User talk:Arthur Rubin

Welcome!

Hi Arthur Rubin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Longhair | Talk 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Transitive set

Also a warm welcome from me. In transitive set, you write that A is transitive if "whenever x∈A, and y∈x, then y∈x." There seems to be some mistake here; perhaps the last "y∈x" should be "y∈A"? Apart from that, it is a nice start, though it could probably be expanded (I don't know enough set theory to do it myself). By the way, you can write [[class (set theory|]] instead of [[class (set theory)|class]]. In addition to the pile of materials suggested by Longhair, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, which is specifically about mathematics. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Arthur Rubin 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Point (topology)

I've redirected Point (topology) to Point, which is something anyone can do or undo. There are quite a few pages which link there [1] so it seems possible someone will want to revert this, which wouldn't be an option if it had been speedy deleted. Kappa 13:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That may be a better choice, although it still should be [[Point (mathematical structures)]], or something like that. The best in the enemy of the good. -- Arthur Rubin 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Mathematician Wikipedians category

Hi, it has been suggested that Category:Mathematician Wikipedians be deleted, because it is a duplicate of the more correctly named Category:Wikipedian mathematicians. I would recomend you simply edit your userpage and add yourself to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians (or one of it's sub-categories) instead by adding this to your userpage:

[[Category:Wikipedian mathematicians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

If you disagree your can visit Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Mathematician_Wikipedians and vote against the deletion or just voice your opinion. --Sherool 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur Rubin 00:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hi,

Please notice the above project. As a mathematician, you might be especially interested in List of publications in mathematics

I’ll appreciate any help. Thank, APH 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Reversion templates, bookmarklets, etc

Hi Arthur. I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly

Hi. Since you participated in the AfD for coercive monopoly, you might be interested in the major rewrite I just did. I'm sure there will be considerable discussion ensuing (there's an RFC already), and a cool head such as yours would be useful. Rd232 11:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the above RfC, I am trying to assist with this article, as well. Your contributions would no doubt be appreciated. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll show you a lie then:

(Changing "*" points to "#" points so I can refer to them by number Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC) )

1. "I advised the something similar a week ago and [RJII] flatly refused to do anything other than edit the article as [he] saw fit and revert anything anyone else adds (to their credit, I suppose, they have followed through with what they said they would do)

   This is an outright lie. I never said such a thing. He's simply trying to turn public opinion against me to get his way through dishonesty. It's especially ludicrous because I've incorporated his edits into the text. The talk of prohibition is his. He wrote it in the intro and I moved it into the body and merged it with the appropriate paragraph. Anyone can see that I work with the edits of others. The most recent editor was "TheLand." I worked with his edits and there are there in the article.

2. "I don't see much point in making any further edits to this page, since RJII has expressed his intention to revert them and ignore them (and he has followed through with that stated intention)"

   Ditto with the above explanation.

3. Also, he's been trying to spread the idea that I don't engage in discussion. That's obviously false.
4. And, he was stating that I was reverting the article without consensus, when in actuality he and Rd232 were deleting the whole body of the article without absolutely no prior discussion. I was simply reverting it back to its previously consensual state. Fortunately, after much pressure he finally admitted he was wrong to revert it: "In retrospect, it would have been better to have copied the disputed material here, to the Talk page, and then go over it section by section before returning what's left to the article. That would have been the more proper thing to do, as directed by Wikipedia policy, and I have already admitted (a few days ago) that I erred in simply reverting back to your (Rd232's) version, just as much as RJII erred in simply reverting it back to his version." But, as you can see he's got to accuse me of wrongdoing in that. Reverting back an entire article that has been deleted is the proper thing to do. And, notice he says RJII reverted back to "his version." It wasn't my version; Radgeek authored most of that article. He was claiming on the talk page that the article amounted to an "essay" that I had written to further my POV. The guy has been on a DISHONEST mission to make me look like the bad guy. He's a complete sleazebag. Then when I announce what's going on, I'm attacking as being "uncivil." It's ludicrous. The incivility is the dishonesty. RJII 19:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well:

1. I can't find what you may have said that, so I cannot confirm it. BBlackmore would have to point to a page and version where you said that.
2. Now, there I concur. You have expressed an intention to revert any change of the definition. (For what it's worth, the one you have now on the locked page is not the best of the group you've chosen.) I now think that an NPOV article would need to have a version of your current definition, the definition that the monopoly is stabilized by use of force or subsidies, and the definition (from common usage) that a coercive monopoly is one that the speaker want to break up.
   1. That's not true. If you claim that, then you should be able to bring up a quote. It looks like his propaganda has worked on you. If I was intent on simply reverting why on earth would I be engaging in such extensive discussion? I justify everything I do thoroughly and am very open to being proved wrong.
3. You engage in argument. You do not seem to acknowledge apparently valid objections to your edits.
   1. Yes I do engage in argument. I acknowledge objections, and I rebut them. That's how argument works. When one side realizes they are wrong, it's settled. I even realized I was wrong and changed my definition. The definition I'm arguing against, and that you Rd232 and Bblackmoor are arguing for now, is the definition I supported at the beginning of this conflict. I don't know if you realize that.
4. Point taken. (Mostly.) The talk page does need to be summarized with many of the discussions archived. Unfortunately, they are all pretty current, and we won't be able to agree on summaries. I do not agree that Rd232's and BBlackmoor's (and my) changing the article to the (arguably) correct definition was deleting the whole body, as -- if our definition were correct (which, by the way, I no longer accept without reservation), nothing in your copy of the article would belong there.

By the way, the latest slander of me, is he just took a quote I said out of context and made it look like I was responding to something else he said. The guy is completely devoid of ethics. I cut and pasted what I actually said to reveal his deception. Then he went on to say he's been trying to get me to engage in discussion. I've been engaging in a huge amount of discussion. You know this personally because I've been engaged in discussion with you.RJII 03:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the discussion of the coercive monopoly article here, if you're willing. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. No thanks. RJII
      1. But don't quote RJII on that, or he'll accuse you of slander. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly survey

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now RJII is deliberately disrupting the discussion, scrambling up responses so that the thread of the discussion is completely lost.[2] Can I get a show of hands on who would support a complaint at this point? I have really, really tried to avoid this, but I don't see any other alternative at this point. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"It doesn't appear to me that his Definition section was intended as a reply to the Survey section. " It was a direct reply to the announcement of the survey:[3][4] Everything he has done since has been nothing but a blatant attempt to disrupt that survey and any progress that may be made on it. Will you support initiating a complaint against him? I think it has become clear that he is deliberately disrupting discussion of this article.[5] -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More Hewitt

Please look at my suggestion for renaming the infamous Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics article.--CSTAR 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your signuature

...is broken, like those of many other editors since HTML Tidy went down. You may want to see WP:SIGHELP to fix the problem. HTH, Blackcap | talk 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Yes, it's working now. Brilliant. Take care, Blackcap | talk 01:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Antireflexive page

I made a picture of the equality relation. The equality relation is antireflexive. Please discuss on the discussion page. Fresheneesz 02:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Jewish culture

Hi Arthur Rubin, I was wondering whether you were interested in joining and developing a new WikiProject. While the more-established WikiProject Judaism focuses on relgious aspects of Judaism, this project intends to look at Jewish literature, music, theater, language and history, among other aspects of culture. If you are interested in helping to edit and review these articles, please join! jnothman ^talk 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Top Hat Page

This article needs to be simplified, and all approaches need to lead to 2/3, including qualitative approach. As mentioned on talk page, just because there are only 2 cards it can be, this does not mean that both are equally likely. And it really needs a text book source somewhere. oh and I suggest adding the experimental approach as a reasonable 3rd way.Obina 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

function (mathematics)

Notice that in my latest formulation I introduce the simple definition first and the other definition as a complication. Randall Holmes 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that Morse gave a suitable definition for ordered pair which covers the case of classes: redefine (x,y) as $(x\times \{0\})\cup (y\times \{1\})$ (where the cartesian products are defined in terms of the usual Kuratowski pair. This allows one to define n-tuples of classes without difficulty... Randall Holmes 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

True. But it fails in MKU or NBGU (U = urelements), as you have a different definition of ordered pairs of objects which may be urelemnts or sets, and of objects which may be sets or classes. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also true! (I know this very well, since my main set theory is NFU; urelements all over the place). I added a brief description of the Morse pair to the ordered pair article. Randall Holmes 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

function (set theory)

Thanks for noticing and correcting the blunder re injection/bijection; I can easily make this mistake since I identify functions with their graphs and so do not customarily use the codomain, and I might not have noticed... It's also nice to know that someone actually looked :-) Randall Holmes 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"fixing" the NBG article (von Neumann-Godel-Bernays)

Please consult with me about the nature of the fix you want to put in (I wrote the axiomatization in the current article). von Neumann does have historical priority for this form of set theory, and his axiom which conflates Replacement and Global Choice (what I call "Limitation of Size") is worth presenting (though admittedly rather weird); but I'm perfectly happy to see a more familiar form presented as an alternative (in my notes I talk about the possibility of an alternative formulation closer to the usual Replacement axiom). I would like to see both formulations in the article rather than have an argument about it... Randall Holmes 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm quite confident that there are things wrong with that article (including the parts I wrote), but I do think that von Neumann's axiom should appear in it, at least as an alternative. Randall Holmes 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to use my mother's axiom system (Set Theory for the Mathematician) for (v)NBGU as an alternative definition set. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)