User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2010

Bowstring Afterload

[Original question at User talk:Lbeben --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)].

Thank you sir for your question, I am pleased to oblige on two primary sources.

1. 1 [Charles S. Peskin and David M. McQueen Interview]

  5/4/94 for the Smithsonian
  Specifically referring to Dr. Peskins' lengthy answer regarding "Mathematical Collagen Fibers" 

Peskin quotes a Dr. Carolyn Thomas who apparently was an anatomist in New England in the 1950s. Her early drawings of the porcine heart have led to the focusing of several Kray mainframes on the work of the myocardium.

1. 2 [Basic Science Review: The helix and the Heart] Gerald D. Buckberg

Buckberg extensively quotes the late Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp regarding myocardial band theory.

In composing these two paragraphs, I hope to better illuminate these concepts to non-medical readers of a web-based encyclopedia.

Study of physiologic Compliance suggests mathematical proof of what is not Afterload. ["A new noninvasive method for the estimation of peak dP/dt" Circulation 1993]--lbeben 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that discusses the bowstring physics of the heart that you presented and uses the term "bowstring physics" with regard to the heart? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob I was hoping my references better defined the `3000 Bowstrings concept first imagined in the 1950s. References to physics in bowstring performance are abundant. Imagine a defined array of 3000 flexible strings anchored to a solid collagen ring, then factor it up to four rings in a triangular grouping with the AoV in the center. The collagen density of the valve rings and skeleton of the heart is far greater than the sets of opposed cardiomyocytes. I can't write this publically, but I think when the strings are released they yield an audible pop while the AV valves close and the ventricles open like a full sail to the wind. The compliance of the sail flags as we get older and the acoustic signature of S1 is probably greatly diminished in year 80 compared to year 20. I greatly appreciate your interest in this esoteric topic.--lbeben 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately WP:NOR is pretty clear that what goes into Wikipedia cannot be an editor's own unpublished research. May I suggest that you make edits by first reading about the subject in a reliable source and then taking that material and putting it in an article with the citation for that reliable source. Also, the source should be one that is accessible to readers, e.g. a peer reviewed journal is good. If you would like any help or advice about making citations, etc., let me know. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir I sincerely appreciate your counsel, discussion and edits regarding afterload, I remain hopeful we may continue to discuss other areas relevant to heart disease in the future. The ECG, atrial fibrillation, heart failure and Chagas Disease all remain topics of great interest to me. Best wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau's Avatar edits

Noticed that you reverted them, what are your feelings about it? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Redthoreau's edits undid some long careful work and were not rational. I noticed that Redthoreau reverted my revert, made more changes, and was soon followed by an editor who made edits throughout the article that weren't clear from the diffs (who seems to be high up in the Wikipedia establishment from his user page), and another editor who believes that the film is not American. Did you agree or disagree with their edits, or do you have some other feelings about it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion about a source for Titanic (1997 film) article

Hey, Bob. I have used this source for the Titanic (1997 film) article. Streetdirectory.com is a reliable source, and the place the source is from seems reliable, as well as the author of the piece, but I am worried about it being an anecdote. Some of this guy's retailing of events can be backed up by more reliable sources, and is in a few parts in the article, but would you say that this source is appropriate to use?

On a side note, Titanic is playing on TNT right now where I am; it will be over soon, though. I feel that they are mainly playing it right now, because Avatar is about to beat it. LOL. With Avatar set to become the highest-grossing film of all time, it makes sense that they would show the previous highest-grossing film also by Cameron. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Doesn't look very reliable. He's a Hollywood tour guide, who picks up stories from here and there, not saying where, so it's not clear to me how much of what he says is true. It looks like what he got was by word of mouth, that may have been passed around by a string of intermediaries, being modified at each passing from one to the next, and some of it may even have been a fabrication from the beginning of the string.

Hope you enjoyed TNTitanic! Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your take on this. "[W]ord of mouth, that may have been passed around by a string of intermediaries, being modified at each passing from one to the next" is what an anecdote can become (which is why I linked to it above). I basically included the source, because, as I stated, some of what he says is also noted in more reliable sources; it is stuff that I am already quite familiar with. I also initially did not pay attention to the source more closely. I figured that he also had to be right about the stuff I am not as familiar with, such as the certain quotes he says are from Cameron. My mistake, I know. It is of course better to go with more reliable sources. I did that with stuff like who else was considered for the role of Rose, and for Cameron pitching Titanic as Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic (or on a boat, as other sources say). Anyway, I will remove the source. For the parts, where he is the only source, I will replace him with more reliable sources. If I cannot find reliable sources for some of those parts, I will remove them completely.

As for TNTitanic (LOL!), I was basically watching the end of the film (the last 30 or 35 minutes). But, yeah, it is always okay to watch this film. And even though I have a copy of it (on video, not DVD; it was given to me as a gift way back in the late 1990s), I have not watched it as many times as some people have, due to not wanting to get too tired of watching it (not watching it for a year or years helps with that, LOL). I only saw it in theaters once, but I feel that I will go see it in theaters in 2011...if it is indeed released in theaters then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Say, I saw the beginning of Cameron's Aliens last night. There seemed to be parallels to Avatar, with Ripley having some things in common with Jake, then there's the Corp rep, a platoon of soldiers helping them, etc. I also remember from previous viewings that the Lieutenant in command of the soldiers was portrayed as inexperienced and incompetent, and Ripley took command and saved the day, at least in one scene with the low slung armored personnel carrier, driven by Ripley, over the objections of the lieutenant, to rescue the soldiers in trouble from the horde of aliens in the building. With that portrayal of the lieutenant, and the colonel in Avatar, and the Corporation guys, I'm getting the feeling that Cameron resents authority in general, except his own, and this resentment might be fueled by problems he has had in dealing with movie execs who might give him a hard time. I don't remember how the authorities (Captain, etc.) in his Titanic came off in the movie. Were they favorably treated by the film? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that tour guide man's story can indeed mostly be backed up. It's just that his wording was a little different for some quotes, like Cameron telling Leonardo DiCaprio that he knew DiCaprio wanted to portray Jack with a limp...and Kate Winslet relentlessly contacting Cameron to get the part of Rose. Some of the other stuff tour guide man stated is covered by other sources that were are already in the article. I feel that he did not get all or even most of this information from hearsay, but rather from research. And, really, being a Hollywood tour guide, I would expect him to know a lot about Hollywood and its stars. I still need to find sources for these two parts, though:

• After she screen tested with DiCaprio, she was so thoroughly impressed with him, that she whispered to Cameron, "He's great. Even if you don't pick me, pick him."

• There was a tense pause and Cameron said, "Also, fellas, it's a period piece, it's going to cost $150,000,000 and there's not going to be a sequel."

As for Cameron having a problem with authority figures? Hmm. You may be right. He certainly does not like Fox suggesting any kind of alteration of his films. But then again, what director, or even simply a screenwriter, would? Anyway...I would say that he treated the authority figures fine with Titanic, except for that whole First Officer William McMaster Murdoch matter. I was watching Aliens the other day as well. AMC loves to show it, along with Alien and the other sequels. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's just that his wording was a little different for some quotes" - Sometimes small changes in wording can change the meaning, without the change being obvious. The change could be from being transmitted word-of-mouth, from one person to the next to the next... . That's why it's better to get the quote from something written that ultimately comes from the person who first heard the person being quoted, without change. Also, the tour guide may have changed the wording as he tries to recall it from memory for his tours. Or the other source may have gotten it wrong. Without more info about where the quotes came from, it's not clear which is more reliable, the tour guide or the other source. The more reliable forms of quotes are from someone writing an article where they have interviewed the person being quoted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. And, again, thanks for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: Something else to take into consideration, Bob, is that the tour guide is trying to be funny/amusing for a lot, if not all, of these stories and may have purposely changed the wording a little because of that. That is another reason to go with a more reliable source, of course. But, yeah, I will see you back on the Avatar article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Please see Talk:Avatar#Literary antecedents (Themes and inspirations) -- Jheald (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist

Just a quick note Bob. I know we've crossed swords a few times on the Avatar talk page but it was improper of me to accuse you of a nationalist bias, but you know, it was late and I was tired and I was a bit tetchy. You haven't given me any reason to doubt you haven't got the best interests of the article at heart. The main thing for the article is that it remains stable and any disputes stay on the discussion page which is a principle we both seem to respect. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming over here to say that. It speaks well for you. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob:

Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DEADHORSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.242.126 (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What was this in regard to? It appears to be a copy of my response to your comment at the end of the section here. Even though I disagreed with the editor you were attacking, to the extent that I complained about that editor for edit warring and that editor was blocked, I think it's best not to make personal attacks because in general they lead to an unproductive editing environment for everyone, including you and me. That's why I referred you to WP:NPA and to the other parts of Wikipedia for similar reasons. Just trying to improve the Wikipedia editing environment. Nothing personal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Speed of Light" Arbitration case

Hello, Bob K31416. If you are interested, there is a request for amendement regarding this matter. I was told that you were interested.Likebox (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Hi Bob:

Thanks for your participation in this action. Unfortunately, no amount of practical suggestions, good humor, or (by the way) evidence, can replace clairvoyance, omniscience, and (by the way) prejudice. Brews ohare (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish that I could give you some good advice, but I'm not sure what to say. Maybe some advice would be not to take it personally. Sounds weird I know but it may still be useful to have that attitude.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Yep, I shouldn't take it personally, and I do not. I take it as evidence that the appeal process has not worked: suggestions and evidence have been ignored completely, without excuse. That is sad for WP, as discussion on Talk pages is headed toward bus-stop conversation:

"Nice weather, eh?"

"So you say!"

"Uh, OK." Brews ohare (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Leading the effort

Unfortunately, I think Wikid and North8000 may not have as good of a grasp on what needs to be done to correct this wiki policy problem as you do. I think you and I will probably have to lead the way. Scott P. (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen the problem that you are referring to. Sorry. But I'm trying to stay open minded. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I said this because while I know that we all have essentially the same views here, neither of them seems to be able to express themselves in a very persuasive manner. Their postings on my talk page seem to be essentially good, but when reading through them, they take so much time to get to the meat of them, that I don't see them as making good spokesmen for our 'first line of attack'. I think that their difficulty in summarizing their positions well, might have actually made it more difficult for us to win the last debate over at the WP:NOR talk page. Not that it was actually ever a 'winnable' battle, due to what I see as the major entrenchment of the three defenders of the status-quo there.

I think that their endorsement of this cause will still be helpful, but that you and I would probably make the best front-line debaters in this attempt to restore reason to WP:SYN.

Thanks for your input thus far Bob. I hope that you might get a chance to look at my recent posting at Jimbo's talk page and to hopefully comment on it either here or at my talk page when you get a chance.

Scott P. (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Acutally, when I mentioned "problem", I meant "policy problem", i.e. I haven't seen the policy problem that you are referring to, viz. editing abuse in articles because of the present form of WP:SYN. I requested from you an example of how the present form of WP:SYNTH can be used for abuse and I don't think you have responded. Wikid77 gave an effort at responding to my request with two examples that didn't turn out to hold up. Do you have an example from the editing of an actual article? Again, sorry but I don't see any evidence so far that would enable me to support you. Also, you might reread one of my earlier messages on your talk page where I explained my position, which might be characterized as friendly disagreement with you, and which means that I will try to keep an open mind. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)\

WAD

Bob: I really don't know what the >> symbols are "for." Haven't looked too closely. As always, am interested in content much more than formatting. If you'd like to see them removed, then go to town !!!! Calamitybrook (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Avatar (2009 film)

I have requested for Avatar (2009 film) to be peer reviewed. Since I saw you were one of it's top contributors, I thought I should let you know. Feel free to to fix any objections on the peer review page. Thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagoras's Theorem

Bob, I'll answer your question about the triangle in more detail here, since you seem to be genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the issue. I am fully aware of the fact that a triangle sits in a two dimensional plane. But you are overlooking a number of factors. Trivially, there is the fact that every two dimensional plane has an associated perpendicular. Two dimensions don't ever exist in the absence of the third dimension.

Secondly, you correctly pointed out that the Pythagoras theorem is a special case of the cosine rule. The cosine rule is about angles, and so therefore is Pythagoras's theorem about angles. The triangle is all about three angles. Those angles all require the third dimension in order to have any meaning. We cannot have a rotation about a point, as someone has suggested. We need a perpendicular direction.

But the full argument can all be very neatly summed up in the three dimensional version of the Lagrange identity which is effectively Pythagoras's theorem in the form,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\ ,$

This equation clearly contains both an inner product and an outer product, yet the section in the main article on Pythagoras's theorem called 'inner product spaces' is trying to treat Pythagoras's theorem in the absence of any mention of the outer product.

Anyway, I thought that you were also driving at the fact that the sources that deal with the 'n' dimensional Pythagoras theorem only talked about it in terms of being a definition of distance. You were hinting earlier that you didn't think that the 'n' dimensional cosine rule should be in the article. What actually is your own viewpoint on the matter? David Tombe (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Welcome!

1) Re "We cannot have a rotation about a point, as someone has suggested." - I don't see why not. Would you care to say more about it?

2) re "You were hinting earlier that you didn't think that the 'n' dimensional cosine rule should be in the article. What actually is your own viewpoint on the matter?" - Well, perhaps I can express my feelings on all the stuff related to the section that is now called "Inner product spaces". I think the section now looks fine. I'm pleased with how it turned out. I may revisit it and see how it fits in with the rest of the sections when the dust clears, but I'm pretty satisfied with it for now.

3) The equation you have above came from Lounesto p. 96. He calls it the Pythagorean Theorem. But next he says that it can also be written as

$|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |=|\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ sin(\mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} )$

But isn't this the definition of the magnitude of the cross product, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, On your point number (1), I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis. I can't really say anything more on that matter. It's just a question of belief. On your point number (2), the section 'inner product spaces' is actually written up very well indeed, and it is very clear. It certainly ties in with the sources. But that is not the point. Somebody wanted to highlight the fact that the actual interpretation of Pythagoras's theorem actually changes when we generalize it to inner product spaces. That emphasis has now been removed from the article by virtue of the title change and the fact that that section was moved away to a different location. On your point number (3), the bottom line is that cross product (outer product) is intricately linked up with Pythagoras's theorem, whereas there seems to be a focus in the article on the inner product and a tendency to brush the outer product aside. I've replied to Carl again on the Pythagoras's theorem talk page. Perhaps you should take a look at that reply. David Tombe (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Re "I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis." - See Rotation. Note at the beginning, "A two-dimensional object rotates around a center (or point) of rotation."

3) Starting with the familiar form of the Pythagorean Theorem,

$c^{2}\ =\ a^{2}\ +\ b^{2}$

$|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}+|\mathbf {b} |^{2}$

then using the familiar definitions,

$|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |^{2}=(\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} )\cdot (\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} )$

$|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |\ =\ |\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ sin(a,b)$

  $\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} \ \ \ =\ |\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ cos(a,b)$

$sin(a,b)\ =\ {\frac {|\mathbf {a} |}{|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |}}$

$cos(a,b)\ =\ {\frac {|\mathbf {b} |}{|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |}}$

along with simple algebra, one can derive,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\ ,$

So this equation with the cross product is just a rewriting of the simple Pythagorean theorem c²=a²+b² using the above definitions. I don't see any special interpretation of the appearance of either the inner or outer products here.

I noticed that you mentioned on the article talk page that, "This suggests that Pythagoras's theorem is strictly a 3D affair." I don't think so because only the magnitude of the cross product appears in the equation, and this occurs because that magnitude is defined in terms of the sine. For example, we can rewrite the same equation in terms of the sine.

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}\ |\mathbf {b} |^{2}\ sin^{2}(a,b)$

If you still feel there is some special interpretation of the appearance of the magnitude of the cross product, is there a source that discusses it? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I know all about the above manipulations. But are you aware of the fact that the cross product only exists in 0, 1, 3 and 7 dimensions? That is certainly a well sourced fact. David Tombe (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "But are you aware of the fact that the cross product only exists in 0, 1, 3 and 7 dimensions?" - Could you show me the source for that so that I can read it and understand it better? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, There is a wikipedia article entitled seven dimensional cross product and it contains alot of sources. Nobody was ever disputing the fact that cross product only holds non-trivially in 3 and 7 dimensions. The prolonged debate on the talk page at that article was about whether or not the equation,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

is valid in seven dimensions. Initially, I wrongly believed that it wasn't valid in 7 dimensions, but after trying out numbers, I finally had to concede that it is indeed valid in seven dimensions. However, nobody at that page was ever arguing that its validity extended outside 3 or 7 dimensions. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I've got some reading to do. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, Yes indeed, it is alot of reading, and in retrospect I can see now that there is alot of chaff and unneccessary wrangling over terminologies. I'll now give you a brief summary.

(1) Everybody agreed from the beginning that the cross product only holds in 0,1, 3, and 7 dimensions. This has been known since the 19th century, but a formal proof has only existed since the 1960's. I discovered about the 7D cross product only many years after leaving university, and that was while browsing through a 'history of maths' article in an Encyclopaedia Britannica. It told me that no formal proof yet existed for the fact that cross product only exists in 0,1,3, and 7 dimensions, but that one was nearing completion, and that it was very complex.

So the first argument on the talk page was over the fact that the reason given in the article for the proof of the fact that cross product only exists in 0,1,3,and 7 dimensions, was not adequate. Since then, sources have been provided which give the modern proofs, but these proofs themselves still don't appear in the article as such, not that that necessarily matters as such.

(2) Then came the issue of the equation,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

I had sources, including two wikipedia articles, which showed that this equation was the special 3D case of the Lagrange identity. And so it is. But John Blackburne claimed that it held in 7D as well. I disagreed initially. But finally John Blackburne told me to use numbers to test it out. I did so and was forced to concede that John Blackburne was correct. I then re-examined the analysis and figured that in 7D, the right hand side of the equation contains 7 terms which expand into 252 terms. That is 3 groups of 84. Two of these groups mutually cancel, and we are left with 84 terms that reduce to 21 terms in brackets anti-distributively. The 21 terms are the terms needed to make the equation valid with the magnitude of the 7D cross product. This only works in 3D and 7D. The 3D case is easy because the right hand side contains only three terms and the cross product relationship is self evident.

Anyway, the point is that cross product only holds non-trivially in 3 and 7 dimensions, and everybody is agreed about that. Hence Pythagoras's theorem can be shown to be a special case of the Lagrange identity, but only in 3D, with 7D being a special half-way house case. David Tombe (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to look at Lounesto p.96 and pages before it, but they are no longer viewable. It's as if they wanted me to buy the book. Hummph, how dare they.

Anyhow. Does the same definition of cross product in 3-dim in terms of the sine, hold in n-dim except for the possibility that the unit vector in the direction of the cross product may not be unique? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob. Good question. The first questions that naturally arise when one first contemplates the concept of a vector cross product in dimensions higher than 3D is 'What does it look like? How do we do it?'. We are all very familiar with everything to do with the three dimensional cross product and all the inter-relationships that you have already manipulated above. But then comes the question of what a seven dimensional cross product would look like. Well as you know, the embryo of the 3D cross product began with an inspiration by Sir William Rowan Hamilton in 1843 as he walked along the tow path of the Royal Canal in Dublin. He was so excited about it that he inscribed the result on the wall at Brougham Bridge. This result is the effective basis of the later result of Gibbs that,

z = x × y	x × y
i	j×k
j	k×i
k	i×j

The sine relationship then follows on.

As regards the seven dimensional cross product, the situation is more complicated because each unit vector can be the product of three distinct pairs from amongst the other 6. Here is one example of how it might look.

z = x × y	x × y
i	j×l, k×o, and n×m
j	i×l, k×m, and n×o
k	- i×o, j×m, and l×n
l	i×j, k×n, and m×o
m	i×n, j×k, and l×o
n	-i×m, k×l, and j×o
o	i×k, j×n, and l×m

However, the seven dimensional cross product does not obey either the vector triple product relationship or the Jacobi identity. But both the 3D and the 7D cross products allow the 'n'D Lagrange identity to take on the form,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

The proof of this in 3D is quite straightforward and most sources are misleading in that they would tend to give the impression that this equation is uniquely the 3D version of the Lagrange identity. And with the sine relationship added, this equation then of course becomes Pythagoras's theorem.

The argument on the talk page at seven dimensional cross product was because initially I couldn't see how this equation could possibly apply in 7D. But John Blackburne finally forced me to look closer by pointing out that substitution of numbers will adequately confirm the fact. If you look at the talk page at Lagrange identity you will see how I eventually came to accept it. Like I said yesterday, in the 7D case, the right hand side is seven terms that expand into 252 terms. These 252 terms form three groups of 84, two of which are mutually cancelling. That leaves 84. The 84 contract down to 21 terms in brackets and these 21 terms make the equation work.

However, the 7D cross product cannot be related to 'sine', because it doesn't fit with the Jacobi identity. The conclusion is that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of the more general 'n'D Lagrange identity.

The answer to your specific question above is that the 3D cross product, whether written in 'sine' form or not, only holds in 3D. David Tombe (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If I have understood Carl correctly, there is confusion here because Lounesto called his equation involving the cross product "Pythagoras' theorem", which was a huge misnomer. This equation must be interpreted rather as part of the defintion of the cross product, and therefore is restricted to 3 or 7 dimensions. The proper statement of Pythagoras' theorem expresses the squared magnitude of a vector as the sum of squares of its orthogonal compnents, and that statement has no dimensional restrictions and no connection to the cross product. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, there is a bit of irony here. If you look at the edit history of seven dimensional cross product, you will see that I actually tried to remove the name 'Pythagorean identity' from that equation. But now I have changed my mind. It's a tricky issue. The equation is accurately called the Lagrange identity for the special cases of 3 and 7 dimensions. But in my opinion it is also exactly Pythagoras's theorem in the 3D case. In the context of the article, it is first presented as an equation which needs to hold for the purposes of defining the cross product. As such, in the context, we can't call it the Lagrange identity initially because it doesn't reveal itself as being the Lagrange identity in 3 or 7 dimensions until after it has been shown that the equation only works in 3 or 7 dimensions. However, using the name 'Pythagorean identity', as Lounesto does, immediately incorporates the spirit of why that equation is desirable in the first place as a starting point. Nevertheless, I don't think that 'Pythagorean identity' is necessarily a good name for the 7D case.

The 3D case is however unambiguous. Pythagoras's theorem is clearly the special 3D form of the Lagrange identity. The cross product is merely a transitionary mathematical tool which is used in demonstrating that linkage. Clearly Pythagoras's theorem is a 3D theorem. It is a theorem about a 2D triangle in a 3D space. Lagrange's identity tells us unequivocally that Pythagoras's theorem is not a theorem in a 2D space. David Tombe (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi David: Maybe I get your point. I'd say it differently. I'd say Pythagoras' theorem stated generally is about squared magnitude being the sum of squares of orthogonal components. I'd say for general a and b in 3D or 7D a·b gives us a component of a (or b, take your choice) in the direction of b (or a), and a × b gives us an orthogonal component. For instance, a = (a.b)b/|b| +(a - (a.b)b/|b|) = (a.b)b/|b| + (a × b)/|b|. So Pythagoras' theorem as sum of squares comes down to sin² + cos² = 1. In other words, where a cross product is available, it involves the sin. Hence, we can replace sin by |a × b|/(|a||b|). So we've got an equivalent statement involving the cross product where the cross-product is available, but no connection where it is not. Brews ohare (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not got this right yet. It looks like I need the triple cross product b × (a × b) to get the direction that is in the plane of a and b and orthogonal to b. Let's take b as unit magnitude. Then

$\mathbf {a} =(\mathbf {a\cdot b} )\mathbf {b} +\mathbf {b\times } (\mathbf {b\times a} )\ ,$

$a^{2}=(\mathbf {a\cdot b} )^{2}+\mathbf {a\cdot } \mathbf {b\times } (\mathbf {a\times b} )\ ,$

$=(\mathbf {a\cdot b} )^{2}+(\mathbf {a\times } \mathbf {b} )\mathbf {\cdot } (\mathbf {a\times b} )\ ,$

$=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}\left(\cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta \right)\ .$

The point of which is to show the utility of the cross product is to establish the component of a orthogonal to b, which works only in 3D and 7D, but in any dimensional space we can always find the orthogonal components in some fashion without the cross product, whether or not it exists. Pythagoras remains to be about summing orthogonal components in every case.

Apologies, Bob, for using your Talk page for this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Haven't gotten around to reading all of this, but I expect I will. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, The bottom line is that Pythagoras's theorem is the Lagrange identity in three dimensions. Cross product is merely a tool which enables this fact to be exposed. See the reply which I am about to give to Carl on his talk page.

Meanwhile, the relevance of the Jacobi identity in all of this is to rule out the same argument for seven dimensions, because the sine relationship is dependent on the Jacobi identity which does not hold in 7D. David Tombe (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In n-dim, cross product in terms of sine

Hi David, I looked at the article Seven-dimensional cross product and here's an excerpt for the case of n-dim,

From the Pythagorean identity and the second property the norm |x × y| is therefore:

|x × y| = |x||y| sin θ.

So according to the Wikipedia article, this relation that held in 3-dim also holds in n-dim. Am I understanding this correctly? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, the cross product is not defined except for 3D and 7D. The angle, on the other hand, can be defined in n-dimensions using the dot product:

$\cos \theta ={\frac {\mathbf {a\cdot b} }{\|\mathbf {a} \|\|\mathbf {b} \|}}\ ,$

which determines the sine using:

$\cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta =1\ .$

The impediment for the cross product is finding a vector relation v = V ( a, b ) that is orthogonal to both a and b for every pair of vectors a & b. That cannot be done in a space of arbitrary dimension n. One might think of trying:

$\mathbf {v} =\mathbf {a} -{\frac {(\mathbf {a\cdot b} )}{\|\mathbf {b} \|^{2}}}\mathbf {b} \ ,$

which can be constructed in arbitrary dimension n and is orthogonal to b for any a and b, but it's not orthogonal to a. One approach to trying to find such a v is to express a and b in terms of unit vectors e_j (j = 1, ..., n ), and create a multiplication table as displayed in Octonion.

$e_{i}e_{j}=-\delta _{ij}e_{0}+\varepsilon _{ijk}e_{k}\ ,$

where $\varepsilon _{ijk}$ is the permutation tensor in 3D and something else in 7-D.

Apparently combinations cannot be found in arbitrary dimensions, only in n = 3 & 7. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, The sine relationship in the cross product is dependent on the Jacobi identity, which doesn't hold in 7D. I'm sorry I can't give you any sources for that, because if I could, I wouldn't hesitate to delete that material from the seven dimensional cross product article. The best that I could do would be to copy out the proof from my old applied maths notes. While that may not be satisfactory for wikipedia purposes, it would at least be eductational for your own benefit.

I wanted you to look at the seven dimensional cross product article simply to satisfy yourself that cross product exists in only 3 and 7 dimensions.

But ultimately, my point was that Pythagoras's theorem is simply the Lagrange identity in 3D. Based on that wikipedia article, we could also argue that Pythagoras's theorem is the Lagrange identity in 7D as well, and that Pythagoras's theorem is uniquely a 3 and 7 dimensional theorem. But I have always doubted that angle, as we know it, has any meaning in 7D, and I have recently turned up the proof in my old applied maths notes that links the sine relationship to the Jacobi identity, which doesn't hold in 7D.

Apart from linking the 7D cross product to angle, I am quite satisfied that the rest of the material in that article is factually correct. It might however do with a bit of a clean up to make it more readable and to explain the issues which may cause queries. At the momentum it is rather shrouded in too much 'pure maths speak'. David Tombe (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

David: What is the connection between angle and the Jacobi identity? It would seem to me that having cosine from the dot product necessarily determines the sine from $\sin ^{2}+\cos ^{2}=1\,$. This relation can be interpreted as part of the definition of the sine. So I'm led to think that your objection is related to the interpretation of θ, and not its actual value, which is clearly determined? Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, what you say above is true, providing that we assume that angle exists in any dimensions, as defined through cosine and/or inner product. And if you are correct in that respect, then my argument changes slightly to the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the special case of the Lagrange identity for both 3 and 7 dimensions.

I would argue that angle is a 2D concept that only has meaning providing that there exists a singular third dimension, and so I would rule out angle for 7D. But we need something more substantial than a mere hunch. Therefore I am pointing out that angle cannot exist in the 7D cross product, because, as is already agreed by everybody, the 7D cross product is not compatible with the Jacobi identity. I have given a proof of that on your talk page, but unfortunately I have had to improvise with the symbolism. David Tombe (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph, the definition of angle based upon dot product has really no intuitive interpretation, as all it means is that the projection (a. b) is always less than ||a|| ||b||. Any function that must be less than 1 could be used. You would like to have angle related to rotation, which requires an axis, and that is a reasonable thing to request. But it is not addressed by Cauchy-Schwarz.

Regarding Pythagoras' theorem, I think we have the often seen occurrence of a semantic difficulty. My present take is that Pythagoras' theorem means square of magnitude is sum of squares of orthogonal components, and as such is divorced entirely from cross-product. It is therefore readily applied to arbitrary dimension n. It is the cross-product that provides the dimensional requirements, and can be used only in 3D and 7D, where it just so happens it can be used as an alternative expression of Pythagoras' theorem. To combine this point with your request for a connection to rotation, because the existence of cross product also means an axis of rotation can be found, I'd hazard that if we require angle to be connected to rotation, then you are perfectly right that Pythagoras applies only in 3D and 7D. But if we allow angle to be a meaningless expression that says only the dot product has a maximum value of ||a|| ||b||, then Pythagoras' theorem can be used anywhere. Brews ohare (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Concept of angle

Hi David, I'll put aside any followup I have regarding the cross product and sine for now, since it appears that we need to discuss the more basic concept of angle first. Regarding your remark, "I would argue that angle is a 2D concept that only has meaning providing that there exists a singular third dimension" and a previous remark of yours "I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis."

What are your thoughts regarding the second and third sentences of the lead of the Wikipedia article Rotation?

"A two-dimensional object rotates around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object rotates around an imaginary line called an axis."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I read that part in the article Rotation, and I don't agree with it. As far as I am concerned, a rotation must have an axis which is a line perpendicular to the plane of rotation. The point is that all our 2D planes exist in a 3D space. If one wishes to conceive of the concept of a 2D space in which a veil has been drawn over any higher dimensions such that they cannot be discerned, then it is a matter of sheer conjecture as to whether or not Pythagoras's theorem will apply. Such a pure 2D space is a fantasy world, and so we know nothing about it, or what rotation might mean in it. And it is purely conjecture on the part of those who argue that rotation occurs about a point in such a space. As regards 'inner product spaces in 'n' dimensions' I noticed arguments that I kept well out of. They were arguing over the real and the imaginary parts. As far as I am concerned, the entire concept of an 'n' dimensional inner product space is imaginary.

But the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of Lagrange's identity is not conjecture. It is a plain undisputable fact. If you don't believe me about the sine in the 7D case and the Jacobi identity, that only changes the argument very slightly. We would then be forced to accept that Pythagoras's theorem holds in 7D as well as 3D. But I have left a proof on Brews's talk page regarding the close connection between the sine in the cross product and the Jacobi identity. And the Jacobi identity only holds in 3D, and nobody is disputing that fact. David Tombe (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Concept of 2-dimensional space

David, I'll put aside any followup regarding angle for now, since it appears that we need to discuss the more basic concept of a 2-dimensional space first. From your comments, it seems that you believe that a 2-dimensional space cannot exist mathematically without a 3-dimensional space that it is part of. Am I understanding you correctly? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, It's a very interesting question and I've given it more thought. If we try to contemplate a 2D space in isolation, we are effectively playing the game of 'let's pretend'. I think that we need to distinguish between a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand, and a 2D space on the other hand. I would say that we can't properly conceive of the idea of a 2D space any more than we can conceive of the idea of a 5D space.

Consider a 5D space. If an object rotates in the plane of two of the dimensions, that means that it will have three different and mutually orthogonal rotation axes. Can we just assume that Pythagoras's theorem will hold in such a world? Is it not more likely that something more complex would exist in such a world?

Consider the Lagrange identity. It holds in any dimensions. In 3D space it supplies the basis for Pythagoras's theorem. But in 5D space would you still expect such a 3D identity to apply? In 2D space would you expect such a 3D identity to apply? We certainly couldn't use vector cross product in 2D to handle rotations.

Imagine you could travel to other universes in different dimensions. Imagine your first day back at work on your return. Your colleagues would ask you if you had a good holiday. You would reply 'Yes. The Pythagoras theorems were splendid. At the 15D universe they were using a complex Pythagoras theorem based on the 15D version of the Lagrange identity'.

I just don't think that we can assume that Pythagoras's theorem in its classical form can automatically be generalized to 'n' dimensions without losing its original areal interpretation. In an 'n'D inner product space, I see Pythagoras's theorem as being merely a definition. The 'n'D inner product space is a fantasy world where Pythagoras's theorem is invited in, but told to take off its outer product and leave it on the mat in the porch. The outer product comes with the sine of the angle, which in turn hinges on the Jacobi identity, which is in turn restricted to three dimensions. David Tombe (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "I think that we need to distinguish between a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand, and a 2D space on the other hand. I would say that we can't properly conceive of the idea of a 2D space any more than we can conceive of the idea of a 5D space." - I think this is on the right track, but I'm a bit uncertain as to what these statements mean to you. When you wrote "a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand", perhaps you mean in the physical space where we exist? Whereas in the next part of the sentence, "and a 2D space on the other hand", perhaps you mean a purely mathematical construction? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, That's basically it. Anything that we assume about a 2D space is based on our observations of 2D geometry in a 3D space. It's impossible to know anything at all about the realities of a purely 2D space, because the idea is purely imaginary. David Tombe (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What it would be like for me to exist in a two dimensional world would be hard for me to understand too. But pure mathematics isn't concerned with that. Purely mathematical objects, such as mathematical spaces, are defined independently of physical space. For example, from p. 48 of Paige, Lowell J. (1961). Elements of Linear Algebra. Blaisdell Publishing Company. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"The real vector space V_n(R) will be defined in terms of its elements, a rule of equality, and two rules of operation."

The book goes on to define it as "the set of ordered n-tuples of real numbers..." etc. and "equality of vectors", "addition of vectors", and "scalar multiplication" are part of the definition. There's no discussion of any correspondence to physical space in the definition. Is this OK so far? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, That's been exactly my point all along. There is no correspondence to physical space in any of the definitions relating to higher dimensions. It's all pure mathematics. But even the pure maths restricts Pythagoras's theorem to 3 and 7 dimensions. This fact is made quite clear through the Lagrange identity. There only remains the issue of eliminating the 7D case through the Jacobi identity. See the comment that I am about to make on the talk page at Pythagoras's theorem. David Tombe (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a purely mathematical 2 dimensional space, is it OK to discuss the concept of angle in such a space, independently of physical space? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, We can certainly discuss it. But it will all be pure speculation that will no doubt be heavily prejudiced by our knowledge of a 2D plane in a 3D space. There is nothing stopping us from defining a 2D space or a 15D space. There is nothing stopping us from defining a theorem in the likeness of Pythagoras's theorem to apply in these imaginary mathematical constructs. But we should not assume that these defined 'n' dimensional Pythagoras's theorems, which are purely mathematical constructs, should be equated with the very real Pythagoras's theorem, which is actually a proveable theorem in 3D space. David Tombe (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we have a line and a separate point, both in the same 2-dim space. Then we move the point in such a way that we keep its distance to the line constant. Would the moving point have a path that is a line segment, parallel to the line? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You are equating this mathematical 2D space with a 2D plane in a 3D space. A purely mathematical 2D space has go no connection whatsoever with areas or geometry. The Lagrange identity in 2D gives us no linkage whatsoever with 3D Euclidean space. We cannot assume that a purely mathematical 2D space has got any connection with a 2D plane in a 3D space. Only 3D space can be linked to Euclidean geometry, and it's the 3D Lagrange identity which leads us to Pythagoras's theorem.

The answer to your question above is 'yes', but only if we are dealing with a 2D plane in a 3D space. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "You are equating this mathematical 2D space with a 2D plane in a 3D space." - I didn't understand this remark since there was no reliance AFAICT on the existence of any 3D space for the discussion of points, a line, and a line segment in the 2D space of the above situation that I presented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You gave a plane geometrical interpretation to the mathematical concept of a 2D space. I can't imagine such an interpretation. I can only imagine a 2D plane in a 3D space. So you are asking me a question about a scenario which I can't imagine unless I assume it to equate to a 2D plane in a 3D space. What you must remember here is that I am banned from discussing physics on wikipedia. And If I were to fully give you justice on your question, I would have to branch into physics. I do have a better answer for you, but I am disqualified from stating it. I have tried my best to answer you within the confines of mathematics/geometry. David Tombe (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's about it for me. I don't think we can make any more progress in this discussion. I don't see why there is a need to discuss physics for a purely mathematical subject of a mathematical 2D space, which has points, lines and line segments, which are defined mathematically as a locus of points, independent of physics. Sorry we couldn't reach a meeting of minds. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, The problem is because I can't imagine any such concept as a plane geometrical 2D plane in the absence of a third dimension. If we want to simply assume that such a 2D plane can exist, and then import all the rules and visualizations from a 2D plane in a 3D space, then of course I would have to concede that we can have angle. But we will run into trouble when we discover that we can't use the cross product to describe rotational phenomena.

Just as an aside, have you ever thought about 7D curl? David Tombe (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, There's a set of relationships that are all fully compatible in 3D. These are Pythagoras's theorem, cross product, dot product, the Lagrange identity, and the Jacobi identity. Try moving outside of 3D and you get a glitch with the Jacobi identity for all other dimensions, and you also get a glitch with the Lagrange identity for all other dimensions apart from 7. Pythagoras's theorem emerges from the 3D Lagrange identity. With the exception of the controversial case of 7D, it certainly doesn't emerge from the Lagrange identity in any other dimensions. You seem to be assuming that a mathematical 2D space can be represented by a 2D plane as we understand such in a 3D space. Are you confident that you can make that assumption? David Tombe (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

re "You seem to be assuming that a mathematical 2D space can be represented by a 2D plane as we understand such in a 3D space. Are you confident that you can make that assumption?" - I didn't understand your comment since I didn't mention anything about 3D in my discussion of a mathematical 2D space, which has points, lines and line segments, which are defined mathematically as a locus of points in the 2D space. Are you sure you want to continue this? It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You are still making the assumption that a purely 2D space can be represented by plane geometry, whereas in fact it is merely an algebraic contruct. You have already told me that you can't imagine a 2D plane where no 3rd dimension exists? So how do you know that the algebra of a 2D space would relate to such a concept if you can't even imagine it? In 3D, we can clearly see that the algebra of a 3D space relates to 3D geometry, and 3D geometry involves 2D planes. David Tombe (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we can communicate on this subject. I'm ending my participation in this conversation. No hard feelings. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagoras

Hi Bob: It looks like the editing of this page has begun to attract the WP crazies. It's time to leave. In a month or so it'll quiet down again, and if we are still motivated, we can clean up the wreckage they have left behind, like a bunch of janitors after the party has ended. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a wise move just to step away for awhile. You're right not to let it bother you too much, since everything we do is voluntary. Here's a clip of Marge Simpson's edit getting reverted by Bart, who also happened to revert his mother in the process too. As I recall, she got too carried away with the fictional internet game Neverquest in that episode.

I try to think of the Wikipedia for what it is, an encyclopedia, not a proving ground of our personal worth. For example, I've come across some mention of suicide threats in Wikipedia discussions. Now that's really carrying things too far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: For a reader, WP is a source of ideas related to a topic that may or may not be useful or accurate, but will expand one's view of a topic. For an editor, WP has many roles. Being a proving ground is probably a role for many, and leads to a lot of trouble. Being a venue for collaborative interaction is a role too, but seems to be rarely enjoyed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:Avatar

I thought you meant to give it to alt text, since there is no alt text there. My bad. Guy546^(Talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Critical reception section in Avatar (2009 film) peer review

Hey, Bob. Your thoughs on the Critical reception section length for the Avatar article and why it is designed the way it is may be helpful in the peeer review. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and as you can see over there, your transmission came in loud and clear in any case. : ) Right now I'm looking at how to trim critical reception. What do you think so far about my comment over there? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I guess we just wait for feedback now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page, Bob. Per your request, left a comment at the peer review page. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars mention in Avatar

I wasn't sure if you still wanted an answer, even though you removed this question from my talk page:

We "discussed" it in our edit summaries, when interacting with each other. It was one of those times when we were working off each other so well, maybe the first time we did that. I would go through the edit history and find it, but I am lazy at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. A bit of a funk was coming over me so I deleted a few comments that I had put in, in various places, and I think I need a rest from Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, Bob. I completely understand, believe me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Bob:

I have never been involved in a Featured Article procedure, and thought you might have some words on the subject. The Pythagorean theorem article looks pretty good to me at this point. Obviously I have made many revisions of this article, so I am rather too close to it at this point to have an objective view. Would you be willing to participate? Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with peer reviews, as I recall just recently some with the Avatar (2009 film) peer review. With that preface, I think a peer review would be good to get some fresh uninvolved opinions about the article. I would take a look at it from time to time, and maybe comment here and there, but my feeling at present is that I don't think I would be too active. I think I'm trying to increase my sanity by decreasing my Wikipedizing, LOL! But not real successful at that. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just a random comment, I wouldn't have the angle equation in the figure in the section "Euclidean distance in various coordinate systems". Either have the left side or the right side, and put the equation in the caption. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Did that. Thanks for the suggestion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just tried it out.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Staring proof of Pythagoras

Hi Bob: You may recall the suggestion you made that is summarized here. A nagging question in my mind is whether the proof that "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" doesn't require Pythagoras' theorem. In other words, perhaps a different justification than that provided is necessary to avoid circular reasoning? What is your view? Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, here is a source. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Hi. I don't understand what point you are trying to convey. Could you explain it more? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. This observation is a crucial point in establishing the inequalities used in Staring's proof. Although it is intuitively obvious that the hypotenuse is longer than either of the adjacent sides of a right triangle, to put this inequality on a firm axiomatic footing one needs something akin to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. That is, the intuitive obviousness of this point stems from our everyday experience with normal 3-D space, and actually cannot be established without Pythagoras' theorem. Without a way to establish this fact, Staring's proof begs the question. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Differently put, Pythagoras' theorem is a consequence of the Euclidean axioms, and it is stated somewhere in the article that it is tantamount to the non-intersection of parallel lines. What we need to make Staring's proof non-circular is to identify the axiom that leads to the required inequality, so that it is plain that we are not simply using Pythagoras' theorem itself to establish the theorem. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I need some help here because my grounding in the axioms is not deep enough. For example, the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is a consequence of Pythagoras' theorem. Cauchy-Schwarz inequality establishes this point for function spaces, and it appears that that is sufficient to establish the function space as Euclidean. So it appears that Staring's proof could be taken as establishing Pythagoras by assuming Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. But that doesn't seem to be a big accomplishment if it already is known by logical deduction. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, all that Staring has proved may be that if Pythagoras' theorem holds, then a da + b db = c dc. That seems to be a result more readily established by direct application of differentiation. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your point is, how do we know that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than either leg. This is a corollary to a theorem from a geometry text.

Theorem 91 – "If one angle of a triangle is greater than a second angle, the side opposite the first angle is greater than the side opposite the second angle."

Corollary II – "The hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than either leg."

Welchons, AM; Krickenberger, WR; Pearson, HR (1961). Plane Geometry. Ginn and Company. p. 508.

I also found the theorem online here.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Question: There is a question of logical sequence here. If a theorem is to be used to establish Pythagoras, then it mus be logically prior to Pythagoras. By that I mean that the logical chain leading to the theorem must not include Pythagoras in the chain of reasoning supporting its proof. So the question is just where does this Theorem fit in? It is dependent upon a definition of angle, which might (I don't know) involve Pythagoras' theorem somehow. For example, angle is often defined using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. I can read this reference over, but maybe you know the answer? Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The proof of theorem 91 on p. 508 doesn't use right triangles or the Pythagorean theorem. It constructs a line from a vertex of the triangle to the opposite side such that one of the resulting interior triangles is isosceles, with one of the equal angles being one of the angles of the original triangle. Then it uses "sides opposite equal angles are equal". Then it uses theorem 89 on p. 507 that "each side of a triangle is less than the sum of the other two sides", which is proved (according to a hint) using assumption 14 on p. 56, "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points". --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: The assumption stated "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points" appears to be simply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Is "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points" simply the same thing as Pythagoras' theorem?

Here's my attempt to answer this question. A viable axiomatic basis for a geometry: postulate the properties of points and lines, and define a distance function d = PQ for the distance between points P and Q:

If P and Q are points, then

$PQ\geqq 0\ .$

$PQ=0\ \mathrm {iff} \ P=Q\ .$

$PQ=QP\ .$

Then one can define a variety of distance functions that satisfy these postulates. Some such distance functions also satisfy the triangle inequality, which becomes an additional postulate of a geometry:

$PQ+QR\geqq PR\ .$

This inequality appears to me to say "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points". Do you agree? However, although necessary, the triangle inequality appears insufficient to establish Pythagoras' theorem: Example: Euclidean distance function

$d(P,Q)={\sqrt {(x_{2}-x_{1})^{2}+(y_{2}-y_{1})^{2}}}\ .$

Example: Taxicab geometry:

$t(P,Q)=|x_{2}-x_{1}|+|y_{2}-y_{1}|\ .$

Both satisfy the triangle inequality.

Thus, Pythagoras' formula appears not to follow from these axioms, but to require more, because taxicab distance also satisfies the requirements.

How does Staring's proof force us into a Euclidean distance function instead of a taxicab distance (say)? Brews ohare (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "PQ+QR≥PR This inequality appears to me to say 'a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points'." – It appears that this inequality is one consequence of "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points".

Regarding the rest, I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. But I can try to respond to some of the things you wrote.

Re "Is 'a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points' simply the same thing as Pythagoras' theorem?" – No.

Re "Euclidean distance function" – It looks like your equation for this is the same as the Pythagorean theorem.

Re "How does Staring's proof force us into a Euclidean distance function instead of a taxicab distance (say)?" – For the proofs of the Pythagorean theorem like Staring's proof and most others, I don't think that distance is defined by a distance function. In the textbook that I referred to, it had this to say about definitions.

"In defining a term, we express its meaning by use of simpler (better understood) terms which have already been defined. These latter terms, in turn, can be defined in still other simple terms, and so on, but obviously the process cannot go on forever. Eventually we must come to a stopping place consisting of a few terms so well understood that there are no simpler terms to use in explaining them. For example, if we look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word 'straight,' we find words expressing the idea 'not curved,' and if we look for 'curved,' we find words expressing the idea 'not straight.' Unless we know the meaning of one or the other of these words, the dictionary is of little help. We allow such terms to remain undefined terms, for any attempt to explain them results in either the kind of circular reasoning we have just illustrated, or the use of terms more complicated than the term being explained."

With this in mind, the textbook gives the following definition, "the distance between two points is the length of the line segment joining them." And it doesn't define length.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob: Here's an interesting discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC) And here's another one. Brews ohare (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The triangle inequality also applies in spherical geometry where the distance between any two points P and Q is the angle they subtend at the center of the sphere, and shortest distances are great circles. As I don't have access to your source, I don't know what it is about their proof that would make it inapplicable to spherical geometry where Pythagoras' theorem doesn't work. If it does apply in spherical geometry, what is it about Staring's proof that doesn't work? Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Hi Bob: I believe we agree on many points above. I'd try to summarize my uncertainties as follows. It is agreed by all sources that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent to the parallel postulate, which takes on many equivalent forms. Staring's proof must therefore do the same as all other proofs of Pythagoras' theorem: start with some assumption equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem and thereby derive the equivalence of that assumption to Pythagoras' theorem. My guess is that it is the assumption expressed in the footnote that is equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem in one of its many guises. I'd like to pin that down to one of the established postulates that is already known to be the same as Pythagoras' theorem. Would you agree that this is culprit, or does it show up elsewhere in Staring's proof? Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "It is agreed by all sources that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent to the parallel postulate, which takes on many equivalent forms." – I'm not sure that is true, even though it appears as an unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article Parallel postulate. Could you give a link to one of the reliable sources that shows that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent? Then I'll continue with the rest of your message. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Staring's proof and Pythagoras' theorem

Continuation of above section

Hi Bob: I've changed my mind on the origin of the assumption leading to Pythagoras' theorem in Staring's proof. I now understand it to stem from the use of similar triangles in order to establish cosθ and cosφ. Establishing similarity of triangles involves showing that all the angles are the same, and that involves using the Triangle postulate, known to be equivalent to the parallel postulate and hence equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem. Hence, Staring's proof is of the same ilk as the other proofs using similarity, in particular this one and this one. Comments? Brews ohare (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "the assumption leading to Pythagoras' theorem in Staring's proof" – What is the assumption in Staring's proof that you are referring to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I think we are on different wavelengths here. Here's my perspective, which I think differs form where you are coming from. The geometry is an axiomatic development à la Hilbert's axioms or Euclid's. A proof of Pythagoras' theorem amounts to showing how the theorem stems from the axioms. If one wishes, one can turn any such proof around, remove an axiom (the parallel postulate, say), make Pythagoras' theorem an axiom and deduce the removed axiom (the parallel postulate).

My initial worry was that Staring's proof was trivial, making an assumption of Pythagoras to deduce Pythagoras. However, I grew away from that idea to the question of just what axiom equivalent to the parallel postulate was used in Staring's proof to obtain Pythagoras. There is a list of propositions equivalent to the parallel postulate, and Pythagoras is one of them. The proofs using similar triangles use the Triangle postulate, which is a recognized equivalent to the parallel postulate. Staring uses similar triangles in order to establish expressions for cosθ and cosφ, so I conclude that this is the bridge he is building: similar triangles → Pythagoras. Since parallel postulate → Triangle postulate → similar triangles, I see why Staring's proof works, and am reassured that it is not trivially circular. Brews ohare (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In your remarks there seems to be a general idea concerning the criteria for determining whether a proof is distinct from another proof. For us editors the issue seems more simple. We use reliable sources for the material that we put in articles, and if a reliable source treats a proof as distinct, then that is how it would appear in a Wikipedia article. There may be exceptions, but that would depend on how clear and credible the reasoning is for the exception, IMO. However, it may be best to steer clear of OR situations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob: Sure. There are two issues involved in this particular case. (i) Is Staring's proof reliable? I guess you could say that its publication is circumstantial evidence that it is reliable, and WP would go along with that idea unless there was a contradictory publication. In this case, Cut the knot Proof #40 makes two erroneous claims that appear to contradict Staring's publication - first they say his proof is the same as Hardy's, which isn't so. Second, they piss on Hardy's proof as needing a "grain of salt", and by implication also upon Staring's proof. I see no basis for saying Staring's proof requires a grain of salt, but this negative view led me to worry a bit. Having sifted through this proof several times, I am of the opinion that no grain of salt is necessary. (ii) How does Staring's proof depend upon the parallel postulate? This question is not simply a question of whether his proof is correct, but is also a question that can be asked of any proof of Pythagoras' theorem. It is a matter of curiosity because we know that all proofs of Pythagoras must involve the parallel postulate somehow, and it is of interest to know just where that postulate is smuggled into the proof. If the proof does not involve the parallel postulate in some guise, it is either trivial (circular) or erroneous.

I don't know where OR enters this discussion. Maybe the identification of the use of similar triangles as the point where the parallel postulate enters the proof? I haven't proposed introducing this point into the article, and until that happens the matter is just a discussion, and OR is an inapplicable criticism. Brews ohare (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Hardy's proof as presented by Cut-the-knot Proof #40 is not erroneous, it simply left out some steps (as 90% of proofs do because they don't want to go all the way back to Euclid's axioms). I provided some extra steps here, as you may recall. I believe those steps remove the Cut-the-knot objections, but you objected that it was OR, which is what led to introduction of Staring's proof here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, my main objection was that it was questionable, a conclusion that I came to independently before I was aware of essentially the same part of Hardy's proof being criticized at Cut the Knot. The questionable part wasn't in Staring's proof. Also as I recall, our discussion ended because we got as far as we could without repeating ourselves and we couldn't come to an agreement. No problem. It happens. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: So my memory is a bit foggy on this, eh? However, it is water under the bridge at this point. Did you understand the previous two paragraphs? Brews ohare (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I understood it, and I think there are parts that need straightening out. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think you've been somewhat unresponsive to my messages and questions. Maybe you feel the same way about me. I don't think we've been communicating very well in this discussion and I'd rather not continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I regret very much that you find me unresponsive. I would like to fix that. Can you tell me what it is that I am not getting? Brews ohare (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's our status?

Hi Bob:

I gather you're not altogether happy with some of our exchanges. However, for my part, I've enjoyed working with you over the Staring proof and some other issues on Pythagorean theorem. Development of an article is not a seamless process, and sometimes things don't develop easily. A number of sections didn't go quite as I wanted originally. However, I think the end result was fine.

Where do we stand? Brews ohare (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We're fine. I don't expect perfection from the people I interact with and I hope they don't expect that from me. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed quotes

(I copied the following message of mine from User talk:DCGeist.)

Hi. Thanks for your edits. What I was trying to get at, was that putting quotes around words is like using weasel words. That is, the quotation marks themselves have the same effect as weasel words by giving the impression that someone said what was in the quotes, just like weasel words give the impression that the text associated with them was said by someone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bob. I don't disagree with the basic point that you're making, but it's simply not applicable to the particular page in question, which is a style guideline devoted to Words to watch. The point doesn't truly fit on the page, and as I twice explained in edit summary, it is explicitly covered on our policy page WP:Verifiability. In fact, it's covered there three times—in the nutshell, in the lede, and in the first section of the main text:

• "This page in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
• "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."
• "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Given that fact and the fact that the point clearly does not bear directly on any particular words to watch, it obviously does not belong on the style guideline page.

P.S. I started this response here, so I hope you'll understand that I didn't move it. I don't mind going back and forth at all.—DCGeist (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same wavelength, when you wrote "I don't disagree with the basic point that you're making...", what do you feel is the basic point that I'm making? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That it is not appropriate to present an assertion either of opinion or of fact in the form of a quotation without attributing the quotation.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point I was trying to make in the first message here, was that quotation marks can have the same function as weasel words. Regarding your mention of the three parts of WP:V, they apply to weasel words too, although quotations are explicitly mentioned there, which I think was your point in quoting those three parts. But I don't think many editors view scare quotes, for example, the same as quotations as mentioned in WP:V, and they may incorrectly feel that they never need sourcing.

However, I think I understand your point that the title of the page WP:Manual of Style (words to watch) indicates that it isn't appropriate to discuss this use of quotation marks there and that it is covered in WP:V. My attempt to discuss it there was motivated by the similarity that I noticed between weasel words and the use of quotation marks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi, am not sure if you meant to delete your recent talk page contribution: [2]. Perhaps you are still thinking about it? I like the fix you suggested. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This prevents unverifiable claims from being added to articles, and citing those sources helps prevent plagiarism and copyright violations. (In the first sentence I would say "prevents" rather than "helps prevent.")

Regarding "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", note proposal 5 higher up on that talk page. This phrase may -- arguably, I would be grateful for feedback -- become redundant if proposal 5 is implemented. --JN466 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There were complications that I noticed after I posted the message, so I decided to undo it and give it more thought.

1. In the reason that I gave,

"the claims can be verifiable even if they aren't cited at the time they are put in an article"

I didn't think that I used the term "verifiable" correctly as it was used in WP:V, where it means that a citation has been provided for the reader.

2. It wasn't clear to me that giving a citation helps prevent copyright violations. For example, if a large chunk of material is copied from a source, it may be a copyright violation whether or not the source is cited. However, I wasn't sure if there were cases where authors/publications of copyrighted material give permission in the publication for copying if the copyrighted material is cited. So I didn't know what to do with that part of the policy.

Regarding my reason for "helps prevent unverifiable claims..." instead of just "prevents", an editor could base a contribution on those sources but still inadvertently add an unverifiable claim, for example by honestly misinterpreting the source. So I think it "helps prevent", rather than "prevents", since the prevention isn't certain.

I looked at proposal 5 and the comments. My feeling is that the most important and most useful part by far is

"In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

Perhaps it would be better to give brief examples to explain what this sentence means, instead of trying to rank academic, news, etc as far as which are most reliable. Also it might be useful to include in this sentence some remarks regarding the competence of those doing the scrutinizing. For example, an article about a scientific subject in a mainstream newspaper may be scrutinized by the staff of the newspaper, but there may still be incorrect facts in the story because of the limited scientific competence of the news staff. Regarding academic sources, I seem to recall what appeared to be an "academic" source where the "peer-review" was done by the one person who published the journal.

Well, that's my attempt at trying to help. Feel free to ask any questions about any of this, etc, and thanks for dropping by. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Are you okay with the edit I made to the policy page? "Helps prevent" would work as well for me, but citing sources undoubtedly does prevent many instances of unverifiable claims being added -- by dint of the source being there, they become "verifiable". --JN466 02:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Re "helps", I thought it was better because of what I mentioned before. Also, a troublesome editor might argue that problems with a claim have been prevented, according to WP:V, because a third party source has been cited.

2. I would suggest adding to the end, "for correction".

3. On a somewhat different subject, although I recognized that WP:Plagiarism included closely paraphrased material, it's not clear to me that plagiarism should be an issue for Wikipedia. The basis of plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's work. I don't think editors of Wikipedia get credit for what they put in an article so plagiarism doesn't seem to be an issue. Editors tend to be anonymous and even if they aren't, the only record of their contributions is buried and difficult to find in the history of an article. If a passage is closely paraphrased and cited, the original author is much much more likely to get credit for the passage than is the Wikipedia editor that contributed it. Perhaps the only issue is copyright violation, not plagiarism. Or maybe the plagiarism issue pertains to the entity "Wikipedia" getting credit? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is about Wikipedia getting credit, and also those who potentially might reuse Wikipedia texts commercially. --JN466 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I had an edit conflict with you at WP:V talk and somehow -- I don't understand how -- appear to have accidentally reverted an edit you had made to your post. I've undone it. [3][4]. Very sorry. --JN466 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing it quickly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

good idea a couple years ago

Hi, I stumbled upon your village pump 2008 proposal and was just wondering if you found a way to accomplish this? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked ...

... the Ringo Starr quote on your user page :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet

We don't list "mentions". We only list in-depth references mentioned in a third-party source to establish notability. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much better than your original reason for deleting.

I think your point is well made with the following excerpt from your link.

"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)