text:
Talk:Repeating decimal

Archives:
 * Talk:Repeating decimal/Archive 1

Request to simplify The case of 0.999...
This section is just too long winding and may be unnecessary. To find the value of 0.999..., all one need to ask is what is 1 - 0.999...

The answer is a digit 1 at an infinite decimal position. This equates it with zero! We only need two-line statement! I request to simplify this section for the sake of the general public. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * The topic of 0.999... is dealt with in much more detail in the article 0.999..., and is only slightly connected to repeating decimals. I would be happy to see this whole section removed, and to just have a link to 0.999... in the See also section. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I was going to make the same suggestion. —Dominus (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * No objections, so I have removed the section and added a link to 0.999... in See also. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

2607:FCC8:F4C2:7500:AC93:B28:BF40:52CA (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)== Semi-cyclic number ==

The article uses the term "semi-cyclic" several times: Semi-cyclic number redirects to a section of this article. I did a quick Google search but couldn't find any useful references for this terminology. Can someone please give a definition of "semi-cyclic number" and a reliable source to show that this is not a neologism. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "The number 076923 is thus semi-cyclic ; whereas the decimals of 1/11 and 1/3 are almost non-cyclic"
 * 2) "The following is an example of semi-cyclic number: $1/49$ = ..."
 * 3) "Thus $1/119$ has 96 repeating digits and is a semi-cyclic number"

 * Ok. The term is neologism for naming the headings of two sections. Cyclic numbers have been defined and thus it is easy to understand what are non-cyclic numbers. What do you suggest for the section heading if semi-cyclic is not used to show that "these numbers behave somewhere between cyclic and non-cyclic"? Thank you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I would have said that a "non-cyclic" number is any number that is not a cyclic number, but I think you are using that term in a different, more restricted, sense. What is not clear to me is the difference in your terminology between "semi-cyclic" and "non-cyclic" - what does "behave somewhere between cyclic and non-cyclic" mean ? If "1/11 and 1/3 are almost non-cyclic" then are they semi-cyclic ? Or are they non-cyclic ? If they are semi-cyclic, then can you give an example of a "non-cyclic" number in your terminology. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I refer "non-cyclic" number to any number that does not possess any cyclic characteristic in multiplication. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * But what exactly do you mean by "semi-cyclic" ? You still have not explained this clearly. Your phrase "behave somewhere between cyclic and non-cyclic" is too vague. Let's take some examples. Which of the following numbers are "semi-cyclic" and which are "non-cyclic": 015873 ? 153846 ? 123456 ? 253968 ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Number 015873 is derived from 1/63 and is semi-cyclic (relates with 5 others such as 10/63, 37/63, 55/63 etc). Number 153846 is from 2/13 and in the article I mentioned them to be semi-cyclic (relates with 5 other fractions). I don't know 123456 has any cyclic behavior. Number 253968 derived from 16/63 and relates with 5 other fractions (such as 34/63) having the same denominator so it is semi-cyclic. I believe I have answered you the question. I rather let the terms be a bit vague as I am using "non-cyclic" and "semi-cyclic" as adjectives. If instead I define "non-cyclic numbers" and "semi-cyclic numbers", the definition certainly falls into the category of "new research". Then everybody has right to delete it. As it is how could people deprive my right to use these two adjectives? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Every body can use an adjective like red without actual comparing the colour with certain colour chart or standard. Everybody can use the adjectives high, tall, fat as relative terms without defining them exactly. Do you think my statement is correct? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * No, sorry, your argument does not hold. "Red", "high", "tall" and "fat" are commonly understood adjectives; they are part of everyday language and appear in a dictionary. You, however, have introduced an apparently technical, "semi-cyclic", which does not have a dictionary definition, and you cannot provide a reliable source to show that you are using that term in the correct sense. Since you admit that "semi-cyclic" is a neologism, and you are unable to give a precise definition of its meaning, it has no place in an encyclopedia article - it will only confuse readers and detract from the clarity of the article (see Avoid neologisms). I have therefore removed the term "semi-cyclic" from the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I type a repeating decimal? 2607:FCC8:F4C2:7500:AC93:B28:BF40:52CA (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC) EvieSwan2405

Non-cyclic number
Gandalf61, I do not think that the heading non-cyclic numbers is appropriate when you refer them to include: This casual use of terms causes more confusion.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * numbers that have some cyclic behaviour (which I referred to as semi-cyclic); and
 * usual numbers that do not have any cyclic behaviour.

Reaman numeral
Gandalf61, except for the term and the section heading which I am thinking of changing, I intend to add back this section as the analysis and solution is much simpler than the version by the originator in the web. I am asking for your opinion since you deleted it. Thank you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own work - see WP:NOT. You will have to find a reliable source that uses the term "Reaman numeral" in the sense that you are using it, and derives the results that you are presenting. Without a reliable source, your section is original research, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. And the puzzle page that is linked from Talk:Cyclic number is definitely not a reliable source. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I meant I will use different term,e.g. "math puzzle" or something similar. My section is already a derivation! --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia already has an article on these numbers - they are called parasitic numbers. A link to that article would be fine, since parasitic numbers can be derived from repeating decimnals, but there is no need to duplicate the whole explanation here. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-cyclic and non cyclic numbers
Gandalf61, If I were to define the above terms, I will choose:

Semi-cyclic

Semi-cyclic numbers are represented by decimals derived from $$\frac{c}{p^k q^l r^m ... }$$ excluding those classified as cyclic numbers.

Where $p, q, r$ and etc are prime other than 2 and 5, and $k, l, m$ and etc are positive integers or zeros (at least one of them shall be > 0).

Non-cyclic

Non-cyclic numbers are any other numerals besides cyclic numbers and semi-cyclic numbers, e.g.,
 * Terminating decimals,
 * Decimals derived from $$\frac{c}{2^a 5^b p^k q^l ...}$$ excluding those classified as cyclic and semi-cyclic numbers.

This definition will then be in line with the article. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In English term, semi-cyclic numbers are not cyclic numbers but possess some aspect of cyclic behaviour. I believe this is quite a straight forward explanation. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 * So then every string of digits is either cyclic or semi-cyclic - because every string of digits forms the repeating decimal part of some rational number. For example, 123456 is the repeating decimal part of 41152/333333. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 * As you have pointed out, I will say yes, as the fractions 78187/333333, 115204/333333, 152041/333333 (and two others) can be expressed as decimals having the cyclic permutation of 123456. However, there are still non-cyclic numbers as defined above, such as terminating decimals and repeating decimals with preceding non-repeating digits - I use the full string of digits. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean, the issue can be resolved if the definition is based on full series of the decimal instead of the selected fixed digits only. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Connection with Fermat's little theorem
Gandalf61, I can understand why you removed: However I think the section Connection with Fermat's little theorem shall be maintained because the connection may not be apparent to everybody. At one time somebody deleted my statement that the period is related to FLT. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Explanation of cyclic behavior,
 * Arithmetic proof of divisibility

 * There is no need to duplicate information that the reader can get from the articles on Fermat's little theorem or cyclic number. There are links to both of those articles on the repeating decimal page - that is sufficient. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Both articles do no mention relationship of FLT with cyclic numbers. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Since there is no response on this subject, I am putting this section back.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Under "Fractions with prime denominators", the article already says "The period of the repeating decimal of $1/p$ is equal to the order of 10 modulo p. If 10 is a primitive root modulo p, the period is equal to p−1; if not, the period is a factor of p−1. This result can be derived from group theory or from Fermat's little theorem." Your section "Connection with Fermat's little theorem" is a series of examples that adds nothing to this, so I have removed it again. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * My question: Is encyclopaedia meant for general public or mathematicians only? Do you think a illustration is better for public?--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Plainly stating your point of view is better than asking empty rhetorical questions. This article already contains plenty of examples of repeating decimals. If you want to add examples of Fermat's little theorem then these belong in the Fermat's little theorem article, not in this article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Parasitic number
Arthur, what do you mean by unencyclopedic? I rather the section stay and the link at #See also's be deleted. I wish you can explain. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What can I say: "Wonders of ..." is one of the best WP:PEACOCK words I've ever seen. The links are arguable, but the section has no material which should be in any Wikipedia article which isn't already in cyclic number or parasitic number.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If you do not agree with the heading, just change the heading. Wikipedia encourages links. What I am doing is adding a little bit introduction to the parasitic number which I think is proper. You act is Vandalism.

 * The links are not arguable. When I first have a longer, more detailed section for parasitic number in this article but named after something else, it was deleted by User:Gandalf61. He reminded me the existence of parasitic number. When I wrote the summary for parasitic number in this article, obviously User:Gandalf61 saw it as he deleted my the other sub-section but approved this section or otherwise he would have deleted it as well. You may ask him whether the link is appropriate before deleting it. You simply cannot accept a statement of truth that I wrote here. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The links are arguable, as they only relate indirectly through other articles. I was wrong to call them vandalism, if I did, but not wrong to call them inappropriate Wikilinks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Ling Kah Jai - for the record, I haven't expressed any view about your "Wonders of numbers: parasitic numbers" section, and I strongly object to your attempt to predict my opinions. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I am pasting the section below for everyone consensus. The section is original saved I changed the section heading because of the comment. Let others have their comment. If Arthur does not allow other people to edit parasitic number, please say it loud and clear.

Parasitic numbers
The interesting cyclic behavior of repeating decimals in multiplication also leads to the construction of parasitic number. When a parasitic number is multiplied by n, not only it exhibits the cyclic behavior but the permutation is such that the last digit of the parasitic number now becomes the first digit of the multiple. For example, 102564 x 4 = 410156. Note that 102564 is the repeating digits of $4/39$ and 410156 the repeating digits of $16/39$.

--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I am also pasting link to what I have amended for parasitic number:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Repeating_decimal&action=edit&section=24
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parasitic_number&oldid=312996712
 * Everybody can review and make a comment. I added section heading, wrote the new section 'simplified approach', reorganized the section 'general note' and added links. Arthur just undid everything. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Set aside the formula for the Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If no body object to the re-inclusion of the above, I will include it in one form or another.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the need for a more complicated less mathematical alternative approach. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read User:Ling Kah Jai/Other cyclic permutations? Still not convinced? Sigh! Where are other people's opinions? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclic number
The {main|Repeating decimal} has been kept at cyclic number article for four months and has met many users' approval. In fact, the cyclic numbers were brought out and described in this article though without a proper heading long ago before other users created the article cyclic number. I think you have put in hard work for parasitic number and does not wish to see a simple approach proposed by other. What do I call that? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong location for comment; please comment at Talk:Cyclic number, if at all. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't avoid my comment. You cannot answer my query then do not delete them! I accept changes but not deletion without reasons / pointing the mistakes and vandalism. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Stop your bogus accusations of other users of vandalism, it is considered very rude. Do yourself a favour and read WP:VAN to see what is and is not vandalism, in particular the paragraph starting with "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." — Emil J. 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I doubt Arthur Rubin have read repeating decimal when he starts to delete links to the article. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) He followed me everywhere and delete my work giving pretext but not acceptable reasons. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It appears I didn't delete the links, although I intended to. You had just reordered the links, rather than adding them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I let you check for yourself whether you deleted the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Repeating_decimal&diff=313143344&oldid=313011276
 * Look at the category of parasitic number. Cold category. Few people will realize there is such an article. Your intention is to keep this piece of article as an island. No links, less people access it, and you can keep people out from editing it. But no man is an island, so does knowledge! Knowledge is linked information. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OOPS, I only intended to delete the cryptography one. Fixed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may claim to be an accident if you delete it once. But I remember you have deleted the link to parasitic number at least in another occasion. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had the statistics: repeating decimal and parasitic number were viewed respectively 4473 times and 324 times in the month of August 2009. Check it out at http://stats.grok.se/ --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Other cyclic permutations
I am going to add this very long section, which is made possible by the method of simplified approach that was documented as parasitic number but was deleted by Arthur Rubin. This section is only complete if the short summary section, repeating decimal which I wrote but deleted by Arthur Rubin, is reverted back to this article. Please review whether I shall post it here or elsewhere: Other cyclic permutations Let Arthur Rubin see for himself: --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * if the so called direct method can do this or not; and
 * whether parasitic number belongs to a subtopic of repeating decimal.

 * The style in which you have written this proposed section at User:Ling Kah Jai/Other cyclic permutations is not encyclopedic and is very unclear. There are simples rule for finding numbers that give multiples of themselves when cyclically shifted right or left by any given number of places. If you want to include this information in Wikipedia you need to:
 * Make sure it is not already in an article.
 * Find a reliable source that describes the rules.
 * Write a section that clearly describes the rules, citing the source.
 * Add one or two well-chosen examples to illustrate the rules.
 * Instead, you seem to have found a large number of examples by trial and error, and you have documented these examples without mentioning the underlying pattern. Having fun with arithmetic is fine as a hobby, but the output is not notable or interesting, and does not belong in Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Taken note and will improve to include the rules, to make it more apparent. The rule is simple to verify by arithmetic. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Gandalf61, User:Ling Kah Jai/Cyclic permutations is ready to be added to repeating decimal if you agree. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No, I do not agree. Look at what I said above. You haven't cited a source. You haven't explained the general rules (Arthur Rubin outlines the general rules at Talk:Parasitic number). You have far too many specific examples. Your style is still very unclear and difficult to understand. The whole section need to be made much shorter and much clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try. The arithmetic by Arthur Rubin on the left shift by double positions is correct but the solution is not necessary correct. Let him try out for n = 2, then he will know.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Only manage to add general rules and proof for 2 out of 3. Due to the length, I intend to start it as a new article and just leave a summary here.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will add the rule for the last case.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no solutions for 2-digit cyclical left shift for n = 4, 10, 12, 20, 23, 25, 28, 34, 36, 40, 45, 50 and any numbers greater than 50. This cannot be predicted by Arthur Rubin's approach (giving wrong answers) but by the approach using repeating decimal.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can be predicted; it just isn't immediately obvious. User:Arthur Rubin/Parasitic number produces:
 * n=4; d<24, and 32 | d
 * n=10; d<9, and 10 | d
 * Actually any n>=10 fails if you disallow leading zeros, as d<10 (to avoid carries in the multiply), and d>=10 to avoid leading 0s. But, continuing:
 * n=12: d<8, and 8 | d.
 * n=20: d<4, and 80 | d
 * n=23: actually, this one seems to work for d = 01, 02, or 03, with m = 6
 * 01 2987 * 23 = 2987 01
 * 02 5974 * 23 = 5974 02
 * 03 8961 * 23 = 8961 03
 * n=25: d<3, 25 | d
 * n=28: d<3, 4 | d
 * n=34, 36, 40, 50: d<2, 2 | d
 * n=40: d<2, 5 | d
 * n≥50: d<1 (!)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok! you know that each n value will work or not through individual inspection. Can your approach derive a pattern of n value that work or that do not work? My approach can!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that, by looking more closely at the fractions (not exactly repeating decimals), one can show that the left shift calculation fails if:
 * $$10^k-n = 2^a 3^b 5^c$$, where a, b, and c are integers, and b≤2.
 * On the other hand, your analysis doesn't directly eliminate k=2, n=51, m=42, does it? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake for quoting n=23 to have no solution. My approach also provide solution.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My analysis does eliminate k=2, n=51, m=42 (I don't have to deduce what is m, which comes naturally) because it says that 1/49 x 51 > 1! Very simple.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (If $$10^k-n = 2^a 3^b 5^c,$$ then, regardless of the values of d and m, x will have the same digit repeated.)
 * As it stands, your approach cannot develop a general rule; your analysis for n=34 is not much different than mine. However, if you want a general rule, no solution exists if and only if:
 * $$GCD(10^\infty,10^k-n)\ge\frac{10^k}n-1$$
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again very simple and it has been listed in my text that X is represented by $1/F$ and if this fraction does not generate a repeating friction fraction decimal of with a period of 3 and above for k = 2 (2-digit shift), how could X be realistic? It is all in there with a little reasoning. That is the beauty - no lengthy formula!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the general rule that you are developing is copied from my concept(but incomplete / not entirely correct).--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's from my concept, not yours. If you want details, I can run the GCD verification into my formulation, too.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you have to work it on to make it correct. I wonder if you do not look at repeating decimal, how could you make it correct (rule for the exceptions) .--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very easily: If $$d \frac {10^m-1} b$$ is an integer, then $$GCD\left(10^\infty,b\right) | d$$.  Conversly, if  $$GCD\left(10^\infty,b\right) | d$$, then there is an m>0 such that $$d \frac {10^m-1} b$$ is an integer.   The latter follows from properies of powers of 10 modulo $$\frac b {GCD(b,d)}$$.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Frankly speaking, I do't understand the $$|$$ symbol neither why do you have to use $$10^\infty$$ (what is your intention to achieve?) in $$GCD\left(10^\infty,b\right) | d$$.
 * I am giving you notice that I will create a new article based on my writing.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Theorem of repeating decimal
I have completed an article with the above title currently kept at User:Ling_Kah_Jai/Theorem_of_repeating_decimal. I intend to:
 * add this article to Wikipedia or Wikisource; and
 * add a summary to Repeating decimal.

I was inspired by Gandalf61 and motivated by Arthur Rubin to write this article. In essence, the material is nothing new (original research) but merely re-organize information in a more easily understood manner. Any opinion against my putting up of this article in Wikipedia? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Ling Kah Jai, I do not have the patience to find a nice way to say this, so I am just going to say it. Your proposed article is badly written, poorly organised, verbose and difficult to understand. More importantly, unless you can find a source that refers to this particular set of arithmetic facts as the "Theorem of repeating decimal" then by Wikipedia's definition it most definitely is original research and it does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikibooks may be a better home for your writing. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Gandalf61, is it really that bad that you cannot understand it? Can you suggest a way for me to improve it before I consider putting up to Wikisource or Wikibooks? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not a Wikibooks expert (Wikisource seems inappropriate). But it's not the best.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Phenomenon of repeating decimal
Gandalf61, like you say, these are mere arithmetic facts. If you are against the term, I have changed it to the new title as above or just can include it to Cyclic permutation of integer without any new title. Is this an acceptable article? If the writing / organization is bad but there is substance in it then perhaps other users can improve it. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No. Why should you expect other editors to improve your bad writing and lack of clarity ? You have shown repeatedly that cannot work in the collaborative way that is fundamental to Wikipedia. You are creating articles that are unsourced and full of repetitive examples and trivial arithmetic. Your work is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please take it somewhere else. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that my writing has the clarity. On the other hand, it is not true that I did not work collaboratively. For discussion between us, how many times I respected your decision and how many times I did it my own way? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Group theory
Arthur Rubin, I don't remember who added in the group theory statement. It could be me or it could be others. Anyway, I support the statement.

For a multiplicative group modulo p (p is prime number other than 2 or 5): (Zp, *), a cyclic group / subgroup can be generated by 10. What is the order of the subgroup? At most (p -1). So do you think group theory can derive the answer? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also refer to proofs of Fermat's little theorem, somebody incorporated a proof based on group theory! --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is monid theory? I did a search on wikipedia. Nothing. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia doesn't seem to have it; the relevant theory is the abstract theory of functions of one variable. Much of it can be simulated by group theory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I am giving up. I cannot progress with you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk)01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does repetition begins where it does?
Section Repeating decimal tries to address this question, but it seems (to me) to miss the essential issue. Suppose 0≤n<d are integers co-prime to each other and d is co-prime to 10 and
 * $${n \over d} = 0.q_1q_2q_3q_4\ldots \,$$

is the decimal expansion, then the remainders in the long division are defined by
 * $$r_0 = n \,$$
 * $$r_{k+1} = 10 \times r_k - q_{k+1} \times d \,.$$

One gets
 * $$0 \leq r_k < d \,$$
 * $$0 \leq q_k < 10 \,.$$

Now we know that for some distinct j and k we must have
 * $$r_{j+1} = r_{k+1} \,$$

because there are only finitely many integers in [0,d). So we get
 * $$10 \times r_j - q_{j+1} \times d = 10 \times r_k - q_{k+1} \times d \,$$
 * $$10 \times (r_j - r_k) = (q_{j+1} - q_{k+1}) \times d \,.$$

Assume without loss of generality that
 * $$r_j \geq r_k \,$$

(otherwise switch j and k), then
 * $$(r_j - r_k) \geq 0 \,$$
 * $$(q_{j+1} - q_{k+1}) \geq 0 \,.$$

Since 2 and 5 do not divide d, we get that 10 divides qj+1-qk+1 which, given that they lie in [0,10), is only possible if
 * $$q_{j+1} = q_{k+1} \,$$
 * $$10 \times (r_j - r_k) = (q_{j+1} - q_{k+1}) \times d = 0 \,$$

and thus
 * $$r_j = r_k \,.$$

So we can work backwards inductively to show that all the remainders and digits separated by j-k decimal places must be the same, until we reach the decimal point where the definitions upon which the argument depends begin. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede should be about rationals, not reals
Repeating decimal is a way of representing rational numbers. The best proof of this is that repeating decimals have already appeared in the mathematical literature in the early 18th century. The elegant theorem that a real number is rational if and only if it its decimal representation is eventually repeating is important, but there is no reason for the lede to start with the real numbers. Tkuvho (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Beswick
Who is Beswick? Tkuvho (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The Beswick reference for "modified long division" is not covered in mathscinet. I would suggest deleting it.  Tkuvho (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Beswick's procedure sounds pretty contrived as well as non-notable. I have a simpler procedure for getting a tail of 9s: divide the number by 3 by using long division.  Then multiply back by 3, to get a tail of nines.  Tkuvho (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Beswick is an educator and the article is a published in an education journal, which is why it is not on mathscinet. Thenub314 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * In the past 7 years, Beswick's text earned precisely one cite at Google Scholar. I don't think it is notable.  It should be deleted from both pages.  Tkuvho (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

can a tail of nines be obtained by long division?
I added what seemed to be a non-controversial edit, to the effect that an unending tail of 9s cannot be obtained by long division. This was deleted twice, on the grounds that the editor "disagrees". Input would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This statement was added very shortly after I added a proof to 0.999... that used long division with reference. Tkuvho has been very active at that page.  If he didn't expect me to object, he must have missed the edit.  I had initially half expected this edit was a response to the proof I added.
 * Regardless, it is not a matter of my disagreement. Instead I provided a source, which uses the long division algorithm to produce an unending tail of nines.  It is difficult to state that something cannot be done when there is a source that does it.
 * Granted, in order to do this one must use a modified form of the division algorithm for integers, in which one chooses the remainder $$0<r\leq |b|$$, instead of $$0\leq r < |b|$$. But the long division algorithm, preformed with this modified form of the division algorithm certainly can produce an unending sequence of 9's. Thenub314 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * If you feel Beswick's point of view is not notable, or otherwise inappropriate, perhaps a simple compromise would be to make no claims at all about what can or cannot be done with long division. Thenub314 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that Beswick's modification is not notable. I suggest we keep the remark about the impossibility of getting a tail of 9s through long division, and delete Beswick.  Tkuvho (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I personally am not for contradiction a published article based on our opinion. Thenub314 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. We should go by Google Scholar's opinion, which in this case is negative.  Tkuvho (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Google scholar list the paper, and another paper that cites it, and several papers that cite that. Google scholar also list around 80-ish papers by K Beswick on the subject of education.  I was a bit surprised by this (perhaps it is a bit inflated, google scholar is far from perfect). So I decided to switch over to google and find out who she was.  Her website is here.  It seems she hols an associate professor position.  She is an associate dean of research and the graduate research coordinator for her department.  Reading her achievements section she seems a fairly accomplished researcher on mathematics education.  Now not being in mathematics education, I do not know how many citations one should expect for any given paper. But overall I find your comment that her opinion is not notable not very convincing. Thenub314 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. I have no doubt Beswick is an accomplished and influential researcher.  This particular paper has had virtually no influence.  You mention the fact that the unique paper that cites Beswick's paper on .999 is in turn cited by several other authors.  How is this supposed to establish the notability of Beswick's paper??  Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of putting words in your mouth, but perhaps I simply misunderstood your position. As I said above I am content to just let the matter drop as long as we do not intend to contradict the article. Thenub314 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which article do you claim we are contradicting, Beswick's? But she would be the first one to agree that one can't get a tail of 9s by using long division as it is taught to millions of children.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Decimal Representation
The last paragraph of the lede (as of 8/29/2013) is:
 * "A decimal that is neither terminating nor repeating represents an irrational number (which cannot be expressed as a fraction of two integers), such as the square root of 2 or the number π. Conversely, an irrational number always has a non-repeating decimal representation."

I have a BUNCH of problems with this.
 * First, a decimal is a digit. I believe the author meant decimal representation.
 * Second, I know of NO decimal representations that are not finite. This seems to me to be definitional.
 * Third, isn't a repeating decimal a notation? Isn't it a augmentation of the decimal representation which allows an 'exact' decimal representation of numbers which would otherwise be truncated with lost accuracy?
 * Fourth, and I'm on shaky ground here, is it really true that every irrational number "always has a non-repeating decimal representation."? Are there not some irrational numbers which do NOT have a decimal representation?  We know they exist, but not their value (to one or more significant digits accuracy)?
 * Fifth, I wonder if there are rational numbers which the same objection applies? That is, they exist but can NOT be (yet, if ever) represented by a decimal number.  This, I have severe doubts about, but haven't the brains to establish the case one way or another.

We don't teach our kids that 0.5 "really" is shorthand for 0.500000... with the 0's continuing "forever". While mathematically a better way to think about it, perhaps, that's not what is always done. Is it? Two other issues, which I ask an editor's consideration:
 * series representation of any rational number X is  A + (1/10)^m * Σ (C ÷ (10^s)^n) (n=0 to ∞) where A is the non-recurring portion of the number, C is the recurring digits, s is the size of C (count of decimal digits in C) and m is the number of  places to the right of the decimal point that A "occupies".  The series section here seems unable or unwilling to handle the general case - but I have no references for this (if I got the math right).
 * Shouldn't this article have a section on different bases? For instance, 0.3 (base 10) has a repeating (non-truncating) decimal representation base 2; 0.3 = 0.010011(0011)72.172.10.35 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I reformatted your post so that your list of points is clearer.

 * On your first point, I agree that "decimal" should be "decimal representation". I have updated the article text.

 * On your second and third points, the standard definition certainly allows decimal representations to be infinite. If only finite representations were allowed then common fractions such as 1/3 and 1/7 would not have a decimal representation. Of course, we cannot write down the whole decimal representation if it is infinite - but that is a separate issue of notation, not the underlying representation.

 * On your fourth and fifth points, yes, it is true that every real number (no matter whether it is rational or irrational) has a decimal representation. This is because there is a simple algorithm that allows us in principle (given enough time, computing power etc.) to write down the decimal representation of any real number to any number of decimal places, no matter how large. How much of this decimal representation we actually know in practice is not relevant. For example, we can be sure that the decimal representation of pi has a 10100th digit, even though we may never know what this digit is. (A strict finitist would not agree with this, but they are a minority view among practicising mathematicians).

 * On your final point, representations in other bases are mentioned in the positional notation article. But note that these are not decimal representations because decimal implies base 10.

 * I hope this answers most of your questions. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Period
Hi. What means the period of the repeating decimal ? Is it a length of repeating sequence ? TIA --Adam majewski (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Binary/decimal repeating
Hi. What is the relation between a length of repeating sequence of decimal and binary representation ? TIA --Adam majewski (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very complicated.
 * You don't say why you think the two numbers, two and ten, are so important. They happen to have come to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dot notation in the UK
I was taught the dot notation at school in the UK by an Englishman who has probably never been to China. Why does Wikipaedia say it's a Chinese thing? 46.65.41.135 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Note
Under "Fractions with prime denominators", an equals sign ought to be congruence sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * ✅ Fixed. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Applications to cryptography formula
Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to the layperson. I know that all math is not going to be that way, but usually when a variable is introduced we are given what those variables stand for. What do the variables in the formula below stand for and can someone perhaps also give a simple example of its use here in the Talk section? I think including what the variables stand for would be a nice thing to have in the main article. An example may or may not be warranted in the main article, but I'd like to see that here, if at all possible. Thanks.

Here's the Applications to Cryptography section as it appears currently:

Repeating decimals (also called decimal sequences) have found cryptographic and error-correction coding applications.[10] In these applications repeating decimals to base 2 are generally used which gives rise to binary sequences. The maximum length binary sequence for 1/p (when 2 is a primitive root of p) is given by:[11]

a ( i ) = 2 i    mod p     mod 2     {\displaystyle a(i)=2^{i}~{\bmod {p}}~{\bmod {2}}}  a(i)=2^{i}~{\bmod {p}}~{\bmod {2}}

These sequences of period p-1 have an autocorrelation function that has a negative peak of -1 for shift of (p-1)/2. The randomness of these sequences has been examined by diehard tests.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.142.198 (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 * You have a very valid point. I am familiar with the terms and the general area, but I still can't parse this so that it makes any sense. This section is being supported by two papers by the same author and an arXiv paper by someone else. These are primary sources and an unreliable source, so verifiability of this section is a problem. On those grounds I believe that the section could be removed and if some editor wanted to replace it they could be held accountable for increased clarity of exposition. (I realize that I am taking the easy way out by not tracking down and reading these papers myself, to find out what should be said about this, but an editor should not have to do that to improve an article.) --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Theorems determining the nature of the decimal expansions of rational numbers
the following are the Theorems determining the nature of the decimal expansions of rational numbers: THEOREM 1:let x be a rational number whose decimal expansion terminates. then, x can expressed in the form p/q, where p and q are co-primes, and the prime factorization of q is of the form 2^m × 5^n, where m, n are non-negative integers. THEOREM 2:let x= p/q be a rational number, such that the prime factorization of q is of the form 2^m × 5^n, where m,n are non-negative integers. then, x has a decimal expansion which terminates after k places of decimals, where k is the larger of m and n. THEOREM 3:let x= p/q be a rational number, such that the prime factorization of q is not of the form 2^m × 5^n, where m, n are non-negative integers, then, x has a decimal expansion which is no-terminating.

i request you to add these theorems to the article.Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Huzaifa abedeen

 * Theorems determining the nature of the decimal expansions of rational number.jpg

Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Huzaifa abedeen
 * Be wp:BOLD!
 * To use it as a source, you need to give the bibliographic data for the publication you show a picture of.--Nø (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"not zero"
The article currently asserts:
 * A repeating decimal or recurring decimal is decimal representation of a number whose digits are periodic (repeating its values at regular intervals) and the infinitely repeated portion is not zero.

That's just not right. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a source that says that somewhere, but it's still pretty silly. There's nothing fundamentally different about repeating decimals whose digits are eventually all 0. Separating out the "terminating" expansions is confusing and misleading. All real numbers have infinitely long decimal expansions; it's just that sometimes it reaches a point where it repeats 0 forever. We should really fix this. I don't specifically know where to find sources. --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Parentheses notation in Austria
The article claims that the parentheses notation is used, amongst other countries, in Austria. I'm an Austrian native and I've never heard of this notation. In school and university we learned and used exclusively the vinculum notation. That claim seems to be a mistake. I'm happy to correct the article unless there are any objections or, the current authors prefer to make the modification themselves. DRappaport (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Repeating decimal


text:
Blue Cross (animal charity)

Blue Cross is a registered animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom, founded in 1897. The charity provides veterinary care, offers expert behavioural help, and finds homes for pets in need. Their pet bereavement service supports those who are struggling to cope with the loss of a much-loved pet.

The charity works closely with a number of other organisations to help animal welfare and responsible pet ownership.

History
The organisation was founded on 10 May 1897 in London as Our Dumb Friends League, to care for working horses on the streets of the British capital. It opened its first animal hospital, in Victoria, London, on 15 May 1906.

In 1912, the league launched The Blue Cross Fund to care for horses during the Balkan War. On the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, it was quickly reopened again. By the armistice in 1918, the Blue Cross Fund had raised nearly £170,000 – the equivalent of almost £6.5 million today – to care for the animals of conflict. Over 50,000 horses were treated in Blue Cross hospitals in France, and the charity had sent vital veterinary supplies to 3,500 units of the British Army.

Donations to the Fund enabled the charity to care for more than 350,000 animals during the Second World War, many of who were wounded during the Blitz. The name of the appeal fund became more widely known than the official charity title and the league officially changed its name to "The Blue Cross" in 1950. In 2011 the charity dropped "The" from its name and is now simply known as "Blue Cross."

Sally de la Bedoyere became the charity's CEO in November 2014. In June 2020, Chris Burghes joined Blue Cross as CEO.

Operations
Blue Cross operates a number of services throughout the United Kingdom. Its major services are: rehoming unwanted animals, providing veterinary services to pet owners who cannot afford the private fees charged by private veterinary surgeons, promoting animal welfare through education, and operating the Pet Bereavement Support Service, a free and confidential support line for those who have lost a pet. They also operate a horse ambulance service, including at large equestrian events.

Blue Cross operates four animal hospitals, three of which are in London, at Victoria, Merton and Hammersmith, and a fourth in Grimsby, Lincolnshire,. In 2014 it opened a pet care clinic in Derby, and has since opened a further four. Blue Cross carried out over 97,000 treatments, operations and diagnostic investigations in 2010.

Blue Cross is also heavily involved in animal adoption, arranging adoption for companion animals such as cats, dogs, rabbits and small rodents, as well as larger species such as horses. In 2015, the charity's rehoming team helped 9,160 animals and its veterinary team helped 29,549 animals. The organisation also works to improve the lives of animals through promotion to pet owners and work in animal behaviour therapy. Every pet owner that rehomes a pet through the charity can benefit from free behaviour advice for the pet's lifetime. The Pet Bereavement Support Service is a free and confidential telephone and email helpline and is available 365 days a year to help people who are struggling to cope with the loss of a pet.

On 26 January 2010, Blue Cross announced the proposed closure of the two animal adoption centres (Felixstowe and Northiam, East Sussex), both of which had been in existence for over 50 years. Final decisions on both sites were announced on 4 May 2010. After an extensive publicity campaign by locals, it was announced that plans to close the Felixstowe centre had been dropped. The Felixstowe centre was relocated to a brand new purpose-built site near Ipswich, Suffolk, in 2016 and can now care for double the number of pets as the previous site was able to care for. Blue Cross also opened a new animal adoption centre in Newport, South Wales, in 2016.

Partnerships
The Irish Blue Cross is a related party of Blue Cross.

The Blue Cross is an Advisory Member of the ABTC.

Awards
Medals have been awarded by Blue Cross to animals and people who have demonstrated bravery or heroism. While the first medals were awarded to people who helped to rescue animals, medals were awarded in 1918 to honour a number of horses which had served in the First World War. Medals were then given out between 1940 and 1951 to a number of dogs, including Juliana who reportedly extinguished an incendiary bomb by urinating on it. In 2006 Jake, a police explosives dog, was given the honour after helping to clear out the London Underground after the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In 2017, Staffordshire bull terrier Romeo received the Blue Cross Medal for being a therapy dog for stroke victims and dementia sufferers and donating blood.

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

title: Blue Cross (animal charity)


text:
User:Kim Bruning

Yes, it is ok to edit this page. This is a wiki. So edit it! :-)

Status:. Technically, I only still do the occasional #editfri. Typically not on Friday. (OTOH, with vim support installed, I may actually edit usefully from time to time, just for old time's sake :-). Now, all new, sometimes anon edits from IPv6.

Talks

 * Wikimania2010
 * /flossk2010
 * /Lost functionalities also used at wikimania 2011. (only person ever to use a wikipedia Policy/Guideline/Essay for slides )
 * /Tilburg University
 * /sfk2012

bookmarks/notes/stuff I've written
This is stuff that is relevant to wikipedia in some way. Some is by others, some by myself. (page history will show when I have :-P). I don't believe in top posting: Newest links at the end!

Articles I'm working on

 * /All About Jewish Theatre

Diverse random stuff

 * /Lost functionalities. Contrary to what you might expect, Wikipedia has lost several functions and abilities over time. Here's a list.
 * User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections
 * /sandpit
 * /Refactoring RFA, and /rfatest
 * Discussion I'd like to watch: sv:Användardiskussion:213.101.
 * http://www.multicians.org/thvv/proverbs.html
 * The digital ice age <- however, the solutions proposed here can at times be illegal. (except if you were backing up most wikipedias, of course. Except en.wikipedia, technically.)
 * Success stories - how has Wikimedia changed your life?
 * User:Demi/SuperTextPopupHistoryAnnotate. The name sucks. The description of the idea sucks.  But  if you manage to read it anyway, the actual described concept rocks. I wonder if I could try this at some point? USC now has implemented something...
 * that might interact in an interesting way with this - USC's system color-codes an article according to the "trustworthiness" of its author as determined by how long that author's edits tend to last... Demi's proposal would change the dynamics of how long an author's edits would tend to stick around, so watching the interactions between the two systems would be terrifically amusing. <- mel's writing ;-)
 * who runs wikipedia, rereading some of Aaron Swartz's writing. His thoughts are spot on. :-)
 * how to conduct business (or in fact, any conversation)
 * /OmegaT
 * Track II diplomacy (direct link to original source)
 * Song
 * WARNING ABOUT DELETION. (hey, the text itself was in all caps too :-) )
 * de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Vier_Tage_in_der_englischsprachigen_Wikipedia. Google Translation
 * WP:HAIKU heh!
 * User:Badlydrawnjeff/Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion Hmmm...
 * effect of voice chat on games - "Those who used text-only chat experienced 'drops in trust and happiness' amongst their fellow players; those who used voice chat did not.". This also works in other online communities. Mediation becomes a lot easier with voice available.
 * What's more important? The Ghost, or the Shell? (or, what we can learn from Masamune Shirow :-) )
 * User:SOPHIA ... wasn't there an entire wiki dedicated to her worship? ut oh, what will this edit unleash?
 * Es ist nicht deine Schuld das die Welt ist wie sie ist, es wär nur deine Schuld wenn sie so bleibt. Deine Schuld -- Die Ärzte
 * OODA_Loop, several essays linked from this page are useful
 * User:Dragons flight/Log analysis, yay statistics!
 * How_to_contribute_to_Wikipedia_guidance, interesting, must watch. :-)
 * The_Zen_of_Wikipedia, I'm going to have to meditate on this... Ommmm!
 * Levels of competence, Jossi wrote this. Looks cool.
 * OODA_Loop, I often try to work quicky, and get inside other people's decision cycle. Originally this is a method designed for warfare to confuse people and force them to mis-react. You can also turn it around and use it to enlighten people, and cause them to react well. I worry that sometimes perhaps I don't quite manage to pull that off.
 * FightingIsBoring
 * fighting is good!?!? HealthyConflict <- et tu, Meatball?
 * User:Zenwhat/Sandbox Ooh, very pretty, I hope it shows up in mainspace. How many people put that much work into anything? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Awwww, where did that go?
 * "Why we banned legos", a discussion on power structures.
 * Economist: the battle for wikipedia's soul: "The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy.".
 * /Replace RFA (Take II)
 * PATROL! (list of unpatrolled pages)
 * Banality_of_Evil
 * Why rating is not a good idea for an encyclopedia: "How many bits in a gigabyte?". (See: Gigabyte) the correct answer is either 8 000 000 000 (decimal version) or 8 589 934 592 (binary version, "gibibyte"). If you look at the opinions listed on the yahoo page, see if you can answer the following questions ;-)
 * What would the yahoo answer have been on the basis of simple majority (a vote?)
 * what do you predict the answer would have been had they done a negotiated consensus?
 * What did the programmers do RIGHT?
 * How could the programmers have coded yahoo answers differently, to allow a more accurate answer to emerge? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * /servertime
 * []. Wonderful example of persona behaviour. I must comment sometime!
 * Plan-Do-Check-Act also known as the 'Deming cycle, is a business version of the OODA loop. Whichever version you use, Wikipedia needs to continue to use iterative processes to stay afloat in the 21st century. (see also: Consensus )
 * http://www.freshnetworks.com/blog/2009/05/3-growth-of-a-healthy-online-community/
 * http://blog.recursivity.com/post/487133749/scrum-kanban-waterfall-whatever-you-call-your   Scrum, Kanban, Waterfall? Whatever you call your process, it’s broken   (this counts for wikis too)
 * Smart mob better word than flash mob.
 * http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/open-source-community-simplified/ How to run an open source community. Applies to open content too, of course.
 * Ambassadors/Editing_Fridays Edit fridays are already taken? zomg!
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Tutorial
 * Resource manual for a living revolution

Wikipedia policy in a nutshell:

 * /sandbox
 * /messedrocker questions

ar:User:Kim Bruning fr:User:Kim Bruning ja:User:Kim Bruning nl:User:Kim Bruning sv:User:Kim Bruning ur:User:Kim Bruning m:User:Kim Bruning, wikinews:User:Kim Bruning commons:User:Kim Bruning wikibooks:ru:User:Kim Bruning testwiki:User:Kim Bruning wikimedia:nl:User:Kim Bruning

title: User:Kim Bruning


text:
EMachines

eMachines was a brand of economical personal computers. In 2004, it was acquired by Gateway, Inc., which was in turn acquired by Acer Inc. in 2007. The EMachines brand was discontinued in 2013.

History
eMachines was founded in September 1998 by Lap Shun Hui as a joint venture of South Korean companies Korea Data Systems and TriGem. The company sold PCs at prices ranging at $399 or $499, not including a monitor.

By March 1999, the company was ranked fourth in U.S. computer sales, with a 9.9% market share.

In August 1999, the company released the eOne, a computer that resembled the iMac, priced at $799, with a $400 rebate for customers who signed a 3-year agreement with CompuServe.

In September 1999, the company announced plans to launch an internet service provider.

The business acquired Free-PC in November 1999, which had previously provided free computers in exchange for advertising.

On March 24, 2000, near the peak of the dot-com bubble, the company became a public company via an initial public offering, raising $180 million. By that time, the company had sold 2 million computers, but had lost $84.5 million in the previous year on $815 million in sales and a 4% profit margin. Shares fell 8% in their debut. At that time, major shareholders included AOL with a 6.4% stake and Bill T. Gross with a 12.4% stake.

By May 2001, the stock was trading at 38 cents per share and the company was delisted from the NASDAQ.

In January 2002, Lap Shun Hui acquired the company for $161 million.

In December 2003, the company released the T6000 desktop, the world's first mass-marketed AMD Athlon 64-based system, retailing at US$1,299. The systems were primarily sold through Best Buy stores, but the PCs were also available online.

In January 2004, the company was the first to sell notebooks based on the AMD Mobile Athlon 64.

In March 2004, the company was acquired by Gateway Inc. for 50 million shares of Gateway common stock and $30 million cash. Wayne Inouye, CEO of eMachines, became CEO of Gateway, with founder Ted Waitt stepping down.

In October 2007, Acer Inc. acquired Gateway.

On January 17, 2013, the eMachines brand was discontinued.

title: EMachines


text:
Talk:Trill (Star Trek)

Joined Trills in charge?

 * Only joined Trills can be politicians and they take all the planet's decisions

When was this stated? I must admit I don't remember any such policy from DS9... MrItty 18:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it wasn't. It would make sense though. 8472 11:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm removing that sentence from the article, on the grounds that Trill's political system has never been explained fully on screen, and there was never any indication, explicit or otherwise, that only the joined can be politicians, throughout DS9 --Mnem e son 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't stated on screen, however, the novel "The Lives of Dax" states that only joined Trill are on the rulling council. This was during Lela Dax's lifetime, so maybe things have changed since then. Willie 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a novel, "The Lives of Dax" is non-canon, and therefore not a reliable source --Mnem e son 12:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably could be mentioned in the article with that caveat - the books, while not 100% cannon are still a very large part of Trek. ConnertheCat 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Trill is a Federation member, and the Federation wouldn't tolerate a minority-dominated government. It may be the case that joined Trill are more electable, having hundreds, rather than tens, of years experience. Ninebucks (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable Trills
I've removed Tobin from the list of notable Trills. I'd say only Jadzia and Ezri (for obvious reasons) and Curzon (for his friendship with Sisko) are notable. The others are all listed on the main Dax page. MrItty 23:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similar Symbiotes
The Trill are somewhat similar to the Goa'uld and Tokra in that they are worm-like creatures and retain knowledge of previous hosts. The Goa'uld and Trill differ in many reguards. Goa'uld symbiotes dominate their hosts, Tokra symbiotes share their lives with their hosts where Trill symbionts (different spelling) retain the memory of past hosts but have no "distinct" personnality. The Goa'uld and Tokra are also somewhat mobile when not implanted in a host, using thier serpentine nature. The Trill don't have much mobility outside a host. The Goa'uld and Tokra join with their hosts' brain whereas Trill symbionts are implaneted in the abdominal cavity. Even the nicknames are different. Goa'uld and Tokra "snakes" verses Trill "slugs." Hope this helps. Willie 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that. I wonder who's ripping off who? Then again, the idea of blending is different between the two. --69.115.175.137 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, SG-1 premiered in '97, during the tail end of season five of DS9. I very much doubt Deep Space Nine got many ideas from the series, at least in relation to the Trills as most of that had already been put forth in previous seasons. ConnertheCat 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * just FYI, symbiotes bond with symbionts.

Doctor who
Was there any basis in the Time Lords of Doctor Who in the creation of this species? Anyone know?
 * No. They are completely unrelated franchises with no interconnectiveness whatsoever. Ninebucks (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Both types of Trill host working together?
I didn't remember there being any TNG-style Trills in "Prodigal Daughter", so I re-watched it just now. There aren't any I can see. The closest thing (and it's not even close) is this alien who works for the Orian Syndicate, one Thadial Bokar, a Farian (see the memory alpha Star Trek wiki). Aside from a very few fuzzy background shots (which are not even identifiable as either variety of Trill, but might reasonably be assumed to be), no Trills aside from Ezri's family (all of whom are DS9-style) are shown at all.

I've heard the two-host-species explanation of the different Trill makeup before, but to my knowledge, it is only fan speculation and may have been featured in some non-canon novels. If no one can show me the TNG-style Trill(s) in this (or any other) episode, I'm editing the false information out of this entry. HaganeNoKokoro 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In "Prodigal Daughter" when Miles is brought to Ezri's house, the security officer is the original TNG style Trill. I don't know how you missed it, it's quite a crucial scene! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.146.123 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Population that can be joined?

 * ...and being joined is an honor that only a small portion of the race is capable of.

Actually, this is a myth perpetrated by the Symbiosis Commission, but with good intentions. I think this is revealed in the episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in which Jadzia Dax learns of a previous host who was a murderer. Can't remember the title of the episode right now, though. ShutterBugTrekker 14:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The name of that episode is Dax, and it's episode 8, season 1. The statement in that episode is not that only a small part of the population is capable of joining, but that not everyone has the honor of joining. There is a high degree of competition and testing before one can become a host candidate. Orthografer 20:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Birth of a symbiont?
Has the birth process of the symbiont ever been explained? It has been noted that under catastrophic circumstances, a symbiont can die. But a population that can die but not reproduce itself would be doomed to extinction...

 * There are said to be 'breeding pools' on Trill, that would imply that some kind of breeding goes on. Ninebucks (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Marsupials?
I'm removing this category tag because the Trills are clearly not marsupials. Ninebucks (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Symbiant?
We have photos of 2 hosts on the page, but what about a picture of a symbiant? Vinithehat (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trill (Star Trek)


text:
Talk:N-ray

Implying that all notable scientist rejected N-rays
I've half a mind to put a NPOV dispute header above this article. From this article it almost seems that the only ones actively advocating N-Rays were those who claimed to have discovered them. And that those who opposed were not merely fellow scientists, but even "notable scientists", not making the logical conjunction that all "notable scientists" rejected N-rays, but enouraging the reader to make that inference on his own. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:14, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * If that's the impression that the article gives then it certainly gives the wrong one. I think that the fact that it mentions the Académie des Sciences enquiry into priority belies that. I would encourage you to have a go if you feel it can be made more NPOV. Cutler 15:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"shamed"
The word "shamed" seemed unnecessarily POV, and the grammar was a bit off in one place. I've fixed both. --DavidConrad 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hoaxes category
I'm going to remove the hoaxes category; as I understand it, and as the article describes, the scientists genuinely thought they had discovered something new, rather than intentionally deceiving the scientific community. N-rays were no more of a hoax than ancient astrology or animal magnetism (well, some of that was hoaxes, but not all); belief in these was caused by genuine experiences, even if the experiences were subjective creations of the mind.

 * I agree. They were not perpetrating a hoax.  They genuinely believed what they claimed.  It was a case of self delusion (the will to believe).  Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also agree, sources are very clear in that it was not a deliberate hoax but a good-faith self-delusion. I am removing it again. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in Fiction
Bill Baldwin, in his Helmsman series (science fiction), uses "N-Rays" as a method of fighting radiation fires. I don't see this as worth mentioning in the N-ray article, but others might disagree? Mlwilson (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See-Also to Cold fusion
I found the See Also to Cold Fusion in this article. It's true that a reference to N-rays occurs in some sources dismissing Cold fusion as pathological science or pseudoscience, but Cold fusion is actually fringe science, a legitimate field of research, ongoing, all over the world, with papers being published in peer-reviewed journals, governmental encouragement of specific proposal funding, unanswered questions in abundance, etc. I removed the link: (See also: remove link to fringe science article, cold fusion is not pseudoscience, and this link essentially claims that it is.)

User:Hipocrite reverted with this. (Return see-also Cold Fusion. People interested in the history of NRays are often also intested in Cold Fusion. See-alsos are cheap.)

This is a POV-pushing edit. People who see "N-rays" in some article about Cold fusion -- it is a common form of asserting that Cold fusion is bunk, of implying fraud, that it is a pseudoscience -- may indeed look up N rays -- but the reverse is highly unlikely. There are links to articles on broad categories here that might lead a reader to Cold fusion, such as List of experimental errors and frauds in physics, but note that this article doesn't mention Cold fusion at this point, nor should it. What is experimental error in this field is still being hotly debated.

But to link Cold fusion here is to suggest to the reader that N ray and Cold fusion are the same thing, when, at best, there is some peripheral connection, in that the claim is made that Cold fusion is a result of wishful thinking, massively repeated by many experimenters, influencing observations. But the analogy is very, very weak. N ray observations were subjective, easily influenced by expectations, whereas Cold fusion involves objective measurements, and there has been little allegation of fraud in the notable work.

See-also links are not cheap. For the same reason as we limit external links per WP:EL, we limit them to what is likely of interest, what will guide the reader in understanding the article topic better. Someone will not understand N ray better by reading the Cold fusion article, but they might arrive at Cold fusion with a bias introduced by the link. I'm reverting, because the argument is preposterous. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's a few links to reliable sources that make the connection between n-rays and cold fusion, as we should do . Nevard (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * None of those stories directly link the two phenomena... N-rays and Cold Fusion are two unrelated examples of fringe science. They both belong in that category, but a See Also implies there's more of a direct connection than that.  There isn't.  None of the references or anything else links them directly (that I know of, including academic history of science works, etc).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * N-rays are sometimes invoked, as I acknowledged, when a writer wishes to claim that Cold fusion is pseudoscience and fraud, as some have. However, this allegation isn't supported by reviews, it isn't supported by, for example, the 2004 DOE review of the research situation with low-energy nuclear reactions. Let's look at those sources:

 * This is an article on the "Top 10 scientific blunders." It's quite a weird article. First of all, much replication of the Pons and Fleischmann experiments have been claimed, it's an active field of research, and there was substantial opinion in the 2004 DOE review that the Pons-Fleischmann effect is real, though also substantial doubt that the effect is a result of fusion. The most recent reviews I've found seem to accept the P-F effect as real. The hypothesis that the heat is caused by fusion is unconfirmed. That article was a biased report, accepting uncritically claims that have often been made, but which have never been scientific consensus among those who actually studied the topic, including the U.S. D.O.E. Now, if we accept this report as linking them, why don't we have nine other links to articles on the other "blunders." Rather, an article on "scientific blunders" could be linked; in fact, though, the blunders in the Cold fusion case actually have little to do with science and much more to do with politics; for example, Fleischmann probably blundered by going public with a news conference, apparently under pressure from university lawyers concerned about patent rights. There was a rush to duplicate, any many duplication efforts failed; there is a recent paper which shows why, in fact. While Cold fusion looked simple, one thing is clear: if it's real, it is very sensitive to conditions, for example, the "loading ratio." Loading palladium to the necessary 85% or so of deuterium/palladium, at which level experiments start showing the heat effects, is quite difficult and can't be done, under the conditions of the original P-F experiment, in a short time. Given the sentiments expressed in the 2004 DOE report, the extensive ongoing research into the topic all over the world, with governmental support in some places, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and all that, the jury is out on whether or not Pons and Fleischmann made a blunder scientifically, or not.

 * Cold fusion is actually discriminated from N-rays in this article. They say:
 * ''nothing in the history of science compares with the egg-on-face count of the events that give Yes, We Have No Neutrons its title, the theatrical tale of cold fusion. Here, at least, the progenitors of the idea were genuine scientists, in this case physical chemists, and the idea they were pursuing, while speculative, was by no means cranky.

 * ''Their experiments showed that heat was being produced but did not find enough neutrons, a sign that fusion is occurring. Ordinarily, a further experiment would have shown that there was some other explanation for the heat, and a bit of scientific progress would have been made. But this time, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published too early, because of perceived competition from another researcher, and were left to look foolish when nobody could replicate their results.

 * It's quite simply not true that "nobody could duplicate their results." Many did, but because of the political climate around the blunder that is described, publishing too early, it had become very difficult to get anything published. There continue to be published reports of confirmation of the effect, i.e., of heat generation from electrolysis of heavy water causing palladium to be loaded with deuterium. The most reliable technique, and it has been replicated, is the SPAWAR technique from U.S. Navy research laboratories, where coelectrolysis is used to create a very thin layer of palladium that is fully loaded with deuterium from the start, apparently bypassing the months of electrolysis commonly necessary with bulk palladium as in the original experiments. Excess heat starts showing up immediately, and radiation. And, by the way, neutrons. There remain many mysteries in the field, and it is certainly possible, as the author above hints, that someone will figure out some non-fusion explanation. What is clear is that there is a mystery, and facile dismissals of the work are generally based on incomplete knowledge of it, and assumptions, often based on very old opinions and the early failure of some notable research laboratories to confirm. Over the next twenty years, a protocol developed that set minimum conditions for the heat effect to show up, and those laboratories did not follow that protocol, whereas the original P-F experiment did. There is an interesting paper on that presented at the latest (2008) International Conference on Condensed Matter Science, that runs Bayesian analysis on the various experimental conditions. The field suffers from lack of independent review of the research being done, largely because of entrenched attitudes like those expressed in the two sources considered so far. I.e., there is peer-reviewed publication, but then nobody outside the condensed matter nuclear science field tries to replicate them. Then, of course, lack of replication is cited as a problem. But the P-F effect is probably up to a level that it can be considered confirmed, in my opinion, but that is, of course, controversial. This is why Cold fusion is WP:FRINGE (because acceptance of it is a minority position), but not WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. N rays are Pseudoscience.

 * The announcement triggers a barrage of scientific research and billions of dollars in financing. With the research done and the money spent, nearly everyone -- except for Fleischmann and Pons -- concludes that cold fusion isn't possible. What these sources show is that people have made the allegations. The claim, though, isn't true. The 1989 DOE review did not conclude that. The 2004 DOE review did not conclude that. And many scientists, including at least two Nobel Prize winners, did not and have not concluded that. There is an active program of research in China, involving the top nuclear science institutions in the country. However, suppose we accept this. The article lists a whole series of "spectacular failures"? Why pick just Cold fusion? How about Titanic? Hindenberg? World War I? Come on, let it go, the idea that because an article mentions two topics, they are sufficiently connected for a See also link is preposterous. --Abd (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I again removed the See-also link, there having appeared no response; my edit summary is (Apples and Oranges appear in lists of Fruit and many sources mention them together. Should Apple have a see-also to Orange?) --Abd (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource transcription project
s:Index:N rays - Garcin.djvu has been set up with the English Translation published in 1905. The text doesnt need to be typed. It is available from the location mentioned in the "Source" field, which is currently down, hence the Google Cache link also provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

pseudophysics cat
I tried to find sources that linked N-rays with pseudoscience, and the only one was "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience". All the other sources qualify N-Rays as pathological science or similar. Given, this lack of sources, I am removing the cat. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception
Wonders about the "approximately 120 other scientists", i.e. believers, that wrote about N rays in "300 published articles". According to the given source http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v45/i3/p281_s1?isAuthorized=no, these were published during the period 1903–1906. Can someone confirm this? Hexmaster (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there is no such thing as N-rays, but what really happened in all those experiments?
So it turned out what they thought they were detecting wasn't there, but what exactly happened that made all those people think they were seeing proof of the existence of N-rays in all those experiments? --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Expectatives. They expected to see something. A figure of authority had told what they had to see and when. Then they deceived themselves while trying to meet the expectatives, looking harder and harder until they were convinced that they had seen something. Eyes can play some nasty tricks in borderline situations, when you have been assured repeatedly that you ought to see a certain something.

 * Also, most people saw nothing. The small minority who had seen something made a big deal, making it look as if it had been widely confirmed.

 * Try reading, also Gardner's book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. , also , etc.

 * Finally, people wanted to believe that the experiment was correct: "The best historical account of this debate, that of Mary Jo Nye, explains the apparent success of blondlot's group in terms of the crowd psychology of early twentieth-century French science: its interest in speritualism, its fierce national and local pride, and the tight networks of influence and patronage that dominated career patterns at the time (Nye 1980)" --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Something of interesting note is that "Wood secretly removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, yet the experimenters still said that they observed N-rays". This means that another individual who disbelieved any subject that did not correspond with his view of reality, "who had a reputation as a popular "debunker" of nonsense during the period"(the world thought of being as round was once thought of as being nonsense once upon a time), deliberately sabotaged the experiment, going against the scientific method. He then expects the world to trust him on what he did or did not take out, when he is performing a what should be frowned down upon on act. How can you correctly expect a person to observe something when you sabotage it... This goes to show that many scientists will go to low depths to "debunk" various things, when in the process of debunking, they sabotage any hopes of learning the truth about a subject, and create more confusion. The scientific method exists for the purpose of learning more truths about the universe, and when a person sabotages it, they distort the truth, and this should be looked upon highly as scientific malpractice, if there ever is such a term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.6.246 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

N ray versus N-ray
The article is currently titled "N ray" but most of the article refers to "N-rays". Although Blondlot originally called them "N rays", "N-ray" seems to have very quickly become just as popular a term in the literature (see my list of references here). "N-ray" is also used at other related pages such as Pathological science, Robert W. Wood; however, "N ray" is used at Prosper-René Blondlot. There is perhaps also an argument for keeping this article consistent with X-ray (where the hyphen is used). I suggest moving this page to N-ray and making changes where necessary for the sake of consistency. Thoughts? Una LagunaTalk 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article title should be plural, as that is the standard use. No one uses the singular. Not even the lead of this article! I tried to do a move, but it was disallowed. RobP (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to N-ray. Proposal to add hyphen has more support than change to plural. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

N ray → N rays – The standard usage in discussion of this is of the plural form, as in "scientists believed they had discovered a new form of radiation, dubbed N rays." Even this article's lead uses only the plural form. In fact, the singular form appears just once vs. the 35 uses of the plural form in this article. See also: List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. RobP (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "N ray" isn't a noun that only exists in the plural (e.g. one of the main sources for the article is entitled "The N-Ray Affair"), so I don't think WP:SINGULAR is overcome. On a somewhat unrelated note, my impression is that a hyphen rather than a space is more common, especially in more recent sources, so I would support a move from "N ray" to "N-ray" (also compare with X-ray). Adumbrativus (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Radiation is not like saying horse vs horses, or the other examples at WP:SINGULAR. One cannot produce a single "ray" of radiation of any sort (real or imagined). No such technology exists. RobP (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Support move to N-ray, Ngrams indicates N-rays is more widespread than N rays. There is a singular usage of the term (e.g. the "N-ray Affair" example cited by, and elsewhere) so we should use this per WP:SINGULAR. This is also consistent with X-ray. Polyamorph (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed - seems in line with WP:PLURAL Red   Slash  17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: We have Gamma ray and Ray (optics) and X-ray and Gravitational wave and Radio wave. Why be different? — BarrelProof (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like that reason equates to “well, we started out making this mistake so let’s continue it.” RobP (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Prefixed "weak" to my oppose above (and the hyphen might be a good idea). But if we're going to change the convention for "ray" articles generally, this doesn't seem like a good way to start – e.g., a multi-article move request that includes some more mainstream subjects would probably be better. My rough impression is that it is not so unusual to encounter these terms in the singular form, unlike examples such "trouser", "scissor" and "handcuff". — BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ν particle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ν particle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:N-ray


text:
User talk:Wetman/Brentano

On the top you find your text; on the bottom a text submitted a few days earlier by an anonymous. I have boldfaced the parts that seem to be the same. Andre Engels 14:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Clement Brentano (Ehrenbreitstein, September 8, 1778 - Aschaffenburg, July 28, 1842), was a German poet and novelist of the Romantic generation. '''His sister was the well-known Bettina von Arnim, Goethe's correspondent. '''

'''He studied at Jena, and afterwards resided at Heidelberg, Vienna and Berlin. In 1818, weary of his somewhat restless and unsettled life, he joined the Roman Catholic Church and withdrew to the monastery of Dulmen, where he lived for some years in strict seclusion,''' taking on there the position of secretary to the Catholic visionary, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, of whom it was said that, during the last 12 years of her life, she could eat no food except Holy Communion, nor take any drink except water, subsisting entirely on the Holy Eucharist. From 1802 until her death, she bore the wounds of the Crown of Thorns, and from 1812, the full stigmata, including a cross over her heart and the wound from the lance. Clement Brentano made her acquaintance, was converted to Catholicism, and remained at the foot of the stigmatist's bed copying her dictation without embellishment from l8l8-l824. When she died, he prepared an index of the visions from her journal, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The latter part of his life he spent in Regensburg, Frankfort and Munich, actively engaged in Catholic propaganda. Brentano assisted Ludwig Achim von Arnim, his brotherin-law, in the collection of folk-songs forming Des Knaben Wunderhorn (1806-1808), which Gustav Mahler drew upon for his song cycle.

Brentano, whose early writings were published under the pseudonym Maria, belonged to the Heidelberg group of German romantic writers, and his works are marked by extravagant and '''fantastic imagery and by abrupt, bizarre modes of expression. His first published writings were Satiren und feeiische Spiele (1800), and a romance Godwi (1801-1802); of his dramas the best are Ponce de Leon (1804), Victoria (1817) and Die Grundung Prags (1815). On the whole his finest work is the collection of Romanzen vom Rosenkranz (published posthumously in 1852); his short stories, and more especially the charming Geschichte vom braven Kasperl und dem schnen Annerl (1838), which has been translated into English, are still popular'''.

Klemens Brentano (8 September 1778 - 28 July 1842), German poet and novelist, was born at Ehrenbreitstein.

'''His sister was the well-known Bettina von Arnim, Goethe's correspondent. He studied at Jena, and afterwards resided at Heidelberg, Vienna and Berlin. In 1818, weary of his somewhat restless and unsettled life, he joined the Roman Catholic Church and withdrew to the monastery of Dulmen, where he lived for some years in strict seclusion. The latter part of his life he spent in Regensburg, Frankfurt and Munich, actively engaged in Catholic propaganda.''' He died at Aschaffenburg.

Brentano, whose early writings were published under the pseudonym Maria, belonged to the Heidelberg group of German romantic writers, and his works are marked by excess of '''fantastic imagery and by abrupt, bizarre modes of expression. His first published writings were Satiren und poetische Spiele (1800), and a romance Godwi (1801-1802); of his dramas the best are Ponce de Leon (1804), Victoria (1817) and Die Grundung Prags (1815).'''

On the whole his finest work is the collection of Romanzen vom Rosenkranz (published posthumously in 1852); his short stories, and more especially the charming Geschichte vom braven Kasperl und dem schönen Annerl (1838), which has been translated into English, were very popular. Brentano also assisted Ludwig Achim von Arnim, his brother-in-law, in the collection of folk-songs forming Des Knaben Wunderhorn (1806-1808).

Brentano's collected works, edited by his brother Christian, appeared at Frankfurt in 9 vols. (1851-1855). Selections have been edited by JB Diel (1873), M Koch (1892), and J Dohmke (1893). See JB Diel and W Kreiten, Klemens Brentano (2 vols, 1877-1878), the introduction to Koch's edition, and R Steig, A. von Arnim und K. Brentano (1894).

title: User talk:Wetman/Brentano


text:
Furby, Sweden

Furby (from fura 'pine' + by 'village') is a locality in Badelunda parish, Västerås Municipality, Sweden. It was previously a parish of its own, but now only a church ruin remains. Furby is a few kilometers north of Lake Mälaren and near Anundshögen, the ship burial mound of legendary Swedish king Anund.

Legal issues
Furby was forced to change their name in Sweden to "Furbee" as it could get mixed up with the town.

title: Furby, Sweden


text:
Non-access stratum

Non-access stratum (NAS) is a functional layer in the NR, LTE, UMTS and GSM wireless telecom protocol stacks between the core network and user equipment. This layer is used to manage the establishment of communication sessions and for maintaining continuous communications with the user equipment as it moves. The NAS is defined in contrast to the Access Stratum which is responsible for carrying information over the wireless portion of the network. A further description of NAS is that it is a protocol for messages passed between the User Equipment, also known as mobiles, and Core Nodes (e.g. Mobile Switching Center, Serving GPRS Support Node, or Mobility Management Entity) that is passed transparently through the radio network. Examples of NAS messages include Update or Attach messages, Authentication Messages, Service Requests and so forth. Once the User Equipment (UE) establishes a radio connection, the UE uses the radio connection to communicate with the core nodes to coordinate service. The distinction is that the Access Stratum is for dialogue explicitly between the mobile equipment and the radio network and the NAS is for dialogue between the mobile equipment and core network nodes.

For LTE, the Technical Specification for NAS is 3GPP TS 24.301. For NR, the Technical Specification for NAS is TS 24.501. +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | HTTP      |       | Application | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | TCP       |       | Transport   | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | IP        |       | Internet    | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | NAS       |       | Network     | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | AS        |       | Link        | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+ | Channels  |       | Physical    | +- – - – - -+      +- – - – - – -+

Functionality
The following functions exist in the non-access stratum:
 * Mobility management: maintaining connectivity and active sessions with user equipment as the user moves
 * Call control management
 * Session management: establishing, maintaining and terminating communication links
 * Identity management

title: Non-access stratum


text:
De Alde Friezen

"De Alde Friezen" ("The Old Frisians") is the anthem of the Friesland province of the Netherlands.

The text is by the Frisian writer Eeltsje Halbertsma. The version commonly sung today is an abridgement, dating from 1876, by Jacobus van Loon. The words were not set to music until after Halbertsma's death; they were first sung in 1875 at a ceremony held to commemorate his work. The song was adopted as the Frisian anthem by the Selskip foar Frysk Taal- en Skriftekennisse (Society for Frisian Language and Literature) on the urging of politician, writer and poet Pieter Jelles Troelstra (1860–1930) and has served as the anthem of Friesland ever since.

title: De Alde Friezen


text:
Talk:Furby, Sweden

I fluffed up Wiki with my own stuff and misused Wiki for my own purposes. I don't need to put this here. Anybody who wants to see this can check out Genuki. Kenneth Alansson I repeat...there is vastly erroneous info here considering definitions of place names have changed so much over the centuries. in germanic days, the combined element of both firbys in their present or prepresent state as townships, would be labeled as a borough[archaic] together, but it hardly makes sense the way things are presently with such types of definitions, as both firbys are't municipalities as they once were, having further previously before singular municipality, been just one holding by one family of Swedish blood from Furby, Vasteras. they have recently been incorporated as villages/neighborhoods into separate towns, which destroys the former solid bond between the two neighborhoods as one unit. [compare (home)state to (home)stead.] obviously, people like me who share this surname think only of the unit as it once was, rather than splintered. I continue to state, I prefer to have this page deleted, unless i have full autonomy on the decisions for developmental process of the page, with suggestions on layout, of course. Kenneth Alansson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Furby, Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040429125118/http://hem.passagen.se/terven/Furby.html to http://hem.passagen.se/terven/Furby.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041028025559/http://biphome.spray.se/badelunda/Karta.htm to http://biphome.spray.se/badelunda/Karta.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Furby, Sweden


text:
DWARF

DWARF is a widely used, standardized debugging data format. DWARF was originally designed along with Executable and Linkable Format (ELF), although it is independent of object file formats. The name is a medieval fantasy complement to "ELF" that had no official meaning, although the name "Debugging With Arbitrary Record Formats" has since been proposed as a backronym.

DWARF originated with the C compiler and sdb debugger in Unix System V Release 4 (SVR4).

History
The first version of DWARF proved to use excessive amounts of storage, and an incompatible successor, DWARF-2, superseded it and added various encoding schemes to reduce data size. DWARF did not immediately gain universal acceptance; for instance, when Sun Microsystems adopted ELF as part of their move to Solaris, they opted to continue using stabs, in an embedding known as "stabs-in-elf". Linux followed suit, and DWARF-2 did not become the default until the late 1990s.

The DWARF Workgroup of the Free Standards Group released DWARF version 3 in January 2006, adding (among other things) support for C++ namespaces, Fortran 90 allocatable data and additional compiler optimization techniques.

The DWARF committee published version 4 of DWARF, which offers "improved data compression, better description of optimized code, and support for new language features in C++", in 2010.

Version 5 of the DWARF format was published in February 2017. It "incorporates improvements in many areas: better data compression, separation of debugging data from executable files, improved description of macros and source files, faster searching for symbols, improved debugging of optimized code, as well as numerous improvements in functionality and performance."

Structure
DWARF uses a data structure called a Debugging Information Entry (DIE) to represent each variable, type, procedure, etc. A DIE has a tag (e.g., DW_TAG_variable, DW_TAG_pointer_type, DW_TAG_subprogram) and attributes (key-value pairs). A DIE can have nested (child) DIEs, forming a tree structure. A DIE attribute can refer to another DIE anywhere in the tree—for instance, a DIE representing a variable would have a DW_AT_type entry pointing to the DIE describing the variable's type.

To save space, two large tables needed by symbolic debuggers are represented as byte-coded instructions for simple, special-purpose finite state machines. The Line Number Table, which maps code locations to source code locations and vice versa, also specifies which instructions are part of function prologues and epilogues. The Call Frame Information table allows debuggers to locate frames on the call stack.

DWARF has been divided into different sections like .debug_info, .debug_frame, etc.

Tools
Libdwarf is a library that provides access to the DWARF debugging information in executable files and object files.

title: DWARF