There's a bunch of incidents that you can find on the talk page but not on the main page.

Personally, on WP, I would keep the term around with the current meaning as primary. That's because it has entered widespread use with this meaning. If you go to RS today, you will find it. If you go to Chinese websites discussing longing for lost territories today, you will find it (example). The horse has thus long since bolted. Actually, that's why I was so shocked to learn that it was citogenesis – I was already aware of the term in Chinese before you asked at the refdesk, which I guess gives some anecdotal non-RS evidence of its currency. (Now if this incident had happened just now, instead of 2004, I would of course have a very different opinion.) Mentioning its origin would be interesting, if one day we can find an RS including your investigations. (Or if you write one yourself. :D) Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Incredible! Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Caliban artistic.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caliban artistic.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 05:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions on many WP:ELEMENTS articles! 123957a (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@123957a: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! 123957a (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible false precision in the melting points of fermium to lawrencium

The melting points in Celsius given for en:Fermium, en:Mendelevium, en:Nobelium, and en:Lawrencium are likely false precision, directly converted from the Kelvin values. They are already mentioned in the articles as predicted, given they have never been synthesized in bulk. en:Rutherfordium does not have false precision, instead it is rounded to the nearest 100 degrees. SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@SVG-image-maker: I agree. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@SVG-image-maker: I fixed all of them.

Admittedly, it's true that the original source (the CRC Handbook) does give them all as we used to have them: here's the relevant data reproduced on the LBNL's website. But what you wrote, and the fact that they mysteriously all end in "27", is a giant red flag IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive7.
Message added 08:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Heaviest natural element

When I wrote that the heaviest natural element is uranium, I was well aware of the "Oklo" phenomenon, according to which tiny traces of Pu are produced naturally under extremely rare geological circumstances. So I happily acknowledge that you are technically correct. I do not want to engage in an edit war, especially since I have always admired your edits and regard you as both expert and conscientious in the subjects where I have seen your work. But I just want to raise the question: is it really useful and appropriate, for the purposes to which Wikipedia is devoted, to insist on this technicality? Perhaps one could take your point to an even greater extreme, and say that certain effects of certain cosmic rays on terrestrial matter also creates "natural" entities that may exist perhaps only in quantities of a few atoms/ions/particles on rare singular occasions? But maybe you wouldn't want to list such entities as among the "natural" components of the terrestrial globe, as this could be considered (I would consider it) misleading. So perhaps the best solution for our issue might be to retain "U/92" as heaviest, but add a reference to the Oklo phenomenon? I raise this issue and simply leave it to your judgment, along with my expression of gratitude for your work on Wikipedia.Ajrocke (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrocke: Thank you for your kind words! Well, there are a number of issues around the whole "how many natural elements are there" quandary:

• The "it's not that rare a geological circumstance" problem: Np and Pu don't just appear when you have a natural nuclear fission reactor, like what happened at Oklo. It happens in normal pitchblende as well, which you might think of as an "extremely subcritical" reactor, and the Pu produced was already detectable just after Pu was discovered as a synthetic element (10.1021/ja01184a083 – the date is a few years later because understandably, the work was classified).
• The "promethium is rarer" problem: If we exclude elements 93 and 94 for being tiny traces (Pu : U is about 10⁻¹¹ in monazite and pitchblende per 10.1021/ja01151a085, and Np : U about 10⁻¹² in pitchblende per 10.1021/ja01143a074), then we face a different problem: promethium is actually rarer than both of them. The problem with it is that it can only be made in nature from even rarer processes: either uranium has to fission in just the right way (Pm : U in natural pitchblende is on the order of 10⁻¹⁸ per 10.1016/0022-1902(68)80427-0), or it has to be produced by the truly glacial decay of ¹⁵¹Eu (half-life 5 × 10¹⁸ years). So if we were to say Np and Pu are too extreme, then we'd also have to exclude Pm (as well as Fr and At, whose problem is that they only appear in rare side branches of the uranium decay chains), and then we couldn't say all elements up to 92 exist either because 61, 85, and 87 would be gaps. Considering that Fr was actually discovered from natural sources (and At almost was), this seems a bit too much, and I'd rather just say that they all exist in nature since At, the rarest of them, was almost discovered that way. Analytic chemistry, at a time contemporary to their discovery by synthesis, was sufficient to find all but Tc and Pm in nature – those two had to wait a while. Yes, probably even heavier transuraniums exist (²⁴⁷Cm from interstellar sources is a good candidate), but there at least we can plead "yeah, but no one ever found it, so there surely is even less curium than astatine on the planet".
• The "stability" problem: if it is stated as either number without further discussion, then well-meaning corrections are going to happen in both directions. However, an actual discussion of the issues would be fairly complicated and out of proportion for the lede.

Thankfully, we already discuss the issue further down in one of the footnotes, so I've linked that footnote in the lede as well. So, now it says 94 (to avoid the promethium problem), but adds a footnote about it. Hopefully, that's enough to deal with the issue. Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Mineral (nutrient)

Your work there is appreciated. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 24 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (by discovery periods)

Template:Periodic table (by discovery periods) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alkaline earth metals

Template:Alkaline earth metals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Centaur (fairy chess piece)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Centaur (fairy chess piece) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § Centaur (fairy chess piece) until a consensus is reached. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Frankland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Vanadium

Hi there. After a long break, I am back at chemistry articles :) Currently working on vanadium in Turkish. I was checking the data on the abundance of elements in Earth's crust article, and I found a source saying that the abundance of vanadium is 0.019% of the Earth's crust and that puts the element on the 18th place ("The potentiality of vanadium in medicinal applications", Dieter Rehder). But the article doesn't mention any source for that value. Do you think we should mention on that? Or should we ignore? Nanahuatl (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: WebElements agrees that vanadium is 18th, but not CRC. That said, I suspect uncertainties are large enough that one cannot really give an exact number. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source? Nanahuatl (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Well, it says that the data is averaged from eight reliable sources that differ widely from each other. So I think it's probably best to not give a figure, and instead say that V is pretty common and list a common element V is close in abundance to, like Cl. Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

And per "Thermophysical properties of vanadium at high temperature measured with an electrostatic levitation furnace", the density of solid vanadium is 5.7 g/cm³. Yet, the article says 6.11. Can you check that value too? Nanahuatl (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And any source for its Brinell and Vickers hardness values? I couldn't find. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: At Densities of the elements (data page) and Hardnesses of the elements (data page) those values are referenced. Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And this content can be in the main article, as the main article is not that long (considering the fact that the lead section won't be merged and each compound has its own article). Any comments? Nanahuatl (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Yeah, that should be fine. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Triapeirogonal tiling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Triapeirogonal tiling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triapeirogonal tiling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Double sharp!

Happy New Year!

Double sharp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
^Complex/_Rational 03:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

^Complex/_Rational 03:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thank you! Happy New Year to you too! Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Io symb

now lower case like the other gallileans, but based on the old IPA script iota that looks like a squashed reversed esh. Took the curve from Grus. (A typical Greek-font iota didn't work well.) — kwami (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Nice! Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Periodic table, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otto Berg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cessation of aluminum production in Europe

You may remember that aluminum production requires a lot of energy and that has been in short supply in Europe for the past couple of years. This has had a devastating effect on aluminum production in Europe.

Do you think that is something that merits inclusion in the aluminium article? I want to keep the article up to date, but I also don't want to overemphasize recent developments if they don't merit inclusion. I'd like a second opinion from you on that since you both contributed to the article significantly and are quite removed from the sorry developments in Europe.

Please don't feel obliged to rush an answer. I'd like to get back to it one day and go through FAC, but that is not coming for a few months perhaps. R8R (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@R8R: I'll look into it. :)

(Just linking Reuters as what I found after a quick Google.) Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked into it some more and learned it wasn't that big of a deal. At the end of the day, even if the EU ceases all of its production, it wasn't that great anyway. All of Europe (including Russia, Norway, and Iceland, which are not in the EU and which use their own energy, whose production accounts for more than a half of that production) produces around fifth of what China alone produced.

So, it's not that big of a deal.

Interestingly, I remember hearing about it from a very pro-EU channel, which was when I thought I should add it to the article one day. But after some more deliberation, perhaps not.

I used these figures as well as those referenced in the article.

I am only left to wonder why checking that did not occur to me before I wrote to you :)--R8R (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

1 (5) new moons of Uranus, 2 new moons of Neptune announced

Heads up, 1 new moon of Uranus and 2 new moons of Neptune were just announced by the MPC about an hour ago! There's supposed to be 5 new moons of Uranus, but since it's very late for the MPC, I suspect they'll announce the remaining 4 later. Here's the link to the new announcements. Nrco0e (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Thanks, very cool! I'll start working on updates when not on my phone. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And I see there's also another Jovian. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

S/2022 J 1 is an already known moon of Jupiter. That announcement is for its recovery. Nrco0e (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, was about to correct myself when you posted. :) Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fun stuff. Wonder how long before we have 100+ for all the giant planets. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Even Neptune? That might take a while. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Should have them. Neptune has 15 moons larger than 30km, Jupiter and Saturn the same or less. I wonder if any of the upcoming ground-based telescopes will be capable of detecting them? — kwami (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Pinging you so you can update your graphics. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on it right now, the neptune graph is giving me grief because 2021N1 is so far out, I'm having to rework it from scratch. It's also important to mention that c02n4 = 2002N5; I have the original c02n4 astrometry on hand and it's the same as the first observations there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Cool! Looking forward to seeing how it looks. Neptune has quite an awkward system indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Double sharp: the new graphs have been uploaded: the two new moons of Neptune belong easily enough in two of the established Neptune groups (Neso-Psamathe and Sao-Laomedeia). The one new Uranian moon belongs to the Caliban-Stephano group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Thanks! I've updated the timeline... Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

...and List of natural satellites. Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For the timeline, I chose to treat S/2002 N 5 like Perdita by putting it on the list twice. AFAICR, both were published early, but they were not yet generally accepted until they were recovered for real. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I notice that articles announcing the discoveries have already started coming out, with just 1 new Uranian moon (and of course the 2 new Neptunians); are the other Uranians then not yet ready? Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that kinda confused me too. Carnegie Science already published a press release and Sheppard didn't acknowledge the remaining Uranians in his website, so I'm guessing they're not ready. Nrco0e (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Should we still be mentioning them in the lede of Moons of Uranus, then? Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of not confusing people, better to remove it and move it to the discovery section instead. Nrco0e (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Okay. Done. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way I want to tell you this---I just did some searching in the telescope archives and it turns out that S/2023 U 1 isn't one of the 5 Uranian moon candidates that Sheppard observed on 7 October 2021. So there's still 5 more Uranian moons awaiting announcement, but I don't know anything about their current status. Who knows if one or more of them are lost, or all of them are already followed up? Nrco0e (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Huh, that's cool. Well, I guess we'll know more at some point. :)

Still hoping for new numberings, though! Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Just a heads up that the scales and units are missing from the Uranus diagram in the latest update. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I've got some more updating to do on both Uranus and Neptune (proper mean elements, changing neptune's color) but work has been busy the last few days. Sorry for my slowness... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: No problem! In the meantime, I've added some text to the caption at Moons of Uranus explaining the scale. Feel free to remove it when the update comes. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Quaoar is not in hydrostatic equilibrium

I was planning to share this with you and @Kwamikagami: a few weeks ago, but I was busy then. Anyways, a new paper on Quaoar was posted to arXiv a while ago and was recently accepted for publication (forthcoming) in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal. The paper analyzes visible-light and far-infrared thermal lightcurves of Quaoar and claims that it is an non-equilibrium ellipsoid with a volume-equivalent diameter of 1090±40 km and axial ratios of a/b = 1.19 and b/c = 1.16, which corresponds to dimensions 1286 x 1080 x 932 km. According to the authors, "We suggest that Quaoar may have originally been rotating fast enough to have obtained a triaxial shape (similar to Haumea), and that the shape was ‘frozen in’." Nrco0e (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Thanks! (ArXiv link.)

I'd still call it a DP under the definition people seem to be using in practice, though. After all, that's not too different from Iapetus' situation. Double sharp (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the Quaoar article with the new ellipsoid dimensions. I'm also planning to do a total revamp of it. It'll be interesting to see how people are goning to call Quaoar once Kiss et al.'s paper goes mainstream. But just to be safe, I've removed most mentions of Quaoar being considered a dwarf planet in its article. I'll consider readding it later, but only when there is enough debate about Quaoar; I don't want to keep outdated and contradictory statements isolated. As for the articles dwarf planet, list of possible dwarf planets, list of gravitationally rounded objects in the Solar System, and hydrostatic equilibrium, I'll have to delegate that to you (hopefully not to your dismay!). Nrco0e (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I added some text about this to the articles you mentioned. I'd prefer to generally keep it in the main DP roster until more is written about this, though. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair to me! Nrco0e (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:C-Infinity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:C-Infinity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Equine-man (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Equine-man: I don't have anything to do with the current version. I originally created this page as a redirect to smoothness, because that's how you read C^∞ as a mathematical term. If the current article is non-notable, then perhaps it would make sense to restore that redirect. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Debussy

I've re-added your addition. Warmest thanks. Tim riley talk 14:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The long-lived 1⁻ process of ¹⁷⁶Lu

I've long noticed that the 7⁻ → 6⁺ transition of ¹⁷⁶Lu with Q value 593.33 keV seems irregular to have such long half-life, as there are β decays with ΔJ^Δπ = 1⁻ whose half-life is short, like ^113mCd → ¹¹³In (11/2⁻ → 9/2⁺, 583.88 keV) and ¹⁷⁰Tm → ¹⁷⁰Er (1⁻ → 0⁺, 313.99 keV).

In Talk:Isotopes of lutetium you wrote: "The second is that, while ¹⁷⁶Hf has low-energy excited states with spins 6+ and 8+ that ¹⁷⁶Lu could decay to (these are only first-forbidden), the spin of ¹⁷⁶Lu is intrinsic while those of these excited states of ¹⁷⁶Hf are due to collective nuclear rotation, which results in a terrible match." I was wondering if you could kindly give some more detailed information. In particular, isn't the decay ^113mCd → ¹¹³In from collective nuclear rotation to being intrinsic?

Also, would you expect the decay process ^212mAt → ²¹²Po (9⁻ → 8⁺, 271.84 keV) to have very long (for example, > 10¹³ years) half-life? Is the spin of both nuclides due to collective nuclear rotation?

Thanks! 129.104.241.193 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know, to be honest. Collective rotation usually gets invoked for the nonspherical nuclides, though, so it may not be applicable for ²¹²Po so near the magic number. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Perhaps I would ask a question on Physics Stack Exchange later. 129.104.241.242 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I opened this PSE question. Would you be agreed with the explanation provided there? 129.104.241.193 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds more or less like what I vaguely imagined. Clearly, I should go back and study this again, but good to see I at least qualitatively remember this stuff. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nihonium

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Confidence intervals and most stable isotopes

Hi DS! I don't know if you've read the newest JINR paper (doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.054307 – I can email you the PDF if you don't already have it), though with the newest data, we have ²⁷¹Hs as the new winner for most stable isotope: 46+56
−10 s, compared to 13+10
−4 s for the next-most-stable ²⁶⁹Hs. These are significantly different at a 1σ confidence interval, but according to my math, not so at 2σ (95% CI). I'm unsure if this is good enough to eliminate the infobox footnote about the data not being decisive.

I should note that comparable uncertainties exist for other elements as well, and may also be deserving of such a footnote. For instance, according to NUBASE, the 1σ confidence intervals for ⁹⁷Tc and ⁹⁸Tc overlap, and the data in the new JINR paper also means that ²⁶⁷Sg and ²⁶⁹Sg also have overlapping 1σ confidence intervals. (And there's also a mess of isomers to sort out now.) ^Complex/_Rational 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

ComplexRational Hi! Since you say you still remember how to do this math, maybe you could refresh my memory on this. I seem to recall that 46+56
−10 s is just as valid an interval as, say, 46+20
−46 s (20 is pretty arbitrary here, it actually needs to be as big or small to make the appropriate overall probability). How do you specifically pick that 46+56
−10 s interval? I remember looking to refresh my knowledge of statistics when writing that article, but I didn't find an answer I would be satisfied with. I also seem to recall some authors would change 46+56
−10 s to 69+33
−33 s, so I'd like to know how that 46+56
−10 s comes up in the first place. Thanks--R8R (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@R8R: Nice to hear from you. The math I did was just a quick and dirty estimate based on the symmetric uncertainty; in fairness, a proper analysis of the data goes beyond what I have studied.

As far as I understand, more generally, an asymmetric uncertainty arises when a small number of data points are fit to a distribution such as a chi-squared distribution, which is asymmetric for small n and only begins to approximate a (symmetric) normal distribution for a relatively large (n > ~50) number of events. Since the distribution is asymmetric, so is its probability density function, and thus the estimate of a confidence interval. The choice of distribution is dependent on the experimental parameters – for instance, any error bars that encompass a negative half-life are physically meaningless. Additionally, various other uncertainties (e.g., systematic uncertainties) that may be factored in could also be asymmetric. One could argue that asymmetric uncertainties are more "correct" in terms of accounting for different error sources in data analysis, but symmetric uncertanties are far easier to work with in data analysis.

In this specific case, I'm not quite sure which distribution is used. Usually a poisson distribution or exponential distribution is used to extract the half-life for a large number of decaying atoms (I once did an experiment with that), but that relies on counting the number of events in a fixed time interval, which obviously fails for one-atom-at-a-time SHE research. The article does not explain analysis methods in detail, so I can't attempt to reverse-engineer or reproduce it.

I also found a couple of articles that go more in-depth about the subject: [6] [7]. I hope this helps, ^Complex/_Rational 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Yes, please send me a copy of the paper. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Emailed you, happy reading! ^Complex/_Rational 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thanks for the welcome. Maybe you'll hear more from me later, who knows. Would I be correct in assuming that the confidence interval for an asymmetric distribution is chosen in such a way that the value of the pdf of the left border of the interval is equal to that of the right border? I had this idea back when I was trying to find that out for hassium, but I wasn't sure whether this was the case,--R8R (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@R8R: Considering how confidence intervals are defined, that's also what I'd think – that parameters of the (inherently) asymmetric curve are determined from the data and the confidence interval corresponds to equal probabilities (equal-valued integrals of the pdf) on either side of the mean – though I'm not completely sure. ^Complex/_Rational 01:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a curiosity that the most stable known isotope of Lr to Hs all have the same neutron number 163. 129.104.241.193 (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That creates a big jump in neutron number from Hs to Mt. There's not really enough data to be sure this will hold when we fill in more nuclides, but I suspect there could be a real jump of this sort (though perhaps not exactly at this Z) because of the N=162 shell closure (like ²¹⁰At to ²²²Rn because of N=126). Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Octal vs Nonary

This is just out of curiosity: Are you the original poster here? :)

I do agree that octal is a great system, and personally I like nonary (base 9) equally well. In base 9, or like in any other base where the radix is a square, when calculating modulo a prime p the reptend has at most length ⁠p - 1/2⁠. In base 8 it depends: for p ≡ 5, 11 (mod 24) there is great chance that 8 is a primitive root modulo p, but for p ≡ 1, 7 (mod 24) the reptend is reduced at least to one sixth.

Imagine a civilization using base 8 and another using base 9. The amateur math enthusiasts from the first would find the prime numbers 5 and 11 fascinating as full reptend primes just like how the number 7 is important to our cultures. The early number theorists would then realize that the next full reptend primes 29, 53, 59, ... (sequence A019338 in the OEIS) are large and that they all follow the pattern of being congruent to 5 or 11 modulo 24, so there would be a chance to develop the theory of quadratic residue to explain the phenomenon.

In base 9, of course, there are no full reptend primes, but there are enough small prime numbers p such that the multiplicative order of 9 modulo p is ⁠p - 1/2⁠, which occurs for p = 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, ... (sequence A364867 in the OEIS). For these primes, there are two possible cycles for the reptend of ⁠1/p⁠, ⁠2/p⁠, ..., ⁠p - 1/p⁠, one produced by the quadratic residues divided by p and another by the quadratic nonresidues. The civilization could also develop the theory of quadratic residue in early times by observing the pattern of the cycles. This would work also in other square bases but 4 is too small as a base and 16 too big.

Another feature of base 9 is the small Wieferich prime 11 in this base. Of course 3 is a Wieferich prime in base 8 but it would be considered as too trivial, like us that are usually ignoring 3 being a Wieferich prime in decimal in our daily life and have to calculate up to p = 487 to refute that the period length of ⁠1/p²⁠ is p times that of ⁠1/p⁠. Of course 11 is already a Wieferich prime in base 3 but 3 is just too small. 129.104.241.193 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. ;)

Indeed, the ability to discover quadratic reciprocity early is interesting. With that said, considering one of Gauss' remarks about Archimedes, I feel like the biggest effect of choosing octal early is that in a base that's a power of 2, Egyptian multiplication almost shouts at you that positional notation would be a good idea. ;) By the way, I think it was pointed out by someone on that forum (Oschkar?) that 5 has a lot of mystic associations (cf. the pentagram) that are somewhat muted in our world because it's a factor of the base. In an octal world they would appear in full force, and maybe indeed 11 is the unlucky number for them. ;)

As for 9, I would agree that it's definitely the best odd base. Admittedly the prime 2 is sufficiently special that choosing an odd base means quite a lot of everyday annoyance. The small Wieferich prime is indeed nice for elementary number theory popularisations in a nonary world; base 18 would be even better, but it's certainly too large. I'd put 6 and 14 as the limits on each side (though one can definitely question 11 and 13). Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal FAC #9

Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thanks, Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if you could enjoy something like this

This German song is inspired by Erlkoenig, which you mentioned on your user page. It really got me at the end when I first heard this song.--R8R (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@R8R: Not sure the music appeals to me, but I quite appreciated the Erlkönig reference in the lyrics indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I never really took you for a rock music fan, but I hope you nonetheless appreciated the contrast between music being "hard" in general to set a dark scene and that eerie out-of-sync piano bit when the voices from the sky sang, and the accompanying contrast in singing!--R8R (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Charles-Valentin Alkan/doc

Template:Charles-Valentin Alkan/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Nihonium, introduced (in 2018): "This article is about is the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Triambus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Triambus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 1 § Triambus until a consensus is reached. GTrang (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"Data not decisive" on most stable isotopes

By the time I write this, Tc, Sg, Hs have "data not decisive" footnote beside their mass numbers. However, I found that Lr, Lv, Bh, Ts (and possibly Bk) are all less decisive than Hs. I'm not sure what should I do, either removing the footnote in Hs, or add the footnote to these 4(+1?) elements.

Also, do this footnote need to extend to elements beyond Hs, like all elements with overlapping 2σ confidence intervals? (This adds Mc and Mt to the list.)

Thanks! Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nucleus hydro elemon: I think 2σ is a good threshold. So yes, feel free to add the footnotes, perhaps with an explanation. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Just realized a problem: when we cite NUBASE2020, do we use the symmetrized half-life (using ²⁸⁶Nh as example, 12±5 s) or the original unsymmetrized half-life (9.5+6.3
−2.7 s)?

Nh is a borderline case, if we use the unsymmetrized 9.5+6.3
−2.7 s, then the 2σ confidence interval of ²⁸⁶Nh doesn't overlap with ²⁸⁵Nh; but if 12±5 s was used instead, they crash. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nucleus hydro elemon: I would prefer to use the original unsymmetrised half-life. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Added for Lr, but I have struggle on other elements (and Hs too) that don't overlap at 1σ, but overlap at 2σ. I'm not sure if the following:

If the 1σ confidence interval is 9.5+6.3
−2.7, then the 2σ confidence interval should be 9.5+12.6
−5.4

is still in the range of WP:CALC. If it doesn't, I will have no idea on how to write these footnotes. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)