User talk:A math-wiki

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, A math-wiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like math, philosophy, and logic, you might want to check out guys like W.V.O._Quine or Bertrand Russell. Ludwig Wittgenstein is a bit tougher but you might enjoy his works. I minored in philosophy and liked discussing their works as it had a lot to do with math. Mickeyg13 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, may look into that with all the free time I have. (Currently not going to school and don't have a job.) Also feel free to check the technique that I independently discovered that's on my page. A math-wiki 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphing implicit functions

If you have access to a Mac running OS X, there's a program in the Utilities folder (under Applications) which will quite happily graph implicit functions for you. It can also be used to get the real/imaginary and modulus of a complex function as a 3-d graph. Donald Hosek 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm on "winblows" (Windows XP) so any options there, the other thing that even macs don't seem to do is graph lines in space by drawing the intersection of two planes ONLY.

Im on Mac OS X, and I dont have it. --ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump question

I saw your question on the village pump and thought I'd reply. You can post most things on your user page including original research (look at my user page). You might want to read Wikipedia:User page —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

Several times recently you have contributed answers to the mathematics Reference Desk, and there is a pattern in your replies that is worrisome. The instructions at the top of the page state emphatically, Do your own homework, and that means that regardless of how someone frames their question, those who answer have a responsibility to avoid providing homework answers. The posts often try to disguise the intent. So when the post says "This is a homework question, but both me and my math teacher weren't able to figure it out", we are skeptical about the qualification and treat it as any homework question. Our aim is always to provide insight rather than answers. We especially avoid giving extensively worked out calculations and final conclusions. In future, please trim and focus your answers with that in mind. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the advisory, I will keep that in mind, I like helping people a lot. But I see your point clearly. Will do in the future. A math-wiki 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh

Ahh, too much math. Brain exploding... ghfrv s∂∫v --ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism and nonsense

So where do I find the good arguments for creationism? I'd like to read them. SpinningSpark 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know specifically where but I don't take positions without good justifications for them, and I have found good justifications for creationism. These are based on logic and by in large are not opposed to the vast majority of scientific results. One thing that bother's me is the frequent use of the evolution vs. creationism dichotomy which is totally baseless. The two are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive, evolution is a mechanism where as creationism answers the questions (who,what,why etc.)

I am not a creationist but I was not trying to pick a fight with you over it. Where I was coming from was this; when I posted the link to the creationist site, I particularly chose one (of the many out there) that seemed to put forward the creationist arguments in a detailed, factual and rational way. So I was quite taken aback by your comment that I was looking at "bad creationist arguments" (I think those were your words, apologies if that is not exact, I didn't look it up). I assumed you knew of other, better sites, but apparently not. Sorry to have troubled you. SpinningSpark 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O it's no problem, I would be happy to give my arguments if you like, I enjoy debates/intellectual discussions, especially when the aim is greater understanding. I must admit that most of the arguments I have actually seen are rather poor. Most creatists seem to think that they must argue that things happened exactly as the bible (or Quran or whatever) says, but this is not the case. One need only justify the plausibility of the basic principle of a highly intelligent lifeform being responcible for our existence. A math-wiki (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and read the article you mentioned, horribly written. They know the main flaw in the theory of evolution CONCERNING the origin of the species, but they have failed to properly exploit it. A math-wiki (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article

{{helpme}} I'm looking for some guidance/suggestions on how to go about editing some of the mathematics articles at my knowledge level. I have found 3 that I am interested in working on, Binomial, Trinomial, and Edge (geometry). They all are quite simple and the latter two are in need of expansion. Thanks in advance. A math-wiki (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you'll be able to find what you're looking for at WikiProject Mathematics. Cheers, WODUP 09:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but I still have two questions, one: How and where would I go about finding sources that I can site for the article, and two: How and where, should I start actually writing it. A math-wiki (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the articles directly. You should also check on their discussion pages. As for where to find sources, anywhere really: Google, the library, a book you have, etc. --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of strange identities

Cool observation! I think you can actually prove it using a bit of algebra. The trick is to prove

\sec \arcsin(t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-t^{2}}}}

, and

\tan \arcsin(t)={\frac {t}{\sqrt {1-t^{2}}}}

Both of these can be worked out using a right triangle. Using this triangle, note that without loss of generality we can set b =1 (since triangles are scalable) and a = t (replacing one variable with another). That necessarily makes c = ${\sqrt {1-t^{2}}}$ . Those were chosen so that arcsin(t) = A. Now consider sec(A). That is just hypotenuse over adjacent, or ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-t^{2}}}}$ .

Once you have these, a bit of playing with logs makes the two sides equal (with C=0). Might I suggest, however, the mathematician's choice for cool identities, Euler's formula. A special case of it, $e^{\pi i}+1=0$ is often turned into tattoos. In fact, often if you need to rigorously prove a trig identity (like the double or half angle formula), Euler's formula is often the quickest way. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]