text:
Introduction to Philosophy/Logic/Logic and Reason

Introduction to Philosophy > Logic > Logic and Reason

Many questions can be answered with logical reasoning alone. But even the simplest questions often have difficult answers, which may be hard to verify to be true. Let alone the more fundamental questions of life. How would one go about reasoning about such deep and sometimes vague questions?

After all, we are on a quest for the truth. In a world with many opinions, illusions of the mind, misconceptions, and perhaps even deliberate lies, how can we come to a fundamental understanding of the world, and share this understanding with others? Good reasoning should have a way to show, concretely and objectively, whether something is true or not, regardless of who writes it. That is, good reasoning should be logical.

Most of us will have pondered many questions in the past. But how do we know if the reasoning we use is correct? The study of logic allows us to understand how to construct correct lines of reasoning.

The most basic element of logic: the argument
A good first step is to consider what we would do if we were to try to convince someone else: we first subdivide the complexity of our big line of reasoning into the smallest possible chunks — the individual arguments that can each be individually assessed for correctness. This way, if our full line of reasoning is valid, each argument will logically support each other and lead to a convincing final conclusion.

It is important that we shouldn't skip over any arguments, even if these skips may seem "obvious". After all, each argument builds upon the last, and if we break one link in the chain, the entire line of reasoning falls apart.

As such, the types of arguments we will encounter are usually very simple. After all, each such argument should be a concrete logical statement that can be relatively easily, perhaps even trivially, verified to be true or false. A commonly cited example of a logical argument is the following:

This is a very simple argument, and the conclusion is perhaps plainly obvious. Indeed, that is a key feature: each argument should be as plain as possible, so that the chain of arguments is as strong as possible. After all, that would allow us to use the conclusion of this argument, that Socrates is mortal, in a next argument, to support some bigger conclusion.

Indeed, arguments form the most basic of building blocks within logic. Throughout the various pages of this chapter, we will explore arguments in great depth. In the next section, we will cover how to reason about individual arguments.

The principles of an argument
The example we just saw is called a syllogism, which is a form of deductive reasoning that uses two propositions to come to a single conclusion. In this case, the first two statements are the propositions, which are assumed to be correct. If they are indeed, then the logical conclusion, that Socrates is mortal, is true.

This makes it easy to see where a logical flaw occurs in such reasoning. If everything before the line is assumed to be correct, and the logic is valid, then everything after the line must be true as well. Importantly, there are only two ways in which such arguments may be flawed: either (one of) the propositions themselves are false, or the logical deduction itself (i.e., the step that occurs at the horizontal line) is false. For example, consider:

The logical part of this syllogism is valid: indeed the conclusion is true if the two propositions are. However, the proposition that all men are immortal isn't in fact true, and as such the complete argument, although valid, isn't sound.

Alternatively, consider:

Although both propositions are correct, the deduction isn't logically valid.

This methodical way of writing down arguments makes it much easier to verify their truthfulness. But by using natural language, like English, it becomes quite easy to make wooly arguments that sound correct, while they are actually incorrect.

To make it easier to see what the actual logic behind a syllogism is, a syllogism can be stripped of its content and generalized to:

This syllogism is logically valid. This means that you can substitute what you like for,   and  :

Importantly, with this simple building block, it becomes possible to create long chains of verifiably correct reasoning. There exist other types of arguments beyond syllogisms as well, which we will cover in detail in one of the later sections.

So far, we have assumed the propositions to be correct, without really formally checking them individually. Is it indeed the case that all men are mortal? And is Socrates really a man?

Although answering these questions with rigor is difficult, if the propositions are the conclusion of a different argument, we can chain those two arguments together. In practice, that is often very challenging, and often, there will remain propositions that cannot be formally verified.

The importance of correct reasoning
Just as it is important to astronomers that their telescopes are functioning properly, it is important to people in all disciplines that their processes of reasoning are working properly. Logic is something fundamental to all science, in the broadest sense of 'science'. But nearly all logicians will tell you that what they are doing is not just philosophy of science.

Though reasoning is carried out by human minds, most logicians would also say that what they are doing is not just psychology. Though it is carried out using language, and we shall be talking about grammar, syntax and semantics, most logicians would want to distinguish logic from linguistics and the philosophy of language.

From the time of Aristotle and the Prior Analytics, through to the middle ages and beyond, logic was studied in a largely verbal form. Indeed λογος (logos), from which the word 'logic' is derived, can mean 'word' or it can mean 'reason'. There were various forms with nice Latin names like modus ponens and modus tollens, and if you want to become a logician you will need to know what those mean. But certainly from the time of Frege onwards, i.e. late 19th Century, logic has become much more symbolic, and it starts to look like mathematics, with which it has much in common. But even here, many logicians would say that what they are doing is not just mathematics.

Or if it is mathematics, there is a big question about what mathematics is. Replies to this question are known as formalism, platonism and intuitionism. Both logic and mathematics are concerned with structure in a rather abstract way — in the case of logic it is the structure of reasoned argument, whereas with mathematics, it is often, though not always, the structure of numbers.

The stuff that looks like mathematics is called 'formal logic'. There is also a lot of stuff that isn't quite so mathematical that asks questions like: 'What are names?', 'What is truth?', and so on.

The problem with saying more about what logic is than what I have said at the beginning, is that you start to use logic to define logic. This is circular and self-referential. Logicians know that circularity and self-reference can cause problems and paradoxes. How and when they do and how and when they don't is I suppose interesting.


text:
Introduction to Philosophy/Logic/Truth and Validity

Introduction to Philosophy > Logic > Truth and Validity

Logic can get us from statements to further statements. So, to go back to the syllogism:

The first two statements, or claims, are called the premises, while claim below the horizontal rule is called the conclusion. In an argument, the premises are things which you hope your interlocutor has already accepted - they may be empirical observations, for example.

Notice the convention of separating the conclusion of an argument from the premises with a horizontal rule. An alternative is to use the $$\vdash$$ symbol. A, B $$\vdash$$ C means that C follows from A and B. Alternative locutions are 'A and B entail C', 'C is a consequence of A and B', 'A and B derive C'.

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself. If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using logical jargon correctly.

True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).

I suppose I ought to say what an argument is in this context. An argument is a progression from premises to conclusion. Each statement in the argument is either a premise, or else follows from the previous statements in the argument. So two kids shouting "'tis" and "'tisn't" at each other does not constitute an argument, neither do two teenagers swearing at each other. This book is here to help you behave like civilized adults.

Now sometimes you may see two adults pointing out facts to each other, and making inferences from those facts. We might say that these two adults are 'having an argument'. To be technical, it is a dialectic in which each side advances an argument in the sense meant here.

A mathematical argument is called a proof, and the conclusion of the argument is called a theorem. Sometimes only the really interesting conclusions are known as theorems, and the less important ones are given another name like lemma. Compare how we use the words 'lady' or 'gentleman' - these words can be reserved to refer only to people of status, or they can be used to refer to everyone.

Euclid, in The Elements, starts off with a set of premises from which he derives several volumes of conclusions, all in a rigorous manner. Such premises are known as 'axioms'. Logicians are trying to do something similar with arguments. We are reasoning about reasoning.

In arguments, mathematical or otherwise, each statement should be intuitively obvious given what has been said before - this is what is meant when we say that one statement follows from its predecessors. Logicians have tried to replace this appeal to the 'intuitively obvious' with a set of rules, called rules of inference, which form a special class of axiom. Of course the rules of inference should themselves be 'intuitively obvious' - we can't eliminate intuition completely.

So to abstract from our example about Socrates, we can write down a rule of inference:

From the premises 'all x are y' and 'a is x', we can infer 'a is y'.

So now we have a project: can reason be reduced to a small list of simple rules like this? Compare this with Euclid's project of showing that the mathematics of his day can be derived from a set of rules.

In a while we shall see how far we can get with a simple set of rules called propositional calculus. This is a very simple system, in which it is not possible even to properly express the deduction made about Socrates. But in presenting the propositional calculus I shall introduce some concepts and procedures which are useful for talking about any kind of logical calculus, in particular the predicate calculus, which I'll talk about later on.

Up: Logic Table of Contents

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
X86 Assembly

This book covers assembly language programming for the x86 family of microprocessors. The objective is to teach how to program in x86 assembly, as well as the history and basic architecture of x86 processor family.

When referring to x86 we address the complete range of x86-based processors (since the original Intel 8086 in 1978). This includes:
 * IA-32 assembly, also commonly referred to as x86-32 assembly (Intel architecture 32-bit, since the Intel 80386), a 32-bit extension of the original 16-bit Intel x86 processor architecture (used in Intel 8086 - 80286 CPUs). IA-32 has full backwards compatibility with the 16-bit x86.
 * x86-64, also called the AMD64 or AMD 64-bit extension, backwards compatible with 32-bit code without performance loss.
 * Intel 64, previously named IA-32e or EM64T, almost identical to x86-64.

Throughout the book these terms may be used interchangeably when appropriate. A special notice will be given when covering 16-bit, 32-bit or 64-bit architectures and on any limitations to limit confusion.

Note, that there is a separate 64-bit instruction set, the IA-64 (Itanium). It was meant to replace the x86 line, but did not gain as much popularity as anticipated, so this replacement did not occur.

Table of Contents

 * Introduction
 * Basic FAQ

x86 Basics

 * x86 Family
 * x86 Architecture and Register Description
 * Comments
 * 16, 32, and 64 Bits
 * Intrinsic Data Types

x86 Instruction Set

 * x86 Instructions
 * Data Transfer Instructions
 * Control Flow Instructions
 * Arithmetic Instructions
 * Logic Instructions
 * Shift and Rotate Instructions
 * Other Instructions
 * x86 Interrupts

Syntaxes and Assemblers

 * x86 Assemblers
 * GNU assembly syntax (GAS)
 * MASM Syntax
 * HLA Syntax
 * FASM Syntax
 * NASM Syntax

Instruction Extensions

 * Instruction Extensions
 * Floating Point
 * MMX
 * SSE
 * AVX, AVX2, FMA3, FMA4
 * 3DNow!

Advanced x86

 * Advanced x86
 * High-Level Languages
 * Machine Language Conversion
 * Protected Mode
 * Global Descriptor Table
 * Advanced Interrupts
 * Bootloaders

x86 Chipset

 * x86 Chipset
 * Direct Memory Access
 * Programmable Interrupt Controller
 * Programmable Interval Timer
 * Programmable Parallel Interface

Embedding and interoperability

 * Interfacing with WinAPI (Communicating directly with the operating system from the article GNU assembly syntax (GAS) above)
 * Interfacing with Linux
 * Calling Conventions (from the Embedded Systems book)
 * Calling Conventions (from the x86 Disassembly book)
 * Interfacing with the C standard library and own static libraries with CDECL
 * Inline Assembler (Embedded Systems book)
 * Linked Assembler (Embedded Systems book)

Resources

 * /Resources/

Assembler-Programmierung für x86-Prozessoren Programmation Assembleur x86 אסמבלי x86 X86アセンブラ Programmeren in x86 assembler Asembler X86 Assembly x86 X86組合語言 x86汇编

title: X86 Assembly


text:
User:Dovi

See my user page at English Wikisource.

Useful pages here at Wikibooks:
 * Staff lounge
 * Annotated texts

title: User:Dovi


text:
Introduction to Moral Reasoning/Traditions in Philosophy

Traditionally philosophy was divided between two 'traditions': those of Western Philosophy, which is commonly considered to have started in Ancient Greece and its colonies; and Eastern Philosophy, which is said to have originated from the regions of India and China, and is centred around the teachings of three philosophical schools which in many ways are like religions, Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

In the west the study of philosophy has always been bound up with the study of physics and of logic, whilst in the east it tended to be centered around morality and political philosophy (which are also important in the west).

However such a division of philosophy may be a crude one. 'The east' is a huge area from which many different schools of philosophy emerged, and many more came from the middle east and other civilized and 'uncivilised' areas. Furthermore, many religions contain treatises on morality and politics, similar in nature to those of 'eastern philosophy', thus anybody who wishes to define philosophy into traditions must at least consider Semitic, Islamic and Christian philosophies as well as 'Eastern' philosophy when considering competing philosophies to those of the ancient Greeks.

Arthur Schopenhauer started a kind of synthesis between the Eastern and Western traditions by mixing Kantian ideas with Buddhist philosophy.

Since the early 20th century, Western philosophy has been divided into the analytic Anglo-American and continental European traditions. In the 1700s, the English-language philosophers were empiricists, and people in continental Europe were rationalists. Somewhere along the line, this has got twisted over. Bertrand Russell was inspired by the German logician Frege and Russell's student and colleague Wittgenstein came to England from Austria. The British logical positivist A.J. Ayer was inspired by the Vienna Circle, which was finally broken up by nazism. So by then, logic-centred analytic philosophy had made its home in Britain. Meanwhile, phenomenology and existentialism, which are experience-centred, were rising in Germany and then France with the work of Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre.


text:
Cookbook:Soy Milk I

| Vegan cuisine

Ingredients

 * 125 g dried soybeans
 * About 3.5 L water

Equipment

 * Hand blender
 * Large pot with, ideally, a transparent lid
 * Large can to hold the milk
 * Wooden spoon or another tool for stirring
 * Clean cheesecloth or dish cloth
 * Sealable container for the okara (optional, you can also elect to dump or compost it, or ferment it)

Procedure

 * 1) Put the soybeans and 1 L of water into the pot, and let them soak for 8–12 hours.
 * 2) Strip the soaked beans of their hulls by rubbing or crushing them between your fingers. Remove the hulls and pour away the excess water. While the hulls have about the same density as the beans and bean splinters, you can exploit their high flow resistance for separating the two: Fill some water into the bowl, then pour it away quickly enough to drag the hulls with it, but not so quickly that the beans will follow. This process resembles the winnowing of dry chaff from seeds. It's no problem if a few hulls remain.
 * 3) Add ½ L of fresh water and blend until you get a creamy substance. Add another ½ liter and blend until totally smooth.
 * 4) Bring the raw milk to a boil while stirring, then reduce the temperature to minimum, put the lid on top, and simmer for 20 minutes. Attention: May overboil, check frequently. Removing the lid will allow vapor to escape and reduce the foam. Another possibility is to pour a little bit of cold water on top of the lid.
 * 5) The bitter odor of the raw milk should now be gone. Remove the pot from the stove and add 1 liter of cold water.
 * 6) Line the inside of the can with the cheesecloth so it is completely covered, and the edges of the cloth hang over the edge of the can. The following process will not work if the body of the can is much wider than the opening, though. In this case, use a large bowl instead.
 * 7) Carefully pour the cooked, unfiltered milk into the can. Then fold the cheesecloth together at the top and lift it up out of the can so that the filtered milk drips into the can. Rotate the bottom of the cloth against the top and use your hands to exert additional pressure upon the soy mass. Be careful not to burn yourself.
 * 8) When you're no longer able to extract significant amounts of milk from the soy mass, open the cheesecloth, and put the resulting rubberlike, crumbly okara ball into the prepared container. Store it in a cool place for up to 3 days; you may also freeze it.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * The soy milk can be kept in the refrigerator for about 5 days. You can also use it to make tofu right away.
 * The okara requires much more heat processing than the milk in order to be digestible. Boil it or bake it for at least one hour before eating it. The heat exposure during the baking of bread which contains okara is usually enough. Alternatively, it can be fermented into a special variety of tempeh.

title: Cookbook:Soy Milk I


text:
User:Lemontea~enwikibooks

Hi, I'm lemontea, a Form 4 student from Hong Kong. My primary interests here are mathematics and may be computer :)

Majorly editing books: High School Extensions

title: User:Lemontea~enwikibooks


text:
Japanese/Pronunciation

Japanese is characterised largely by its small number of vowels and consonants (five and fourteen, respectively). Pronunciation of each syllable is highly regular with the written system and there are only a few exceptions such as vowel devoicing. This is in stark contrast to English where the written and spoken language can differ a great deal (e.g. the vowel digraph "ou" in "noun" and "cough" and the consonant "g" in "goat" and "giraffe").

Apart from a single isolated consonant (the moraic nasal, "n") and double consonants (e.g. "itte" and "kekkon") all consonants must be followed by a vowel to form syllables. Double consonants are always a pair of the same consonant, though vowel devoicing sometimes makes different consonants sound one after the other (e.g. "suki" and "suteki").

Japanese has a great deal of homophones that make correct pronunciation quite important. While language learners may have difficulty hearing the difference between nuances like long and short vowels, native speakers are used to these and might not understand incorrectly pronounced words.

The syllabary
There are five vowels in Japanese, normally transcribed into the English alphabet as: "a", "i", "u", "e" and "o". Spanish and Italian speakers may note that Japanese vowels produce the same sounds as their Spanish and Italian equivalents.

Japanese vowels always represent distinct phonemes and don't form digraphs — i.e. they don't blend together or sound differently when joined. When one vowel follows another they are pronounced separately. Examples are the names Sae (sa.e) and Aoi (a.o.i)

The rest of the syllabary is formed by combining the above vowels with a consonant.

Note that the sound which is written with a "y" is not considered a vowel, but a consonant. This will come as little surprise to German speakers where the same sound is written with a "j".

The -i line (ki, gi, shi, ji, chi, ni, hi, bi, pi, mi, ri) can be combined with the y- line (ya, yu, yo) to create the medial y combinations. These are just like regular consonant + vowel syllables, in that they should be pronounced as one mora (syllabic sound).

From this table one can see that the Japanese syllabary is highly systematic. There are a few exceptions, though, and these have been bolded in the table:
 * "si" becomes "shi"
 * "ti" becomes "chi" and "tu" becomes "tsu"
 * "zi" and "di" become "ji", and "du" becomes "zu"
 * "hu" becomes "fu"
 * "wo" becomes "o"

Mora
Japanese is quite regular in the timing and stress of its syllables. The basic timing unit is called mora. Each mora is pronounced with equal stress and should take about the same amount of time. Two morae should sound twice as long as a single one.

The following take up one mora:
 * a short vowel
 * a consonant followed by a short vowel
 * a medial y
 * a moraic nasal

Whereas these take up two morae:
 * a long vowel
 * a double consonant

Examples
The medial y often takes a long vowel.
 * a-o-i / あおい (e. blue): three morae, each vowel is short
 * mi-do-ri / みどり (e. green): three morae.
 * sha-shu / しゃしゅ (e. car model): two morae.
 * ni-n-ji-n / にんじん (e. a carrot): four morae.
 * ī-e / いいえ (e. no): three morae (note the long vowel "i", denoted by a macron)
 * a-k-ka / あっか (e. to worsen): three morae (note that the double consonant isn't pronounced twice, just twice as long).
 * gyūnyū / ぎゅうにゅう (e. milk): four morae.

Long vowels
A long vowel takes two morae. In rōmaji it's written with a macron: ā, ī, ū, ē and ō.

In hiragana, it's written with an extra "あ" (a), "い" (i) or "う" (u) depending on the vowel. In katakana, it's marked by appending a dash-like symbol "ー".

Devoicing
In standard Japanese the vowels i and u are not usually voiced when they occur between voiceless consonants (k, s, sh, t, ch, h, f). The phenomenon seems to have developed to facilitate the falling pitch intonation in the Kanto dialect. The mouth forms shape of the vowel and lasts for one mora, but the sound is not voiced. For final [su] in 'desu' and '-masu', all vestiges of the vowel have disappeared in standard Japanese, leaving a naked sibilant. Devoicing is not otherwise standard for word terminal i or u. Consecutive devoicing is rare, although exceptions exists (e.g. futsuka, 2nd day of the month, pronounced f-ts-ka). Devoicing can depend on context. E.g. 'Suzuki' has no devoicing; 'Suzuki-san' has a devoiced i: Suzuk-san. Some dialects do not demonstrate devoicing, notably Kansai.

Some examples:

Consonant variation
There are a couple of consonants that are pronounced differently from English: Except for the doubled consonants and the n (which we will cover later), consonants can never end a syllable. They can only begin it.

Moraic nasal
Normally, Japanese consonants must be followed by a vowel except where they double. There is an exception to this: the moraic nasal which is transliterated as n. It is usually found at the end of words, but can be found in the middle of composite words.

The difference between the moraic nasal and the syllables "na", "ni", "nu", "ne" and "no" can be difficult for language learners to spot, while native speakers may have difficulty understanding incorrect pronunciation.

 * kin'en (ki-n-e-n) no smoking vs. kinen (ki-ne-n) commemoration.
 * hon'ya (ho-n-ya-) bookstore (not ho-nya)

The pronunciation of the moraic nasal changes depending on what sound follows it. This is not so much an irregularity as a shortcut to bridge the sounds between the two morae. When followed by the bilabial plosives, "b" and "p", the moraic nasal is pronounced like an "m". An example:
 * "shinbun" is read as: shimbun

(OggVorbis, 151 KB)
 * 1) At the end of a word:
 * 2) *dan 段 "level"
 * 3) *kin 金 "gold"
 * 4) *fun 糞 "dung"
 * 5) *zen 善 "goodness"
 * 6) *hon 本 "book"
 * 7) Directly before a consonant:
 * 8) *banzai 万歳 "hurrah", "long live (the Emperor)"
 * 9) *kingyo 金魚 "goldfish" (pronounced like "ng")
 * 10) *kunrei 訓令 "directive"
 * 11) *zenchi 全知 "omniscience" (pronounced like "n")
 * 12) *honten 本店 "main office" (pronounced like "n")
 * 13) Before m, b, p
 * 14) *genmai 玄米 "unmilled rice"
 * 15) *honbu 本部 "headquarters"
 * 16) *tenpura 天ぷら (battered and fried vegetables or fish)
 * 17) Before a, i, e, y
 * 18) *zen'aku 善悪 "good and evil"
 * 19) *ken'i 権威 "authority"
 * 20) *han'ei 反映 "reflection"
 * 21) *sen'you 専用 "exclusive use"
 * 22) Note that before a, i, e, and y, moraic n is written n' (with an apostrophe). This is to distinguish it from the regular consonant n, which is pronounced differently and can produce different words. Some examples of cases where this becomes important are:
 * 23) *kani 蟹 "crab" vs. kan'i 簡易 "simplicity"
 * 24) *kinyuu 記入 "fill in" vs. kin'yuu 金融 "finances"
 * 25) *konyakku コニャック "cognac" vs. kon'yaku 婚約 "engagement (to be married)"

Consonant doubling (gemination)
There are four consonants that can become geminates (get doubled) in native Japanese words: /p/, /t/, /k/, and /s/. The geminate (represented linguistically as "Q") takes up an extra mora, with the general effect being to insert a pause that sounds as long as a regular syllable with a short vowel. The geminate is /t/ before ch and ts, /s/ before sh.

In the Japanese pronunciation of foreign loan words, the voiced consonants /b/, /d/, /g/, and /z/ can also be doubled.

Simply words

 * (OggVorbis, 75 KB)

Long and double vowels
(OggVorbis, 125 KB) Note in particular that "deiri" and "koushi" are not long vowels since the vowels are split between composite words.

Compound consonants
Audio missing

Moraic nasal

 * (OggVorbis, 91 KB)

Comparisons of similarly pronounced words
(OggVorbis, 190 KB)
 * 1) yuki 雪 "snow" and yuuki 勇気 "courage"
 * 2) soto 外 "outside" and souto 僧徒 "Buddhist disciple"
 * 3) soto 外 "outside" and sotou 粗糖 "unrefined sugar"
 * 4) soto 外 "outside" and soutou 相当 "suitable"
 * 5) soto 外 "outside" and sotto そっと "softly"
 * 6) sotto そっと "softly" and sottou 卒倒 "fainting"
 * 7) maki 巻 "scroll" and makki 末期 "last period"
 * 8) hako 箱 "box" and hakkou 発行 "publish"
 * 9) issei 一斉 "all at once" and isei 異性 "opposite sex"
 * 10) tani 谷 "valley" and tan'i 単位 "unit", "(course) credit"
 * 11) san'en 三円 "three yen" and sannen 三年 "three years"
 * 12) kinyuu 記入 "fill out" and kin'yuu 金融 "finances"
 * 13) kinen 記念 "commemoration" and kin'en 禁煙 "no smoking"

Normal speech
The narration of the following excerpt of Natsume Soseki's classic novel Botchan is spoken at a natural pace which may be difficult to follow for unaccustomed listeners.

 * (OggVorbis, 674KB)

 * Oyayuzuri no muteppou de kodomo no toki kara son bakari shite iru. Shougakkou ni iru jibun gakkou no nikai kara tobiorite isshuukan hodo koshi o nukashita koto ga aru. Naze sonna muyami o shita to kiku hito ga aru kamoshirenu. Betsudan fukai riyuu demo nai. Shinchiku no nikai kara kubi o dashite itara, doukyuusei no hitori ga joudan ni, "Ikura ibatte mo, soko kara tobioriru koto wa dekimai. Yowamushi yaai," to hayakashita kara de aru. Kozukai ni obusatte kaette kita toki, oyaji ga ookina me o shite "Nikai gurai kara tobiorite koshi o nukasu yatsu ga aru ka," to itta kara, "Kono tsugi wa nukasazu ni tonde misemasu," to kotaeta.

 * Shinrui no mono kara seiyousei no naifu o moratte kirei na ha o hi ni kazashite, tomodachi ni misete itara, hitori ga "Hikaru koto wa hikaru ga, kiresou mo nai," to itta. "Kirenu koto ga aru ka, nandemo kitte miseru," to ukeatta. "Sonnara, kimi no yubi o kitte miro," to chuumon shita kara, "Nan da yubi gurai kono toori da," to migi no te no oyayubi no kou o hasu ni kirikonda. Saiwai naifu ga chiisai no to, oyayubi no hone ga katakatta node, imadani oyayubi wa te ni tsuite iru. Shikashi kizuato wa shinu made kienu.

title: Japanese/Pronunciation


text:
Chinese (Mandarin)/Planning/Standard Lesson Format

Standard Lesson Outline/Format
I think this was provided by Everlong.

 * Dialogue in Chinese characters - *both* traditional and simplified
 * New vocabulary, with contextual examples
 * Supplementary vocabulary. Several words relevant to the lesson’s text, not necessary at that point, but made available for further exploration.
 * Grammar notes provide complete explanations of new grammar patterns and points of syntax. Sentences follow showing contextual use of the patterns.
 * Phrases and Sentences. Additional examples provide even more practice and reference for study.
 * Dialogue in pinyin Romanization.
 * English translation of Dialogue.
 * Reading comprehension. Like the Phrases and Sentences sections, these readings provide a further review and use of past grammar and vocabulary.

 * Individual Exercises, meant to test and reinforce understanding of the lesson material. Should be done in a combination of pinyin and characters to stress proper tones as well as character learning.
 * Stroke order and character practice sheets. (Outside links to Flash-based stroke order pages provided.)
 * Partner/Group Exercises, activities and prompts for small groups to dynamically participate in conversations, improving speaking and listening comprehension skills.

 * Lesson Test, sample tests covering listening comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and stroke order.
 * Vocabulary Quiz, sample quizzes testing new vocabulary.


text:
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory

Contents

 * /Introduction/
 * /Mathematical Formalism/
 * /Hilbert Space/
 * /Cstar Algebra and Quantum Logic/
 * /Thought Experiments/
 * /Bohr-Einstein Debates/
 * /Schrdinger's Cat/
 * The EPR experiment aka quantum entanglement
 * /Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment/
 * The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics
 * /Copenhagen Interpretation/
 * Bohm's pilot wave interpretation
 * /Many-worlds Interpretation/
 * /Coherent Histories/
 * /Decoherence/
 * /Quantum Field Theory/
 * /Local Quantum Physics/
 * /Causality/


text:
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory/Introduction

Misconceptions about the meaning of quantum mechanics have persisted from its beginning up until the present among laypeople and physicists alike. Most physics textbooks on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory focus primarily on the mathematical formalism and only spend a couple of pages, if any, on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Even the limited discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is often presented in a confused muddled way. By constrast, most popularizing books for laypeople tend to oversensationalize and hype the "mysticalness" of quantum mechanics in imprecise language, leading to more confusion and misconceptions. In practice, most working physicists adopt a purely formal utilatarian use of quantum mechanics. They work with it mathematically to obtain mathematical results which they compare to experiments without thinking much about the meaning of what they are doing.

This book intends to correct the confusion and misconceptions about quantum mechanics by presenting a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of various popular interpretations and thought experiments and leave it to the reader to decide which interpretation is the most appealing.

Prior to 1925/1926, there was much confusion about the meaning and implications of quantum mechanics, leading to many radical claims. Even when the mathematical details of quantum mechanics had been worked out, there was still much confusion. It took a couple of years and many philosophical debates before an "orthodoxy" called the Copenhagen interpretation developed. Over the decades since then, gradually, more and more concepts have been clarified and newer interpretations have cropped up.

This book intends to study "problems" like measurement, quantum entanglement, causality, determinism/probabilistic, etc.


text:
Talk:Japanese/Japanese writing system

Untitled
Hokay, We used Japanese:Basic Japanese sounds to introduce people to the concepts of mora and the fact that each mora has a single kana character. (Except for the compound mora)

Now, this writing system page is supposed to gently introduce the reader to the concept of three writing systems. Then maybe link off into specialized Hiragana/katakana and Kanji pages.

My complaint is this - You wanted to delete these specialized pages because there were already pages for this stuff in wikipedia. But the wikipedia articles are meant to be basic raw information, not suitable for teaching. Our pages need to teach, therefore they have to take a different approach. This is why I'd vote for keeping the writing system pages, move the extra info on this page to those pages, and keep this page as a simple intro to the writing system. I'd like to hear your arguments for/against. GoodStuff 16:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

is it "yi/ye" or "wi/we"? As a seminative speaker of japanese I was taught that it was yi/ye and the charts from my time had them it the "ya" column. Now all I can find are charts with them in the "wa" column. Am I just insane?

After all, "yido" (well) sounds a lot more like "ido" than "wido"; and nobody ever spells the old name of tokyo "wedo".

title: Talk:Japanese/Japanese writing system


text:
Talk:Classical Mechanics/Symplectic Spaces

I think the article is too mathematical. It claims to be simple, but refers only to maths. Since it is supposedly the situation for "classical mechanics" is there any way in which it can be visualised classically in some sort of physical form?

We can talk about negative curvature all the time, but until you state "like a saddle" no-one really comprehends what it means.


text:
User talk:Marker~enwikibooks

A few questions:

 * Who precisely is the target audience?
 * For example, Some of these texts could be most useful to students without internet access, particularly students in third-world countries where textbook costs are alone a prohibitive educational expense. But I doubt we could target books to such an audience.
 * Another example: Arithmetic begins at the very beginning by introducing addition, but the tone is hardly suited for a typical student of addition: "operations", "numerical", and "quantities", from the first sentence, are probably enough to throw off anyone for whom this section would be useful. On the other hand, if the article quickly becomes more complicated, then perhaps the initial tone is appropriate; so the question remains.

 * Are the user names different from wikibooks to wikipedia, etc? If so, why? I wouldn't have chosen this username if I had known that someone else had it for wikipedia...

 * Is there a mailing list or discussion page dedicated to the mathematics books collectively? If not, why not?

Marker 20:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Marker. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Marker~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marker~enwikibooks


text:
User:Marker~enwikibooks

Marker
I am a Ph.D. student in Mathematics at Brandeis University. I am interested in contributing some time and effort to the various math books here, whenever I find sufficient time to do so (which is unfortunately rare).

title: User:Marker~enwikibooks


text:
Python Programming/Numbers

Python 2.x supports 4 built-in numeric types - int, long, float and complex. Of these, the long type has been dropped in Python 3.x - the int type is now of unlimited length by default. You don’t have to specify what type of variable you want; Python does that automatically.

 * Int: The basic integer type in python, equivalent to the hardware 'c long' for the platform you are using in Python 2.x, unlimited in length in Python 3.x.
 * Long: Integer type with unlimited length. In python 2.2 and later, Ints are automatically turned into long ints when they overflow. Dropped since Python 3.0, use int type instead.
 * Float: This is a binary floating point number. Longs and Ints are automatically converted to floats when a float is used in an expression, and with the true-division / operator. In CPython, floats are usually implemented using the C languages double, which often yields 52 bits of significand, 11 bits of exponent, and 1 sign bit, but this is machine dependent.
 * Complex: This is a complex number consisting of two floats. Complex literals are written as a + bj where a and b are floating-point numbers denoting the real and imaginary parts respectively.

In general, the number types are automatically 'up cast' in the following order:

Int → Long → Float → Complex. The farther to the right you go, the higher the precedence.

The result of divisions is somewhat confusing. In Python 2.x, using the / operator on two integers will return another integer, using floor division. For example, 5/2 will give you 2. At least one of the operands must be float to get true division, e.g. 5/2. or 5./2 (the dot makes a number a float) will yield 2.5. Starting with Python 2.2 this behavior can be changed to true division by the future division statement from __future__ import division. In Python 3.x, the result of using the / operator is always true division (you can ask for floor division explicitly by using the // operator since Python 2.2). This illustrates the behavior of the / operator in Python 2.2+:

For operations on numbers, see chapters ../Basic Math/ and ../Math/.

Links

 * 5.4. Numeric Types — int, float, long, complex, docs.python.org

title: Python Programming/Numbers


text:
Poker

Poker is not a single card game, but a broad class of card games. A poker game can have a simple name like "guts", or it may have a cumbersome name such as "seven card stud eight-or-better high-low split". Most common poker variants, including all those covered in this book, share a fifty-two card "poker deck" (though the playing card deck itself precedes poker by hundreds of years), and certain rules for hand rankings.

Common principles

 * /Basics/ — hand rankings, etc.
 * /Betting/
 * /Expected value/ — when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em
 * /Personality/
 * /Bluffing/
 * /Tournaments/
 * Glossary of Terms

Five Card Draw Games
These games are played by dealing exactly five cards to each player and then allowing a number of cards to be replaced or drawn from the deck. Players must make the best (or worst) hand with the five cards that they end up with after the draw. Each rule set is based on these simple guidelines but alterations are possible.
 * Five Card Draw
 * /Lowball/

Five Card Stud Games
These games are played by dealing exactly five cards to each player. Players must make the best (or worst) hand with the five cards that they are dealt. Each rule set is based on these simple guidelines but alterations are possible.
 * Five Card Stud

Seven Card Stud Games
Generally these games are played by dealing seven cards to each player. Each player must make the best (or worst) hand from five of their seven cards at the showdown. Each rule set is based on these simple guidelines but alterations are possible.
 * Seven Card Stud
 * Razz (Seven Card Stud Low)
 * Seven Card Stud High-Low
 * Seven Card Stud (control variant)
 * Anaconda (Pass The Trash, 3-2-1 Left)
 * /Baseball/
 * Follow The Queen And Queens
 * High Chicago
 * Low Chicago
 * Midnight (Blind, Night) Baseball
 * Black Mariah

Community Card Games

 * Texas Hold'em
 * Omaha Hold'em
 * Omaha Hold'em High-Low
 * Pineapple
 * Crazy Pineapple

Match Pot Games
These games are generally played by creating a hand of cards depending on the specific rules and then making a decision of whether to 'hold' or 'drop' their hand. If a player holds their hand and loses in the showdown then they must 'match the pot'. Each rule set is based on these simple guidelines but alterations are possible.
 * /Guts/ (Two card guts and Three card guts)
 * /King Little Man/

Three Strikes Games
These games start with a number (usually three) of "stacks" in front of each player. The loser of each hand must put one "stack" into the pot. Players with no "stacks" may no longer play therefore the winner is the last player with at least one stack on the table. Each rule set is based on these simple guidelines but alterations are possible.
 * Scat (31, Blitz)

Strategy

 * Ten Commandments of Poker

Pokladnice her/Klasické karetní hry/Poker de:Kartenspiele: Poker פוקר Kaartspel/Poker Poker โป๊กเกอร์

title: Poker


text: Spanish/Idioms

title: Spanish/Idioms


text:
Poker/Basics

Hand rankings
The most fundamental of poker concerns the hand rankings because the hand rankings determine the winner. While betting is extremely important to the game, players are wagering on whether they have won, therefore a complete understanding of hand rankings must come first. These hand rankings do not apply to games played "low", such as lowball or razz; see the section on "low hands" below.

The cards are ranked thus, from low to high: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King, Ace. An ace is the highest card, but it can also function as the lowest in completing a straight. The two is usually called a "deuce", and the three is sometimes called a "trey". Ten, Jack, Queen, King, and Ace are often abbreviated T, J, Q, K, and A, respectively, so that each card name has a single number or letter associated with it. This is commonly used in describing hands, for example, A-2-3-4-5 is a hand with an ace, a two ("deuce"), a three, a four, and a five — not necessarily in that order, but presenting them in that order makes it clear that the hand is a straight, note that matching suit is not required. A hand may also be written, say, A-A-x-x-x, where "x" means any other card that does not form a better hand.

A-2-3-4-5 is considered a five-high straight, and it is called a wheel or bicycle; this is the only time an ace plays as a low card. An ace-high straight flush is called a royal flush and it cannot be beaten. The only time it ties is when all 5 cards to the royal flush, i.e., are on the community board. Higher cards always beat lower cards, for example, a pair of aces beats a pair of kings, and a flush with a king beats a flush whose highest card is a Queen. If two players have the same pair, a kicker is used to break the tie if possible (more about them soon). When two players have two pair, the highest pairs are considered, for example, aces up always beats kings up, no matter the other pairs. If, for example, two players both have aces up, then the higher of the smaller pairs wins: aces over kings beats aces over queens. If, for example, both players have aces over kings, then the kicker card is considered. Kickers also come into play when more than one player has the same three or four of a kind (possible only in community card games or wildcard games). If players have the same straight, flush, full house, or straight flush, it is always a tie and the players split the pot. There is no suit superiority or trump suit; a spade flush with A-10-9-6-4 does not beat a club flush with the same values.

A kicker is any card that you hold in your hand that does not make part of it, that is, an otherwise useless card. A hand can have more than one kicker; A pair for instance has three kickers and a three-of-a-kind has two, and they are considered in rank order highest-first. When two players hold the same pair, two pair, three of a kind, or four of a kind, the highest kicker wins, for example, A-A-K-x-x beats A-A-Q-x-x, A-A-K-Q-x beats A-A-K-J-x, and A-A-K-Q-J beats A-A-K-Q-T. A kicker can be higher than the rest of the hand, for example, K-K-A-x-x beats K-K-J-x-x, so an ace usually makes the best kicker. If the first kicker ties and there is a second or third, they are compared in rank order; A-A-K-J-x loses to A-A-K-Q-x. If the hands are totally equivalent, the pot is split.

Low hands
Some games have a high-low split, and some games such as lowball or razz are played low-only. In a high-low split game, typically a low hand must not have any cards ranked higher than eight and no cards must be paired, or it does not count as a low hand. In low-only games, any cards can be used. Many forms of poker do not use low hands, so you need not concern yourself with these until you intend to play games that do.

There are three common ways of ranking low hands, ace-to-five low, ace-to-six low, and deuce-to-seven low, named after the best possible hands in the respective systems. In all systems, paired cards are bad and cannot be used to beat any hand that does not have a pair. Likewise, a pair beats three of a kind, three of a kind beats a full house, and a full house beats four of a kind. The most common hand ranking system for low hands is ace-to-five, used almost universally in high-low split games and very common in other games. This means A-2-3-4-5 (called a wheel or bicycle, just as it is as a high hand) is the best possible low hand, and the ace is the lowest card. For a high-low split game, it also forms a high hand: a five-high straight. In order to avoid confusion, we will discuss only ace-to-five low at the moment.

When pairs and any other "bad" hands are not present, then the winner is the one whose highest card is lowest. For this reason, a low hand is usually described highest card first, to make it easier to tell which is lower. In ace-to-five, 8-4-3-2-A loses to 7-6-5-4-3 because the highest card in the first hand (eight) is higher than the highest card in the second hand (seven), even though all the other cards in the second hand are lower. If the highest cards are the same, then the next-highest cards are considered, and so on: 8-7-6-3-A loses to 8-7-5-4-2 because the second hand goes lower first.

In ace-to-six low, straights and flushes count for high (that is, they're bad), and the best possible hand is A-2-3-4-6 unsuited, since it's the lowest possible card combination that avoids pairing, straights, and flushes. Deuce-to-seven is identical except the ace is the highest card, so the best possible hand is 2-3-4-5-7 unsuited. Therefore, in deuce-to-seven low, the hand that would make the worst possible high hand in traditional poker is the best possible low hand, and vice versa: a royal flush is the worst possible hand.

title: Poker/Basics


text:
User talk:Mshonle

Hi, you've been nominated for adminship at Requests for adminship. Before any action can be taken, you need to either accecpt or decline the nomination. Thanks, Gentgeen 04:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I accept! MShonle 21:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm also from UCSD -- I just graduated with a BS in CS and a BA in Studio Art. I work in the IT department of the library. Kellen
 * Cool, are you vegan as well? (Since you've been working on the cookbook.) MShonle 18:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep; I used to work at the Che. I also know Dana, who I see is on your list of friends. Kellen
 * Cool. I would go to the Che last year. Perhaps we've met.

Administrator
Dysprosia made you an admin (I know, the process took way too long), so you should probibly go read Administrators, add your name to the list, and also brush up on the other policies governing admin actions. Congratulations. Gentgeen 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! MShonle 19:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletions: if the user (even if they are logged in) has mainly contributed vandalism, admins can block these immediately. Dysprosia 09:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! I've been taking a long break from both wikipedia and wikibooks, but i'm back and i plan to (atleast) finish a number of things i've started.

Gkhan 17:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work there! It's good to see the book making progress again! MShonle 23:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advanced data structures and algorithms
Hi Macneil, sorry about deleting your "Advanced.." book from the template without asking first, but is there really a need to display a link from the main page to a book that is so far only a place-holder for future modules? Both of your books link to the "Advanced" book, so the interested reader will find it anyway. Furthermore, it is still displayed on the IT bookshelf. I hope you don't get the wrong impression, that I want to take anything away... I know there are books there, that even less deserve to be listed on the "Main Page", but I have to start somewhere. I'll work my way through, to make things more focussed (as you were taking away my links to Wikipedia - I guess it is the same philosophy, and actually, after your edits, I like the Newton root method even more - looks more professional.) Don't worry - I won't touch the link to your book in the near future - at least not before I sorted out the many other stub links. PS: If you have a minute, go to the main page, and vote for the book of February! Thanks! :-) --Andreas Ipp 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Andreas: My reason was a little too complex to put in the edit summary field, and I figured you'd follow me up: The reason it's important to include links to all three books is that they are essentially a series. While the Advanced book has very little content (right now) it serves the important role of making the Data Structures and Algorithms books tractable: Consider it a defense against creeping featuritis. The tendency is for people to think "oh wow, this is just like wikipedia, let me put in my obscure piece of knowledge to add to it"-- and thus a book that is meant to be a very basic tutorial on fundamental topics could be turned into an eclectic mix of advanced topics with little relevance to even advanced students. Thus, the Advanced book serves as a stop gap: unwanted, but still high quality, contributions could get funnelled away from the basic books and to the advanced book. If links were not equal contributors might be miffed that they were being moved to a less important book.

 * Thus, the Advanced book is more important than just a "suggested" book, it is part of a larger project, which is very time consuming, but well on its way to becoming a useful resource for students. (I do actually have some content for it, wrt FFT algorithms, but it's lower in priority for me.) MShonle 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, but right now nothing is in the book. So since nothing is in there, I assume nothing of what you fear happened so far (creeping featuritis). As soon as somebody does write something, you don't want to have in the book, why not move it then over there, and as soon as there is content in the book, I have no problem with it being linked to from the main page. But, frankly, just to prepare things before they happen seems overprotective to me - especially in a medium like Wikibooks. But there is a qualitative difference: You are a highly motivated writer, and you care about your work. I guess if I take away links to some of the "Howto" books, where the authors barely made it beyond a splendid introduction of what the book will be, nobody will even notice. So, since you care about your book, probably its the best I don't waste my and your time, and let you continue to write your great books! Keep the work, don't feel distracted by me. ;-) --Andreas Ipp 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The content of the Advanced book was taken from the other books: They existed mostly only as outline content. Rather than lose track of a good idea, they have a home. (So, indeed, creeping feature has happened.) Perhaps it won't be long even before someone returns to fill in the gaps (work cycles are very slow sometimes-- a great author did some work in November, and just now they've returned back to continue). But please be mindful of the systems as they are right now (no matter how faulty) before you change them: sometimes the baby could get thrown out with the bathwater, and some faults aren't actually faults. MShonle 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm starting an AI book.
I've typed lectures 1 and 2 in wiki format here. Some kids are taking the same analysis of algorithms class I took, and I mentioned the algorithms wikibook, so hopefully, there will be some more development there. And congrats on your ascension to the next layer of wikibook enlightenment! --Waxmop 00:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Cool, I've also started spreading the word around my department about the Algorithms book. I'm also working on the Computer Science:Logic book, which, similar to what you're doing, I'm writing as I'm taking the class (actually, the classnotes are already in TeX, so I'm just converting them mostly, and fixing little errors). MShonle 01:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:152.163.100.136 not a vandal
He added "no way" to the front page. This is most likely his expression of disbelief upon discovering web pages that he can edit. He didn't spam or add the goatse.cx man.
 * "His" exploration might not be considered vandalism if he changed it back, but even then that's a thin line. Content does not need to be spam or gross images to count as vandalism. Obviously, the main page needed to be reverted, and the block on that ip is set to expire in a short time. MShonle 17:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Apology
Talk about pot calling the kettle black - sorry about my quick response and not giving you the benefit of the doubt - unfortunately something similar happened to me when I first came upon wikipedia (as an anon) and kind of drove me off for a few months (thinking I was violating some kind of policy and could lose access to the encyclopedia - which I liked to use fairly regularly) - and now I push back pretty hard on such things. Thanks for all you do to keep the trolls and the sock puppets from driving policy. Trödel 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mix-up. I struck out some of the text, but I could remove it completely at your request. MShonle 22:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete it and my response. Looks like it could be deleted anyway - by Jimbo - and that there are quite a few books and "articles" that are created to push a POV - Is there a policy on what is and is not a "textbook" and if not I would be happy (as a user for now) to contribute to the discussion. Trödel 22:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

response
not sure if this belongs here or on my talk page, so...

 * The "Getting a girl" book was given a proper vote. While I do obviously dislike the results, I will accept that a very loose interpretation of "concensus" might apply. (destruction of someone's blood, sweat, and tears had ought to require 85% agreement at a 95% statistical certainty) When in doubt, the article or book needs to stay, so this deletion was borderline.

 * The Cookbook:Human article did not lose a vote. It never got a vote.

 * As for inuendo and slandering, you're right. I surely have my faults. You might consider being not so quick to call people sock puppets, and not so quick to assume that articles that offend you have been intentionally designed to offend you.

 * I seriously do encourage you to help write factual non-offensive replacement text for articles that may be controversial.

 * Hopefully someday you can see the need for comprehensive coverage in the cookbook. If this is at odds with the rest of wikibooks, then the Cookbook should move to its own domain name and wiki. I have in fact already proposed this for unrelated reasons. Note that the Cookbook is by far the most active book around here.

AlbertCahalan 23:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

recipes and the GFDL
Quoting you: "If I come upon a good vegan recipe I'll add one, but all of the vegan recipes I use are from extant cookbooks, and cannot be put under GFDL."

This is not necessarily the case. You may be able to convert a recipe, especially if you live in the USA. I haven't done it, but it has crossed my mind. You may have ethical problems with this, but do remember that nearly all cookbooks are recycling the same old recipes passed down for generations. (in other words, your cookbooks probably have swiped recipes via the procedure below)

Procedures are subject to patents, not copyright. The wording used to describe the procedure is another matter, distinct from the actions of the procedure. The list of ingredients is not protectable; this has been the subject of court decisions.

So, you simply need to put the procedure into your own words. To be sure you aren't accidentally copying something that would be subject to copyright, you may wish to work from memory or have somebody else describe the procedure to you.

If you have any doubts, consult a lawyer. (the above is not to be construed as legal advice, etc.) The EU, in case you live there, has the concept of author's rights (if you took the meat out of a non-vegan recipe, that could be considered a perversion of the author's artistic work) and might not have court decisions or law prohibiting copyright on recipe procedures and ingredient lists.

AlbertCahalan 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * When there's a vegan pizza dough recipe I'll add that to get that pizza delivery place texture you should freeze the dough overnight and then thaw it in the refridgerator. Somehow that changes the texture, in parcticularly how it rises, so you don't get stuck with that "gormet pizza" feel. MShonle 05:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Got one, right here, unless you're hard-core enough to avoid killing yeast. The topping is another matter of course, but I hear you can get fake cheese. Simply eliminating the cheese wouldn't be all that bad I think. You could try deep-fried tofu as well, added late if it would burn otherwise. Maybe also try some sort of crumb topping, like the one for Apple Crisp but with less sugar.

 * Cool. Garlic is a good cheese substitute: has some of the properties, but it's hard to beat Follow Your Heart Soy Mozerella. Good topings for a vegan pizza are artichoke hearts, olives, and mushrooms: veggies that have a good amount of calories (so that it doesn't feel like a cellulose pizza). MShonle 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AlbertCalahan
I have renominated AlbertCalahan for adminship. I am alerting you because you may wish to vote again. TUF-KAT 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would change my vote to an abstain if Albert gave a reasuring reply to my question about "anti-deletionism." I don't think there is any "deletionists" here, so persuing that agenda just sounds scary to me. In particular, the How to Get a Girl book shouldn't be undeleted. MShonle 02:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't even suggest undeleting that book. It kind of lives on now, in slightly modified form, and just recently passed a VfD. So there isn't any point to undeleting the old one. I do insist that "real" books, ones with human effort that is, go through a VfD with consensus to delete before being deleted. 51% is not consensus. Without a consensus requirement, the VfD becomes a simple popularity contest. There are a good number of books and even cookbook pages that I'd rather do without, but you won't see me trying to delete them. That just wouldn't be right. It is very unfortunate that non-admins can not view deleted pages; I may be wrong in my impression that admins are habitually destroying things they just don't agree with. BTW, the docs around here suggest that the vote counter (judge) be neither the one who proposed deletion (prosecutor) nor the one who performs the deletion (executioner). This would be a good practice to follow. AlbertCahalan 05:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's say I'm a little nervous that you thought "Human" might be a good recipe for the cookbook. I understand that you think it was deleted without following process. I'm not sure how you have that impression, but I can assure you that wasn't the case.

 * It makes no sense as a recipe. As an ingredient, it makes about as much sense as marijuana. When I showed up here, nearly the first thing I saw was that people were complaining about pages being deleted without following procedure. Things don't look quite as bad now, but it still appears that admins with a conflict of interest (an opinion on the outcome) tend to both count the votes and perform the deletion. There is often little time to object to the vote counting before deletion occurs. I hope you can see how this looks really arbitrary and unfair. AlbertCahalan 18:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you probably should mention cookbook pages that should be deleted. If I gave you a 10,000 recipe cookbook, but only 10% of the entries were even barely acceptable (with perhaps 30% of those being excellent) would you use it much? I bet you'd rather use a 1,000 recipe cookbook, that only had that good 10%. The empty set and the set of everything contain the same amount of information. Allowing bad entries to persist just makes wikibooks the result of a million monkeys on a million typewriters.

 * I'd much rather find a way to rate recipes. A good system would be something like a music recommendation service, so that you see recipes rated highly if they have been rated highly by people with similar interests as yourself. So for you, meat-containing recipes would rank at the bottom and vegan recipes would rank at the top. (with non-vegan vegetarian generally in the middle) Some way to assign searchable attributes (spicy hot, herbal non-hot spicy, metric, requires scale or balance, has creamy sauce, Americanized Asian...) would be good too, perhaps as a software enhancement to categories. AlbertCahalan 18:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, it seems like you have no trust in the wikispirit: Voting is not a popularity contest. For example, people change their votes after discussion brings up good points. Just as voting for your own adminship, I'll be glad to change my vote, but I need something at least somewhat reassuring that you understand my concerns and have legitimate reasons to agree or disagree. MShonle 17:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

adminship
Thing is, I do lots of edits. I'm well over 1500. I think the wiki software has lost track even; I'm probably near 2000 right now. Supposing that 99% of that is good, I'll still generate a lot of bad edits by sheer numbers. General apathy and hesitation means that vote counts are normally low. People will hesitate to vote unless given a strong reason to do so.

Most people pass an adminship vote with only 1 or 2 votes total. Step on just a few toes, even with a good edit, and enemies will win the vote.

One person didn't like that I insisted that "bonito" is considered a tuna in many (most, AFAIK) countries. Well, it is, and all the top Google results agree that bonito is a tuna. Another person didn't like how Google revealed that "cookie sheet" is a whopping 38.7 times as popular as his preferred "baking tray". As the cookbook needs to be readable to the rest of the world, this matters. Well of course that's two ememies right there.

You're right to guess that I might be discouraged. I keep asking myself why I bother, what with all the politics. It'd be different if this gave me a salary, but politics in my spare time??? Ugh. In fact, a couple months ago I disappeared for about a month over this. I still wound up being one of the top-10 wikibooks editors though.

The funny thing is that non-admins can be almost as destructive as admins. Note that a non-admin can overwrite an image, and an admin can undelete something that has been deleted. What a non-admin can't do is clean up messes, of all things!

AlbertCahalan 02:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually came to Wikibooks because Wikipedia was a little too political. I still do some Wikipedia edits every now and then, but I make certain it's in areas I have little emotional attachment. Anyway, some people are really hard to read online. Good point about the many edits ratio... I've probably said a couple of things that I wouldn't want people advertising. MShonle 04:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi MShonle and Albert. I've been following the process about Albert's adminship loosely (have not voted yet) but I would nevertheless like to comment on a point: It is not the sole number of edits that makes an editor better. If there are not only one, but already a couple of people that disagree with Alberts edits (and I have certain personal reservations after a peripheral discussion on Hierarchy naming scheme), then in Alberts position I would think about decreasing the number of edits, but increasing their quality. It is a matter of preference.. would you mind 2 innocent editors that have been blocked, after 10 true vandals? Or 5 good stubs deleted in 50 really useless stubs? This happens if you are very active? Anyway, Albert will find arguments to justify anything he thinks is right, so I would not mind if he read a page twice before he edits it, and have half as many edits... Just my personal opinion. --Andreas 08:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not what I meant to say of course. (besides, those are more-serious actions that deserve more consideration) I certainly have a highly biased opinion about my own editing, so never mind what I say of it. For any given level of quality though, a frequent editor will manage to annoy more people. That's all I meant to say. The edits people hate are the ones they remember. Nobody remembers the fixed grammar, added links, etc. AlbertCahalan 10:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

unease with "food"s
Here are two new recipes:

 * Spicy Australian Placenta
 * Placenta with Broccoli

I doubt I'd like the first, but the second one is really tasty. I'll get a photo scanned if the lighting was OK enough.

You might find it interesting that I feel more uneasy about eating beans. I was feeling pretty proud of myself a month ago when I managed to put aside my gag reflex long enough to eat a whole burrito. Admittedly I added lots of cheese, olives, tomatoes, and even chicken — but I got it down, somehow. (probably 1/3 beans) Then, a couple weeks ago, I even managed to get one down without the chicken.

AlbertCahalan 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I noticed those new entries. I'm thinking we should perhaps add a warning to all of the related articles that placenta eating can pass both HIV and Hepatitis. BTW, did you see the straight dope article on it, where he says it made a vegetarian queezy? It's no surprise... after not eating meat for a while, the thought of meat becomes disgusting. I know that meat eaters like you like to secretly think we're all sitting there, lusting for dead animal flesh, but nothing could be farther from the truth. MShonle 06:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The warnings should be on the Placenta page, or possibly on a Human page. Note that HIV and hepatitis are only problems prior to cooking. (I have heard of placenta sashimi.) After cooking, I suppose you could spread mad cow disease, but that's extremely unlikely. Note that in the Straight Dope article the vegetarian did try the placenta. In other words, he did not find it morally or ethically objectionable. He was merely grossed out a bit, just as I am with beans. I don't imagine you'd have any craving for a steak or a burger, but passing up things like real ice cream (milk) and real brownies (eggs) sure doesn't look easy. Avoiding burgers and bacon is probably good for you, but avoiding canned salmon and anchovies is probably not good for you. AlbertCahalan 20:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Soy and rice-based ice creams can be wonderful, and there are plenty of vegan brownies out there (in San Diego I can get both vegan brownies and blondies). Eggs and Milk aren't exactly the two most crucial ingredients out there: there are plenty of alternatives. As for salmon, that ain't so healthy for you either, considering the levels of mercury and other toxins that get amplified through bio-accumulation. I'm sure a meat-eating diet could be healthy, but if it's not necessary for survival, it's immoral. Unless you have no other means to survive, and are not scavaging what's already dead, there's no moral justification. MShonle 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide synthesis
How exactly does me making an edit and you reverting it constitute an edit war? Do you believe that protecting the page on the version of your choice is the best response? UninvitedCompany 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you have confused my carefully written edit with the editing pattern of an anon vandal previously at work on the same page. UninvitedCompany 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no choice or interest in the matter, but given the vandal I reverted to the page with the most information. Just give it some time to cool down. I might be back open by the time you read this. MShonle 00:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. UninvitedCompany 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Just hang back. Although it's just a temporary protect to allow things to cool down these things can take time. MShonle 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the hassle UninvitedCompany. But, you got stuck in the middle of action taken to manage an ongoing edit war, it's nothing personal. It may be a day or two before I unprotect the page, then I will ensure that your contribution is preserved in some form. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Mshonle, I've unprotected the page. Thanks for your intervention, even though our timing was a bit out of sync.;) I've decided to compromise and stick with UninvitedCompany's version of the page. I don't think that it will keep the vandals happy, however. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It is only necessary to keep the vandals happy when they are right. At this juncture, they really don't have a legitimate complaint to make about the page.  The web abounds with recipies for blowing yourself up, like the print media that came before it.  Many an emergency room has seen the effects of reading the Anarchist's Cookbook without the proper degree of skepticism.  Information wants to be free only when in the proper context, and this article was a perfect example of partial information (that is, synthesis data that is misleading and lacks information needed to conduct the synthesis safetly) being worse than none at all.  While it is still not perfect, I believe that it now addresses the topic responsibly.  Were my child to read the results of a web search on "TATP synthesis" -- for which Wikibooks is the first hit on google -- I would much rather have hir see this article than some of the other tripe that is out there.   UninvitedCompany 02:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually didn't know how politically charged this was. I just noticed the numerous anonymous reverts, the call to put a freeze, and so I froze it. (Indeed, I did revert to Geo's version, because it had more information and I trusted Geo. I see that I could have done more dilligence to see if your changes were the same.) MShonle 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that an anon has reverted my changes. Would you care to take another look at this module? UninvitedCompany 17:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Try and reverting it back and making a note to see the talk page. Then, on the talk page, make your case for your edits. It would be much better to have the debate shifted to the talk page rather than a continuous revert battle. MShonle 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cellular Automata
Thank you for posting the first two modifications to 'my' wikibook on CA. I had a look on Computer Science:Data Structures and there is some useful markup. I am still working on the content, I intend to 'finish' two chapters, only than I will make some changes to the main page (a short intro, a nice table of chapters near the top of the page and I would like a cover image). --IzI 11:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD
Aya, why did you delete my comment?

 * I assure you it was not intentional. The page saved fine with no edit conflict. Must be a bug in MW. - Aya T E C 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Manual of Crime
Hi Garrett: I think we need to step back and ask not if the MoC is legal or useful, but if it's appropriate for the project. This sounds like something for a wikicity for me. It's not like we're a censor board, with infinite power, determining what can be on the web or not. Instead, we're just voting, What kind of books do we want in this little digital library we're making for ourselves? What would give you more pride, being part of a project that taught kids math, or being part of a project that taught kids to blow things up? MShonle 18:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! This is exactly the sort of reason I haven't voted yet. It's a very, very complex issue and whatever I decide I want to be satisfied with. I'm also well aware of the fact that other voters may well be influenced to vote like us admins for no reason other than "we know what we're talking about". And so I will have to be 100% certain that the vote I give is what I'm happy with. Thanks for your concern, and what you've said is basically the conclusion I'm drawing anyway. :) GarrettTalk 01:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the presence of WC means we can be more razor sharp in what we allow. Perhaps after a policy is in place, we can start a countdown. When the countdown expires, we'll move all of the books that haven't made any progress into a special abandoned books section. That should make it easier to locate "the good stuff." Perhaps there should even be a page limit rule: like, anything under 16 pages is not a book (and must then be merged or elaborated with how it could be a larger book)-- without some limits, books can soon lose their goals, and, I think as you once said, go no where. MShonle 01:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi, 85.99.133.201 added pornlinks to Help:Wikibooks, which I reverted. He also did that on the Dutch Wikibooks. I blocked him for that there, but here I've no adminrights. Can you block him, or at least add a warning template to his discussionpage? Thanks, Firefox 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! They've been blocked. MShonle 21:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

ACT
Sorry for the confusion in the Staff Lounge. I meant the college entrance exam. --Think Fast 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :-) Sounds like a fine idea for a wikibook. MShonle 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Uploading image sourcefiles
I ask you as an experienced wiki user, is there a way to upload image source files in OpenOffice.org .odg format? They are small files, smaller than the relative .png images. --IzI 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like .odg formats are restricted, and even putting it into .zip isn't allowed. So, the only way I could think of getting them there is putting them in one of the usenet-style compressed ASCII formats, but that's probably not recommended. In the meantime, you could upload special versions of your PNGs that don't have English labels on them (so that it will be easier, say, for the German version of the image to be made). Maybe someone hanging out in the staff lounge knows more. MShonle 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

MySQL
I allways though it's a database and expeced any language to have it's own name (like Oracle and PL/SQL ;-).

Anyway since I have no idea what kind of language could you fill in the Programming languages bookshelf and the Template:Programming languages bookshelf. Thanks.

 * I think the database implementations also have the same name, but SQL itself is a structured query language with its own syntax and semantics. However, even though HTML is a language I wouldn't consider it a programming language. MShonle 18:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well SQL iself on the Meta-languages bookshelf as it should be - however PL/SQL (there is currently no wikibook for PL/SQL) with it's Ada inspired syntax is a full blown programming language used for stored procedures. Be as it is - I don't know MySQL enough to categorise it.

 * The term Meta-languages sounds like a misnomer to me. Perhaps XML is a true meta-language, but a lot of the other books listed I would just call domain-specific languages or just encoding languages. MShonle 19:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thinking about it: You are right and I would support a renaming of the page to Domain-Specific languages bookshelf - do we need to call for votes or just do it?

 * We can just do it. MShonle 14:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

regarding C plus plus
Hey Garrett. I noticed some edits to Programming:C plus plus in July where you said "please don't use transclusions" and then some comments about a merge. Since you seem to know more about this than I do, what's the story? What did you mean by no transclusions (as that would be the solution to the fork problem)? It seems going forward we should have a single C++ book. Or, perhaps two: one as a complete reference, the other as a tutorial on the basics. What are your thoughts and can you fill me in on the story? Thanks! :-) MShonle 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There's a difference. He was using transclusions unnecessarily to insert the first few paragraphs into the book, BUT that intro wasn't shared by the other book. There's no reason to transclude something that only appears in one place, it will end up confusing people trying to edit the page.
 * I cannot see having the two books remaining separate. Panic forked his off for the sole reason of having a single-page gargantuan guide, and it no doubt is still 80% identical to the other book. Therefore they need to merge, somehow or other.
 * As for the solution, I really don't know enough about the topic to sort things out myself. All my attempts so far to reach compromises have come to naught. Bah. GarrettTalk 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently we are violating our own Forking policy. I'm going to execute it as stated. MShonle 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

/Fork issue... and then the most amazing discussion about this you've ever seen.

Mshonle, as I'm taking an extended holiday, I just wanted to say continue the great work with your policy proposals (the Wikibooks vision and the book charters). Methinks the next few months will be very interesting on Wikibooks; so good luck with your ideas. Serge 11:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that or your talk page. Have a great time! It certainly has been interesting around WB lately. Next week classes start up for me so WB will have to move down my priority list. Thanks for the kind words. MShonle 14:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hillary quote
See User talk:Aya. - Aya T E C 19:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel the Magic
I've taken it upon myself to finish the Wikibook. Would you consider changing your vote? - A Link to the Past 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I've changed my vote. --MShonle 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Computing Bookshelves
I don't think I agree with you in the usage of three separate bookshelves for CS-related books, as it makes it difficult for newbies to navigate to the correct bookshelf (the IT/programming/CS separation is not especially intuitive). Subjects like humanities, art and science are much broader in diversity compared to CS, but they still have only one bookshelf each.

What about creating sub-bookshelves/subcategories for cs, programming, IT etc. under a common Computer Science bookshelf? This would both unify CS-content and open up for internal diversity. --Orderud 19:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Computer Science is a subject quite separate from programming and information technology. For example, learning and using Photoshop or GIMP is a subject we vitally need to teach, but under no stretch of the imagination is it a CS topic. As for computing, I don't think it makes much sense to have an umbrella shelf to cover all of them, since CS is not a sub-branch of computing either. Perhaps there can be a separate CS shelf and an IT shelf with IT/Programming and IT/Computing, but as I said, any single merge would be like putting autorepair in with Physics. --MShonle 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Programming:C plus plus
Hi,

I just read your email about the merge (I don't get to read non-work mails regularly nowadays :. It has been pointed out earlier that the fork predates the policy on merges, so hope that has been taken care of before merging.

I'd also like to mention that there were some reports that some of what Panic2k4 had added are from some other C++ book (I don't remember the name but going through the talk pages for the 2 books as well as their archives/page history and probably older versions of the Staff lounge should reveal the name). I vaguely recollect seeing instances of some material from Wikipedia being pasted here without proper version history (i.e. without going through the transwiki process) as required by the GFDL (I might have discussed this with Panic in the talk pages of the two books or his user talk page or the Staff lounge so the older versions of these pages might have some clues). Hence part of the material might be infringing on the copyright(s) of the author(s) of the other C++ book and the copyrights of contributors to various Wikipedia articles on C++.

I don't get much time nowadays to work on Wikibooks. Even my activity on Wikipedia has come down quite a bit. Hence I'm not able to search through the books and talk pages and find out more about the material that has been pasted into Programming:C -/- -/-. I'm sorry for that but I do hope someone with time in hand would do so and remove infringing content (if any still remain...). I just wanted to mention these issues since these would be easier to resolve sooner than later.

I'd like to clarify that I didn't want to just write a reference text on C++ but rather an entire book but just couldn't get the time and inclination (inclination -- mainly due the fork) to do it. The sensible thing to have done is to get all the non-copyvio material from the fork on to the original book but this was getting increasingly difficult for me since the page became huger as days passed, and I couldn't find what is copyvio and what isn't.

Also, I didn't intend the "Hello world", "Data types", "Variables and expressions" pages to be part of the appendix as they are now. I wonder if they are there just temporarily since these things don't seem to make sense in an appendix. Rather they were intended to be part of the main book, either expanded into larger chapters, or as sections (I'd like chapters to span multiple pages with each page being a section or a subsection). -- Paddu 22:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for coming back online! I agree that it's odd for the Hello World, et cetera parts to be put into an appendix. I think some of the problems with the C++ book reveals the huge difference between WB and WP. My main concern is that the book is so far off from its goal that others won't want to do all of the many steps necessary to make it better. --MShonle 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem with Image:CompSciLogicLinearResTree.png
--Derbeth 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My Next Book
I wanted to get your opinion on a new book i've been working on, that is currently only an outline on my user page: User:Whiteknight/Communications. I would like to introduce this book sometime within the next week, assuming too many people dont have too many problems with it. Because of the size and the scope of the proposed books, i've been asking people whether this book would "step on the toes" of other bookshelves (I would like to put this book on the EE bookshelf). Since you are a frequent contributer to the CS bookshelf, i would like to ask if you think this new book would overlap too too much with books currently on the CS shelf. The "Berkley API" section in particular might raise some eyebrows, but i think that either a) this new books should contain at least a brief introduction to network programming, or b) link frequently to other wikibooks on the topic. Either way, this book would need space for it. Also in question are subjects of routing algorithms, CRC checksums, packet formation (i would much rather focus on packet structure, rather then packet formation, or packet parsing) and data compression. I would like to point out that Electrical Engineers may use all of these subjects, and many of them might not think to find them in a CS book to find them. I would like to introduce this book by next week, so a reply would be greately appreciated. --Whiteknight T C E 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fine outline and suitable for the EE shelf. I also don't see much concern about duplicate material with CS books. By their nature some books are going to repeat some of the information in other books. Any "solutions" to this duplication "problem" are far worse than the minor headaches duplication can sometimes have. By being free to overlap some content books can be more focused, more helpful, and clearer over all. Forcing users to read another submodule written in a different context will lead to a worser learning experience. I'm sure some CS types will find some "duplication" (i.e., teaching a single concept in more than one book; not to be confused with forking) ineligant, so I suggest you stick with making the treatments somewhat different. An introduction to network programming with an emphasis on EE details is quite different than a programming introduction. Indeed, you could claim that CS books are in the EE territory whenever they mention a wire or a bus. But really, the reality is that it happens. There are probably at least three introductions to Big-O notation around here, for example. Anyway, it sounds like a great project! --MShonle 03:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! You may have noticed from the main page that i have already launched the book, Communication Systems, and you are more then welcome to come help out (although i know you are plenty busy already). --Whiteknight T C E 16:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Right now I'm at one of the more busy local maxima in my studies, so it might be weeks before I could even think of participating more on Wikibooks. :-) --MShonle 00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on Logic for Computer Scientists
The book Logic for Computer Scientists, which you have put a good deal of effort into, has been vandalized. I have reverted from the vandalism. You may want to check subpages to see if they are okay. --JMRyan 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. It looks like you got them all! MShonle 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image licenses
Hi, Mshonle. Could you add licenses to these images: GFDL is preferable. Thanks! --hagindaz 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:AlgorithmsShortestFirst.png
 * Image:AlgorithmsLeastConflicts.png
 * Image:Algorithms-NetFlow1.png
 * Image:Algorithms-NetFlow3.png

 * Wow, it's almost been a year, but there you go! MShonle 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I hope you are here to stay! It's been a long time since we saw you around here, and it would be good if you stayed around. How have you been? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your De-Adminship
Hello. I would like to inform you that you will have your sysop rights removed here on 3 Aug 2007 due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss the matter, please see WB:RFA. You can re-apply for adminship at a later date if you wish. Thanks. -within focus 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mshonle


text:
Poker/Expected value

Expected Value (EV) is the average return on each dollar invested into a pot. If a player can expect, given probability to make more money than he or she bets, the action is said to have a positive expectation (+EV). Conversely if a bet or a call will, according to probability, likely result in less money being returned the action is said to be negative (-EV).

An example may assist in the understanding of this concept. In Texas Holdem it is quite common for someone to flop 4 to a flush. The person should only draw to that flush if to do so would be +EV. In order to calculate the EV it is necessary to compare the size of the bet with the size of the pot. A flopped flush draw will come in approximately 1 in 3 times by the river, thus in order for a call to be +EV the final pot must be larger than 3 times the call. This is a complicated issue so it may be useful to elaborate with a specific example.

Say you are playing 5-10 limit poker on the button, there are 3 limpers to you and you call with A4 diamonds. Both Blinds call so there is $30 in the pot. You flop the nut flush draw. The player in the small Blind bets $5 and there are four callers. Should you call, raise or fold?

Well, there is now $55 in the pot and it will cost you $5 to call so the pot is giving you 11:1 odds (i.e. you must pay $5 to win $55). We already know that the flush draw will get there 1 time in every 3 (2 to 1) so making the call is +EV. However, calling is not necessarily the best play in this situation. If you raise and the other 5 people in the pot decide to call your raise then you will be adding $5 to the pot whilst they will collectively be adding $25. This ratio is 5:1 but the chance of making your flush is only 2 losses to 1 win, so on average in the long run you are making money from every extra bet from all 6 of you that goes into the pot. Notice that even though you have only a 33% chance to win the pot, the correct thing to do is actually to bet, despite knowing that you will probably not win that particular single hand: you will win about 1 in 3 such hands in the long run, minus the few percent of the time when someone beats your flush with a full house or quads or straight flush.

Notice that all that has been done so far is compare the current pot with the bet size needed to call to calculate EV. However it is important to also compare the expected pot size by the end of the hand with the current bet. For example say you are playing no limit holdem and have a gutshot straight draw (giving you 4 outs to complete - approximately 1:12 against). If the pot is $30 and you are faced with a $10 bet the pot is not giving you the correct odds to call (it would need to be $120 total, plus your $10 call). However you also need to take into account the amount of money you may be able to extract from your opponents if you make your hand. If you expect your opponent to call a $100 bet if you make your hand, then the pot is really offering you 13:1 odds (the $30 pot at the time plus the $100 added on later streets) Therefore in this situation the +EV play would be to call. Thus when making decisions about whether to call a bet it is crucial to take into account both the stack sizes of yourself and your opponents and how willing they are likely to be to call big bets if you make your hand.

To make it easier to understand why this move is correct even though it usually loses, suppose you have a six-sided die. If you correctly guess what side it lands on, you will win $50. If you are wrong, you lose $5. You will be wrong five times out of six, but you stand to gain a lot over the long run! This is because the probability of guessing correctly is 1/6, sometimes expressed as odds, "5:1 against" (five losing possibilities, one winning possibility). However, the payoff odds are 50:5 ($50 won for a $5 bet), which can be reduced to 10:1, and 10:1 is twice as large as 5:1. The payoff odds are called pot odds in a poker game. Comparing the odds of winning to the pot odds is how you can estimate your expected value.

Ideally, you want to avoid all situations where you have a negative expectation. Even slightly negative situations can pile up and bleed away your bankroll. Casinos worldwide make MILLIONS of dollars lost by players against a 0.6% craps dice game house edge: even 0.1% is enough of an edge to wipe out all the billions of dollars of the richest man on earth, over time in the long run, which is why Bill Gates wisely bets only $5/hand for fun at blackjack!

Calculating expected value
You cannot always get a good idea of the chances of winning your hand & calculate the pot odds: at least, not without knowing what your opponents have, and they're not going to tell you! However, you will often have a draw which, if you hit, you will very likely win the pot. The exact arithmetic involved varies from game to game. In Texas hold'em and ../Omaha/, once you see the flop, the percent chance of making your hand within one card is generally your number of outs (cards that will make your hand) multiplied by two, and the odds of making your hand within two cards is your number of outs multiplied by four. For example, if you have four hearts and you need one more for a flush, you have nine outs, because there are thirteen hearts in the deck, and subtracting the four hearts you already have gives nine. 9 × 2 is 18, so you have about an 18% chance of making the hand in the next card, and 9 × 4 is 36, so you have about a 36% chance of making it in two cards.

To make this easy, you want to turn this percent chance into odds, like 5:1 against. Fortunately, they are easy enough to memorize:

50% = 1:1 33% =  2:1 25% =  3:1 20% =  4:1 16% =  5:1 14% =  6:1 12% =  7:1 11% =  8:1 10% =  9:1  9% = 10:1  8% = 11:1  7% = 13:1  5% = 20:1  4% = 25:1

The odds in bold are the most important to commit to memory; the others can be easily estimated.

Now, take the x in the x:1 figure and multiply it by the bet size. For example, if the odds of making your hand are roughly 4:1, and the next bet costs $5, multiply 5 × 4 = 20. That means you want there to be at least $20 in the pot (be sure to include bets that have not been added to the pot proper yet!), preferably a bit more just in case unless you're certain to win if you hit your draw. If there is not at least $20 in the pot you will lay down your hand, unless you can check instead. If the table is really loose, and a lot of players are in the hand and are likely to stay in, and the pot will get really big, you may even want to raise. Normally, however, checking or calling is the correct move.

Notice we did not calculate the exact expected value. This is not necessary or indeed practical for most people. If it is negative, you get out, and if it is positive, you call. If you're a favorite to win the pot, you raise. However, as has been shown you can usually figure out if the value is only barely positive, for instance, the size of the pot is a dollar more than the odds of making your hand (and this dollar is small in proportion to the pot size). When faced with this situation, you might want to lay down your hand sometimes: you may be losing just a little money in the long run, but you keep your bankroll from taking big swings. But if you don't mind taking a gamble, by all means go for it!

title: Poker/Expected value


text:
Mandarin Chinese

This is an alternate Wikibooks to Chinese (Mandarin)

Note: To use this book, your web browser must first be configured to display Chinese characters. If the characters in the grey box below appear as blank boxes or garbage such as �?�?, it is not properly configured.

Chapter One: Pinyin

 * 1) Consonants
 * 2) A, O, and E
 * 3) I and N
 * 4) Quiz One
 * 5) U, Ü and NG
 * 6) Pronouns
 * 7) Numbers
 * 8) Easy_Languages/Chinese/Chapter_One

第一课→

Chapter Two: Sentences

 * 1) 你好. 我是...
 * 2) 你好吗？
 * 3) 他是学生.
 * 4) 她的名字是什么？
 * 5) 我四十二岁.
 * 6) 你呢？

你好. 我是...→

title: Mandarin Chinese