text:
User talk:MatthewS.

Blank page
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 09:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see, your trying to move the page. This has a couple of problems: a) This is the English Wikipedia and we prefer anglacized names 2) please refer the correct way of moving a page using the "move" button. Thanks!
 * Also, please discuss any page moves on the appropriate talk pages before attempting to do so. Regards! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 09:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't leave a page blank :) thanks for the note.

I left you a message at your blog :) 亮HH (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hey Matthew! Just noticed you were contributing to Wikipedia. I like your blog. Drop me a note sometime. — Zerida 08:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007
Hi MatthewS.,

Wikimania 2007, which is being held in Taipei, Taiwan on August 3-5, is offering opportunities for travel scholarships to Wikimania for active users of Wikimedia projects from the continent of Africa. Although the original scholarship deadline has passed, please, if you are interested, you may still apply at Scholarships. Sincerely yours, Cary Bass16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Etisalat Egypt
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Etisalat Egypt, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Etisalat Egypt is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Etisalat Egypt, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mobinillogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mobinillogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian pound
I wonder if you'd mind providing a reference for your transliteration of جنيه to gineih (rather than gunaih) in Egyptian pound. There seems to be some degree of uncertainty on the most appropriate form. Thanks, Dove1950 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ويكيبيديا مصرى

 * I have put a proposal and started an active project for ويكيبيديا مصرى wikipedia Masri. If this may interest you, I would be very grateful for any help you can offer in this project, many thanks.
 * To vote on the proposal please press here.--Ghaly (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your helpful edits on wikipedia Masry, and looking forward to more of them, best wishes--Ghaly (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update
ويكيبيديا مصرى wikipedia Masry project started on 2 April 2008 and currently there are;
 * 59 articles, categories, templates, and talk pages;
 * 5 redirects;
 * 8 editors (including any with at least one edit);
 * 313 revisions (including 31 minor edits).

 * Looking forward to more of your edits, there are currently 24 articles providing a point to start from and you are welcome to add more, as you might be aware this will add a momentum to the proposal and will increase the chances of its acceptance. Ghaly (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Masry approved

 * I am pleased to let you know that Wikipedia Masry proposal has been accepted on Meta, looking forward to your valuable contributions iin it. Ghaly (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi MatthewS.
How are you? we want you back in Wikipedia Masri, PLEASE Fadywalker (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Masry Wikipedia created, Just to let you know. Thanks--Ramsis II (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Orange worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orange redirect
It is a disambig page. Using it for promotional reasons is strictly forbidden. Thank you Tom  A  8  01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Orange Réunion
I have nominated Orange Réunion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Orange Réunion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chipsy Egypt.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chipsy Egypt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of مصر.

The article مصر. has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Foreign language title. Possibly a redirect to .eg which includes the information here, but difficult to foresee anyone using the search term مصر in English language Wikipedia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haruth (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, مصر.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, مصر.. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - .eg. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at .eg - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RadioFan (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Some help with Arabic translation please?
Hi Matthew. I'm hoping to add a picture or two to the article Tourist Landmark of the Resistance. There are a few rather striking images on their website, but of course they can't be re-used without permission. Explaining the implications of Wikimedia's licensing is difficult even when there are no language barriers, so I thought it would make sense to email them in Arabic rather than in English. If I draft a short email in English explaining what is being asked for, would you be able to translate it into Arabic? If they reply, their reply might also need translation back into English, for example so that the OTRS people can see whether they agreed or not. Many thanks if you can help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chipsy

A tag has been placed on Chipsy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SuperEditor (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Chipsy.png
Thanks for uploading File:Chipsy.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chipsy.png
Thanks for uploading File:Chipsy.png, which you've sourced to www.chipsyegypt.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Call for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa
Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabell@undefineddoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahf@undefinedafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Egyptian currency
Dear Matthew, as of 2010, no currency value less than 0.25 pounds is accepted in Egypt. Why do you claim that they are still used? Also, stop editing the Arabic spelling of Millièmes, as it is officially spelled with two Arabic ل, not one, as you do it. Also, in the Alexandrian accent, the definitive article is more likely pronounce before. The assimilation of the definitive article in Egyptian Arabic before some consonants is a matter of preference. Some people never even assimilate it, some assimilate it differently from Arabic rules. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bedayaa

A tag has been placed on Bedayaa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mobinil logo new.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mobinil logo new.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from
Hello,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from to English Wikipedia? This would involve evaluating a translated article on English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great.

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates Pass and Fail may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic
Hi Matthew, i am a fellow Egyptian who's pro an independent Masry language. I also believe that the correct pronunciation of the word is Masry as in and El Masry el youm, El Masry of port-said...etc. The term Masry is the one used between Egyptians, while Masri is more used between the Khaleejis in their English written articles when they refer to us.

Also, if we are saying in the article that our language is written in both Arabic and Latin alphabets, why can't we write the name in latin in the infobox?

Egyptian Premier League (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian Companies
Hello Matthew, I hope all is well. I wanted to work with you to bring more Egyptian Companies to the English Wikipedia. I have worked on a lot like Commercial International Bank, EFG-Hermes, Telecom Egypt, the stock ticker and naming of Orange Egypt and many more. But there a lot of missing pages like Edita or Palm Hills while pages like Juhayna are extremely weak. I hope we can work to bring many more to wikipedia. Contact me when you are ready. Thank You KarimKoueider (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) Matthew_hk   t  c  03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hala'ib Triangle
There was no consensus on the talk page for you to make the changes to this article that you made, so I have reverted them. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and can lead to being blocked from editing. Please do not make these edits again, unless and until you have a clear consensus to do so. Restoration of the edits will lead to a report to the Administrators' Noticebaord. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

February 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Nazi Party; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Regarding these edits: diff, diff and also at Nazism: diff. Leviv ich 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * And now also diff. That is three reverts; a fourth will violate WP:3RR. Leviv ich 15:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk: Nazi Party. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''Writing "...you guys are trying to 'change the meaning' of the very word socialist ... just to feel happy with yourselves and to pretend like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews and a few million other people in the Holocaust." (diff) is not acceptable. No one should have to remind you to refrain from implying your fellow editors are complicit in murder. Civility and collegiality are not optional.'' Leviv ich 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

June 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Demi Lovato. Laplorfill (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC
Hi Matthew, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Egyptian Arabic in the past and given your knowledge of Arabic, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary when reverting Egyptian pound
I thought I should explain my cryptic edit note. When I wrote "these are not reliable sources", I was referring to Investopedia and XE.COM being cited. I have no idea what I was looking at, as you certainly didn't write it in your edit summary. Obviously a stray cosmic ray and reality has been reinstated as at the last backup. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Egyptian pound. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Egyptian pound. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Egyptian pound
Hello.

I don't want to make an enemy of you, we both got a little carried away with ourselves. I would like to collaborate in order to reach a satisfactory result. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Turkey vs. Türkiye
Hi! You recently changed the word "Turkey" to "Türkiye". However, Wikipedia policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME of a country name, unless it's in a specific technical context that requires the official name to be used. The common name of this country in the English language remains "Turkey", so I've reverted your edit. Please don't make any similar changes without first establishing consensus with other editors that common English usage has changed (for example, as "Mumbai" has replaced "Bombay" in common usage) — The Anome (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI incident
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Egyptian pound. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Further to the above, (1) do not imagine that consensus requires your consent or that you have a veto. (2) Look at what you're doing. You added 46,731 bytes to the article by massive duplication of content.'' NebY (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I undid it because of the duplication. That was unintentional. But the symbols I know are all valid, with sources. I’ll be back to include them all. No idea why some have to force only their way and nothing else. MatthewS. (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI incident
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Valethske (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:MatthewS.


text:
User:Auximines/snooker/snooker world rankings

gone live

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


text:
Gabriel Okara

 Gabriel Imomotimi Okara (24 April 1921 – 25 March 2019) was a Nigerian poet and novelist who was born in Bumoundi in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. The first modernist poet of Anglophone Africa, he is best known for his early experimental novel, The Voice (1964), and his award-winning poetry, published in The Fisherman's Invocation (1978) and The Dreamer, His Vision (2005). In both his poems and his prose, Okara drew on African thought, religion, folklore and imagery, and he has been called "the Nigerian Negritudist". According to Brenda Marie Osbey, editor of his Collected Poems, "It is with publication of Gabriel Okara's first poem that Nigerian literature in English and modern African poetry in this language can be said truly to have begun."

Biography
Gabriel Imomotimi Gbaingbain Okara, the son of an Ijọ chief, was born in Bomoundi in the Niger Delta in 1921. He was educated at Government College Umuahia, and later at Yaba Higher College. During World War II, he attempted to enlist in the British Royal Air Force but did not complete pilot training, instead he worked for a time for the British Overseas Airways Corporation (later British Airways).

In 1945 Okara found work as a printer and bookbinder for colonial Nigeria's government-owned publishing company. He remained in that post for nine years, during which he began to write. At first he translated poetry from Ijaw into English and wrote scripts for government radio. He studied journalism at Northwestern University in 1949, and before the outbreak of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–70) worked as Information Officer for the Eastern Nigerian Government Service. Together with Chinua Achebe, Okara was roving ambassador for Biafra's cause during part of 1969. From 1972 to 1980 he was director of the Rivers State Publishing House in Port Harcourt.

Writing
After leaving school Okara wrote plays and features for radio, and in 1953 his poem "The Call of the River Nun" won an award at the Nigerian Festival of Arts. Some of his poetry was published in the literary magazine Black Orpheus, and by 1960 he had won recognition as an accomplished literary craftsman, his poetry being translated into several languages. He attended the landmark African Writers Conference held on 1 June 1962 at Makerere University College in Kampala, Uganda, along with such writers as Chinua Achebe, Rajat Neogy, Bloke Modisane, Okot p'Bitek, Bernard Fonlon, Ngugi Wa Thiong’o, Olusegun Olusola, Grace Ogot, Jonathan Kariara, Rebecca Njau, Wole Soyinka, John Pepper Clark, Saunders Redding, Christopher Okigbo, Francis Ademola, Ezekiel Mphahlele, Arthur Maimane, and others.

One of Okara's most famous poems is "Piano and Drums". Another popular poem, "You Laughed and Laughed and Laughed", is a frequent feature of anthologies. Okara was very concerned with what happens when the ancient culture of Africa is faced with modern Western culture, as in his poem "Once Upon a Time".

He pursued that theme in his first novel, The Voice (1964). Its protagonist Okolo, like countless post-colonial Africans, is hunted by society and haunted by his own ideals. Experimenting linguistically in The Voice, Okara "translated directly from the Ijo (Ijaw) language, imposing Ijo syntax onto English in order to give literal expression to African ideas and imagery. The novel creates a symbolic landscape in which the forces of traditional African culture and Western materialism contend.... Okara’s skilled portrayal of the inner tensions of his hero distinguished him from many other Nigerian novelists."

In addition to his poetry and fiction, Okara also wrote plays and features for broadcasting.

Many of his unpublished manuscripts were destroyed during the Nigerian Civil War.

In April 2017, the Gabriel Okara Literary Festival was held at the University of Port Harcourt in his honour. The publication in May 2017 of the book Gabriel Okra, edited by Professor Chidi T. Maduka, addressed Okara's "place in African literature and the fact that he has not been given his full due in African literature", which was partly attributable, said Lindsay Barrett, to Okara (like himself) not having been "university-based", while Odia Ofeimun acknowledged Okara as "not just the oldest writer but a foundational producer of the literary arts in our part of the world."

Awards and honours

 * 1953: Best All-Round Entry In Poetry at the Nigerian Festival of Arts, for "The Call of the River Nun"
 * 1979: Commonwealth Poetry Prize, for The Fisherman's Invocation
 * 2005: NLNG Prize, for The Dreamer, His Vision
 * 2009: Pan African Writers' Association Honorary Membership Award
 * 2017: Gabriel Okara Literary Festival

Selected bibliography

 * 1964: The Voice, London: Deutsch, first edition; Heinemann African Writers Series (No. 68), 1970. Africana Publishing, ISBN 0-8419-0015-9.
 * 1978: The Fisherman's Invocation (poems)
 * 1981: Little Snake and Little Frog (for children)
 * 1992: An Adventure to Juju Island (for children)
 * 2005: The Dreamer, His Vision(20) (poems)
 * 2006: As I See It (poems)
 * 2016: Collected Poems (edited and with an introduction by Brenda Marie Osbey), University of Nebraska Press, African Poetry Book Series, ISBN 978-0-8032-8687-0.

title: Gabriel Okara


text:
Talk:Phoebis sennae

Major Edit
I'm currently working on a major edit of this article. Anyone with comments and ideas can leave a message. I'll incorporate as much as I can. MGM 09:49, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can anyone find a picture to go with this? It also needs a taxobox. MGM 14:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

More Details
Behavior is only referred in the habits section, which only talks about feeding behavior. No information is given about mating, competition, or adaptation. Also, the habitat is not very clear as listed in the entry; open spaces and gardens seem like vague descriptions of the butterfly’s habitat. Further detail needs to be provided with regards to its habitat and the distribution needs to be better organized as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.5 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: General Entomology
— Assignment last updated by Stevensalana (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phoebis sennae


text:
Talk:Postal codes in Switzerland and Liechtenstein

Older posts
This page is uncomplete and inaccurate... --193.134.170.35 09:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I just added two links to documents on the Swiss Post web site that should contain complete and uptodate information. It should be easy to convert them to a format suitable for this page with a bit of Perl. I could do that but the resulting page will be very long (>3000 entries AFAIK) -- is it really useful or should we just list the postal codes for the most important towns, along with more information about where in the country a given range of postcodes can be found ? Schutz 03:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm all for listing only the principle and about 100-200 towns max. 80.219.15.170 13:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really incomplete! And the way the towns have been chosen is really unclear. For example in the 6 zone Luzern (6000) is missing, however it is a quite important city... Same thing for (6900) Lugano, or (6600) Locarno. The official list of the swiss post has more than 5300 entries, so it is definitely too long for a Wikipedia page (it even includes many special codes, like 3000 Bern Radio Schweiz, which are never used by "normal" mail users). I'm also for a reduced list of the most important towns (with a clear indication of this), but the towns have to be selected correctly... --Antifumo 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Starting from end 2007, the list of postal codes of the Swiss Post will probably be available only from the new address: https://match.ch/match_zip. For now I didn't touch the address on the article, as it is still valid. --Antifumo 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
News Letter

The News Letter is one of Northern Ireland's main daily newspapers, published from Monday to Saturday. It is the world's oldest English-language general daily newspaper still in publication, having first been printed in 1737. The newspaper's editorial stance and readership, while originally republican at the time of its inception, is now unionist. Its primary competitors are the Belfast Telegraph and The Irish News.

The News Letter has changed hands several times since the mid-1990s, and is now owned by National World. It was formerly known as the Belfast News Letter, but its coverage spans the whole of Northern Ireland (and often Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland), so the word Belfast does not appear on the masthead any more.

History
Founded in 1737, the News Letter was first printed in Joy's Entry in Belfast. It is one of a series of narrow alleys in the city centre, and is currently home to Henry's Pub (formerly McCracken's) – named after Henry Joy McCracken, an Irish Presbyterian and a leading member in the north of Ireland of the republican Society of the United Irishmen, and the grandson of the News Letter founder.

The Joy family were of Huguenot descent and were very active in the life of 18th-century Belfast, being noted for compiling materials about its history. Francis Joy, who founded the paper, had come to Belfast early in the century from the County Antrim village of Killead. In Belfast, he married the daughter of the town sovereign (mayor), and set up practice as an attorney.

In 1737, in settlement of a debt, he obtained a small printing press and used it to publish the town's first newspaper in Bridge Street. The family later bought a paper mill in Ballymena, and were able to produce enough paper not only for their own publication but for the whole of Ulster.

The earliest available edition of the News Letter that survives is from 3 October 1738 (which is equivalent to 14 October in the modern calendar).

Samples from that antiquated edition include reports about a highway robbery (where a bandit "took from a Sardinian Gentleman a Purse of Guineas and a rich Scimitar", among other things) at Newbury and the theft of a horse ("Four Years Old, and about Fourteen hands high") at Ballyhome.

Over the centuries, the News Letter reports have spanned the rule of 77 different prime ministers and 10 monarchs. It is one of the few newspapers still in business which reported on the US Declaration of Independence (carrying the news in an edition in late August 1776).

Originally published three times weekly, it became daily in 1855. Before the partition of Ireland, the News Letter was distributed island-wide.

The Troubles
On 20 March 1972, the newspaper's offices, then in Donegall Street in the north of the city centre, were bombed by the IRA. The paper reported at the time that "two false alarms were phoned in about another bomb just around the corner in Church Street; people were evacuated – towards the real bomb".

It detonated at 11.58 am, three minutes after an accurate warning had been given about the bomb's whereabouts. Seven people died, and over 140 were injured (with some staff among the wounded). Nevertheless, the paper came out the next day.

One of the recurring motifs of the News Letter editorial line today is to remind people of the scale of the paramilitary bloodshed during the Troubles, with the vast bulk of crimes being unsolved.

Today
In recent years, the paper's business model has focussed on increasing subscriptions (home delivery and collection for the print edition, mobile devices/laptops for the digital one). A paywall structure is in operation online, allowing people to read five articles per week without subscribing (though some content is purposely kept behind the paywall). In the second half of 2016 the News Letter was the fastest-growing regional news site in the UK.

Historical copies of the News Letter, dating back to 1828, are available to search and view in digitised form at the British Newspaper Archive. There are also historic copies of the News Letter available for public access in the Belfast Newspaper Library, at the north end of the city centre, attached to the main Belfast Central Library. Back copies of the physical newspaper can be bought, going back three months.

Other publications
The paper publishes the agricultural supplement Farming Life on Wednesdays and Saturdays, included within the newspaper itself. It publishes a weekend supplement on Saturdays, containing features and commentary and TV guide. It also publishes a supplement for the Twelfth of July celebrations.

In addition to the News Letter coverage of the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal from 2016 to the present, a book entitled Burned: The Inside Story of the 'Cash-for-Ash' Scandal and Northern Ireland's Secretive New Elite, by its (now former) political correspondent Sam McBride (a frequent media commentator on Northern Irish affairs), was published in 2019 by Merrion.

title: News Letter


text:
Talk:Common logarithm

Untitled
Has anyone else heard of the approximation at the end of the article? My dad said they used to use it back in college when calculators didn't do logarithms. It would be interesting to know how far back it dates, and how long, if ever, it was in common use. CyborgTosser 09:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

More on Mantissas?
I have a rather old book with a "Table of Mantissas" in the back and I was wondering if perhaps someone could either explain more on how to use such a table in the article, or explain how to use mine in this discussion page. Mine has a table of numbers down the side, beginning with 10 and ending with 99 going by 1s. The top has numbers from 0 through 9 going by 1s also. As such, it looks like this:

 N   0    1    2    3   ... 9 10 0000 0043 0086 0128 ... 11 0414 0453 0492 0531  ... 12 0792 0828 0864 0899  ... 13 1139 1173 1206 1239  ... 14 1461 1492 1523 1553  ... 15 1761 1790 1818 1847  ... 16 2041 2068 2095 2122  ... 17 2304 2330 2355 2380  ... 18 2553 2577 2601 2625  ... 19 2788 2810 2833 2856  ... .    .    .    .    . .    .    .    .    . .    .    .    .    . 99

Anyway, I was just kind of hoping someone could explain it to me...

 * Suppose you want the base-10 logarithm of 1.52. You look at "15" (the first two digits) in the left-marginal column, then find "2" (the third digit) in the top margin, then look at the entry: 1818.  Conclude that log10 1.52, rounded to four digits, is 0.1818.  Then suppose you want the base-10 logarithm of 1520, which is the number that results from starting with 1.52 and pushing the decimal point three places to the right.  That logarithm is log10 1520 = 3.1818 (approximately).  The "3" is how many places the decimal point was pushed; that's why using 10 as the base of logarithms is convenient when working in a base-10 numeral system.  3 is the characteristic and 1818 is the mantissa.  Michael Hardy 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you.

explanation
i like this article, but i got directed to it due to interest in why the calculator made base-10 logs obsolete. unfortunately, this article really doesn't address that question.

for example, it states, "Because of their utility in saving work in laborious calculations by hand on paper, tables of base-10 logarithms were found in appendices of many books." as a non-mathematician, i have no idea why base-10 logs "save work..." and therefore i can't understand the connection to calculators. i'd love to see this issue fleshed out a bit.

s (unsigned by User:24.89.202.141)

 * Does the explanation at logarithm help? Maybe there should be a mention here to look at the explanation there.  Gene Nygaard 19:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Originator
Should this article discuss who invented Common logarithms? I think it was Henry Briggs. --maru (talk) contribs 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Algorithm for log10(x)
Not that anyone gives a damn but here is an algorithm for calculating log10(x)

Does anyone know who invented this algorithm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.46.195 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) !/usr/bin/python

from __future__ import division

def log10(X): epsilon = 0.000000000001 integer_value=0 while X < 1: integer_value = integer_value - 1 X = X * 10 while X >= 10: integer_value = integer_value + 1 X = X / 10 decfrac = 0.0 partial = 1/10 X=X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X while partial > epsilon: while X >= 10: decfrac = decfrac + partial X = X / 10 partial = partial / 10 X=X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X return (integer_value + decfrac)

if __name__ == '__main__': value = 4.5 print "     X  =",value print "LOG10(X) =",log10(value)

Further notation
My old mathematics teacher at school also led me to believe that while ln is a standard abbreviation of loge, lg was an accepted abbreviation of log10. Has anyone else seen lg used?

 * I've seen it, but if I came across it without some context, I would be uncertain which base was intended. I suspect some people use lg for the base-2 logarithm. Michael Hardy 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, in computer science lg generally denotes log base 2. —Steven G. Johnson 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious
I have to nominate "Numbers are placed on slide rule scales at a distance proportional to their common logarithm. By mechanically adding the distance for 1 to 2 on the lower scale to the distance from 1 to 3 on the upper scale, one can quickly determine that 2 x 3 = 6." for funniest Serious Caption on Wikipedia.

Gauss Quote
Gauss was a prodigious mental calculator. Reputedly, when asked how he had been able to predict the trajectory of Ceres with such accuracy he replied, "I used logarithms." The questioner then wanted to know how he had been able to look up so many numbers from the tables so quickly. "Look them up?" Gauss responded. "Who needs to look them up? I just calculate them in my head!". Can be put in the article.--Shahab 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The approximation
I've just changed the approximation formula which contained a mistake. Repeatedly taking the square root eleven times is equivalent to raising to the power 1/2048, not 1/2047 as given in the formula. The factor 889 is roughly 2048/log(10) (which is actually 889.4). Curiously, 2047/log(10) is very nearly 889 (it's 889.001) but this is mere coincidence. I presume it has something to do with why the original author had given 2047 instead of 2048 in the first place though. The main source error is the approximation for the logarithm of a number close to 1 (i.e. log x = x - 1). Using 889 instead of 889.435... will make the approximation worse for all numbers less than 1 and some greater than 1 but after a certain point, it will counter the effect of the log x = x - 1 approximation. That's certainly not a good reason to use 889 specifically though: you could say the same about using 1000 or 3551. The only reason to use 889 instead of 889.435... is that it's easier to remember and might be accurate enough for the users needs.

After all that, although it's an interesting calculator trick I don't think it should be included in the article unless someone can reference it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.11.148 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Let's have the most useful information first, please. I'm not too familiar with line spacing in this Wiki; it would be nice to even things out a little bit: lowering "4)", for example. Thanks.

In mathematics, the logarithm of x to the base a is written as logax and is defined by the statement:

 * $$If~ x=a^y, then, ~y=log_{a}x $$

The logarithm is the inverse operation of exponentiation and obeys four laws:

 * $$ For ~n,~ x,~ y \in \mathbb{R}, x>0 ~and~ y>0,$$

 * $$1)log_{a}(xy)~=~log_{a}x~+~log_{a}y $$

 * $$2)log_{a}\left({x \over y}\right)~=~log_{a}x~-~log_{a}y $$

 * $$3)log_{a}x^n~=~nlog_{a}x $$

 * $$4)log_{a}x~=~log_{a}y if~and~only~if~ x=y $$

--Charlesrkiss (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That information should be in the logarithm article, not in the introduction here, since it's not specific to the common logarithm. If a reader is uncertain what a logarithm is, he or she can click the logarithm link in the first sentence of this article. —Bkell (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The link wasn't highlighted before.--Charlesrkiss (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy of comment left within the article
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUT UP SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW YOU WORK OUT THE LOG10 OF A NUMBER THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.29.239 (talk • contribs)

Use in plotting
Even though this article is short on sourcing, adding new unstuffed stuff like the big section on use in plotting, complete with pseudocode, is not acceptable. If we can verify that this technique is indeed used, via a WP:RS, then no problem. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The use of logarithms is an elementary and standard technique used for generating scales in many graphing environments. It is a fundamental technique that is ubiquitous in the computing industry.

 * The primary importance, however, is the demonstration that the identification of mantissa and characteristic is not an archaic or obsolete exercise given the modern convenience of automated computations of the logarithm function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.199.186 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If it's standard, it shouldn't be hard to find a source and make it verifiable, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with the Python code?
Is this in any way helpful to the article? Does it have a reliable source, or just the wiki? I expect I'll remove that as well as the bit on plotting that is being thrashed around, unless someone shows a source where they can be verified and explain whey they're useful. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Table
I changed the table to read as follows:

It does not make sense to put the base-10 logarithm column first. That's against the whole spirit of this concept. The reason base 10 is used is that you can get the mantissa out of the table and then use a bit of common sense to find the characteristic and hence the base 10 logarithm. If you've got a calculator and can get the base-10 logarithm without doing that, then what's the point? The article should communicate the idea. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, and by the way, whoever recently arranged the table to show them in a different order used a hyphen instead of a minus sign.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The table IS NOT a table of logarithms - it is a chart showing the derivation of the mantissa and characteristic of a number given its base 10 logarithm. The derivations are given by the second line of headings below each of the headings annotating the chart.

as per the chart:

Note that the mantissa is common to all of the 5×10i. A table of logarithms will have a single indexed entry for the same mantissa. In the example, 0.698 970 (004 336 018 ...) will be listed once indexed by 5, or perhaps by .5 or by 500 etc..

The chart lists the same mantissa several times and if one wishes to think of it as a table of logarithms, then it is a table of only a single entry - that of 5 - so it is a table of a logarithm. Why is that? It is because all multiplicative powers of 10 as stated earlier in the article are derived from any logarithm by simply counting the number of positions of the most significant digit from the decimal point to ascertain the value of the characteristic but the mantissa does not change. A table of logarithms thus lists only mantissas and not characteristics, which are listed in this chart.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.69.141 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I understand that this is not a table of logarithms, but I think a table of logarithms would better serve the puprposes of this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

lg x
"To mitigate this ambiguity the ISO specification is that log10(x) should be lg (x)."

Whaaaat???? I always thought lg x was log2 x. If ISO really says log10 it's not much of an ambiguity mitigation.

66.127.55.192 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uses"?
The "Uses" section doesn't actually mention any uses. There should certainly be several. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence fragment makes meaning unclear
"Such a table of "common logarithms" giving the logarithm, often to 4 or 5 decimal places, of each number in the left-hand column, which ran from 1 to 10 by small increments, perhaps 0.01 or 0.001."

That's not a sentence, and I don't understand the article's topic enough to fix it. I understand English grammar and syntax quite well, but I don't understand math or this article's topic well enough to correct the problems in the sentence.

Here's my best guess, with my suggested change in Bold text:

Such a table of "common logarithms" showed the logarithm, often to 4 or 5 decimal places, of each number in the left-hand column, which ran from 1 to 10 by small increments, perhaps 0.01 or 0.001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.118.157 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 * User:Michael Hardy wrote it as a sentence, with "gave", in the orignal lead in 2003, but then mangled it a few years later. And nobody noticed until now.  Aren't we all flaky?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 * And he has restored it to "gave" after I poked him about it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
Is log(x) = 10x? 121.7.54.103 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming
The article gives a list of variously obscure names -- I just encountered "decadic" somewhere, and wanted to check it was the obvious meaning -- but surely it is vastly more common to call it a "logarithm base 10", or "base 10 logarithm", than any form other than "common"? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Common logarithm


text:
Laws of Form

Laws of Form (hereinafter LoF) is a book by G. Spencer-Brown, published in 1969, that straddles the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. LoF describes three distinct logical systems:
 * The "primary arithmetic" (described in Chapter 4 of LoF), whose models include Boolean arithmetic;
 * The "primary algebra" (Chapter 6 of LoF), whose models include the two-element Boolean algebra (hereinafter abbreviated 2), Boolean logic, and the classical propositional calculus;
 * "Equations of the second degree" (Chapter 11), whose interpretations include finite automata and Alonzo Church's Restricted Recursive Arithmetic (RRA).

"Boundary algebra" is Meguire's (2011) term for the union of the primary algebra and the primary arithmetic. Laws of Form sometimes loosely refers to the "primary algebra" as well as to LoF.

The book
The preface states that the work was first explored in 1959, and Spencer Brown cites Bertrand Russell as being supportive of his endeavour. He also thanks J. C. P. Miller of University College London for helping with the proof reading and offering other guidance. In 1963 Spencer Brown was invited by Harry Frost, staff lecturer in the physical sciences at the department of Extra-Mural Studies of the University of London, to deliver a course on the mathematics of logic.

LoF emerged from work in electronic engineering its author did around 1960, and from subsequent lectures on mathematical logic he gave under the auspices of the University of London's extension program. LoF has appeared in several editions. The second series of editions appeared in 1972 with the "Preface to the First American Edition", which emphasised the use of self-referential paradoxes, and the most recent being a 1997 German translation. LoF has never gone out of print.

LoF's mystical and declamatory prose and its love of paradox make it a challenging read for all. Spencer-Brown was influenced by Wittgenstein and R. D. Laing. LoF also echoes a number of themes from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead.

The work has had curious effects on some classes of its readership; for example, on obscure grounds, it has been claimed that the entire book is written in an operational way, giving instructions to the reader instead of telling them what "is", and that in accordance with G. Spencer-Brown's interest in paradoxes, the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the statement which says no such statements are used in this book. Furthermore, the claim asserts that except for this one sentence the book can be seen as an example of E-Prime. What prompted such a claim, is obscure, either in terms of incentive, logical merit, or as a matter of fact, because the book routinely and naturally uses the verb to be throughout, and in all its grammatical forms, as may be seen both in the original and in quotes shown below.

Reception
Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog. Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind.

Stafford Beer wrote in a review for Nature, "When one thinks of all that Russell went through sixty years ago, to write the Principia, and all we his readers underwent in wrestling with those three vast volumes, it is almost sad".

Banaschewski (1977) argues that the primary algebra is nothing but new notation for Boolean algebra. Indeed, the two-element Boolean algebra 2 can be seen as the intended interpretation of the primary algebra. Yet the notation of the primary algebra: Moreover, the syntax of the primary algebra can be extended to formal systems other than 2 and sentential logic, resulting in boundary mathematics (see below).
 * Fully exploits the duality characterizing not just Boolean algebras but all lattices;
 * Highlights how syntactically distinct statements in logic and 2 can have identical semantics;
 * Dramatically simplifies Boolean algebra calculations, and proofs in sentential and syllogistic logic.

LoF has influenced, among others, Heinz von Foerster, Louis Kauffman, Niklas Luhmann, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela and William Bricken. Some of these authors have modified the primary algebra in a variety of interesting ways.

LoF claimed that certain well-known mathematical conjectures of very long standing, such as the four color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Goldbach conjecture, are provable using extensions of the primary algebra. Spencer-Brown eventually circulated a purported proof of the four color theorem, but it met with skepticism.

The form (Chapter 1)
The symbol:

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]]

Also called the "mark" or "cross", is the essential feature of the Laws of Form. In Spencer-Brown's inimitable and enigmatic fashion, the Mark symbolizes the root of cognition, i.e., the dualistic Mark indicates the capability of differentiating a "this" from "everything else but this".

In LoF, a Cross denotes the drawing of a "distinction", and can be thought of as signifying the following, all at once:
 * The act of drawing a boundary around something, thus separating it from everything else;
 * That which becomes distinct from everything by drawing the boundary;
 * Crossing from one side of the boundary to the other.

All three ways imply an action on the part of the cognitive entity (e.g., person) making the distinction. As LoF puts it: "The first command: can well be expressed in such ways as: Or:
 * Draw a distinction
 * Let there be a distinction,
 * Find a distinction,
 * See a distinction,
 * Describe a distinction,
 * Define a distinction,
 * Let a distinction be drawn". (LoF, Notes to chapter 2)

The counterpoint to the Marked state is the Unmarked state, which is simply nothing, the void, or the un-expressable infinite represented by a blank space. It is simply the absence of a Cross. No distinction has been made and nothing has been crossed. The Marked state and the void are the two primitive values of the Laws of Form.

The Cross can be seen as denoting the distinction between two states, one "considered as a symbol" and another not so considered. From this fact arises a curious resonance with some theories of consciousness and language. Paradoxically, the Form is at once Observer and Observed, and is also the creative act of making an observation. LoF (excluding back matter) closes with the words:

"...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

C. S. Peirce came to a related insight in the 1890s; see.

The primary arithmetic (Chapter 4)
The syntax of the primary arithmetic goes as follows. There are just two atomic expressions: There are two inductive rules: The semantics of the primary arithmetic are perhaps nothing more than the sole explicit definition in LoF: "Distinction is perfect continence".
 * The empty Cross [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] ;
 * All or part of the blank page (the "void").
 * A Cross [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] may be written over any expression;
 * Any two expressions may be concatenated.

Let the "unmarked state" be a synonym for the void. Let an empty Cross denote the "marked state". To cross is to move from one value, the unmarked or marked state, to the other. We can now state the "arithmetical" axioms A1 and A2, which ground the primary arithmetic (and hence all of the Laws of Form):

"A1. The law of Calling". Calling twice from a state is indistinguishable from calling once. To make a distinction twice has the same effect as making it once. For example, saying "Let there be light" and then saying "Let there be light" again, is the same as saying it once. Formally:

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] $$\ =$$[[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]]

"A2. The law of Crossing". After crossing from the unmarked to the marked state, crossing again ("recrossing") starting from the marked state returns one to the unmarked state. Hence recrossing annuls crossing. Formally:

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif]] $$\ =$$

In both A1 and A2, the expression to the right of '=' has fewer symbols than the expression to the left of '='. This suggests that every primary arithmetic expression can, by repeated application of A1 and A2, be simplified to one of two states: the marked or the unmarked state. This is indeed the case, and the result is the expression's "simplification". The two fundamental metatheorems of the primary arithmetic state that: Thus the relation of logical equivalence partitions all primary arithmetic expressions into two equivalence classes: those that simplify to the Cross, and those that simplify to the void.
 * Every finite expression has a unique simplification. (T3 in LoF);
 * Starting from an initial marked or unmarked state, "complicating" an expression by a finite number of repeated application of A1 and A2 cannot yield an expression whose simplification differs from the initial state. (T4 in LoF).

A1 and A2 have loose analogs in the properties of series and parallel electrical circuits, and in other ways of diagramming processes, including flowcharting. A1 corresponds to a parallel connection and A2 to a series connection, with the understanding that making a distinction corresponds to changing how two points in a circuit are connected, and not simply to adding wiring.

The primary arithmetic is analogous to the following formal languages from mathematics and computer science:
 * A Dyck language with a null alphabet;
 * The simplest context-free language in the Chomsky hierarchy;
 * A rewrite system that is strongly normalizing and confluent.

The phrase "calculus of indications" in LoF is a synonym for "primary arithmetic".

The notion of canon
A concept peculiar to LoF is that of "canon". While LoF does not formally define canon, the following two excerpts from the Notes to chpt. 2 are apt:

"The more important structures of command are sometimes called canons. They are the ways in which the guiding injunctions appear to group themselves in constellations, and are thus by no means independent of each other. A canon bears the distinction of being outside (i.e., describing) the system under construction, but a command to construct (e.g., 'draw a distinction'), even though it may be of central importance, is not a canon. A canon is an order, or set of orders, to permit or allow, but not to construct or create."

"...the primary form of mathematical communication is not description but injunction... Music is a similar art form, the composer does not even attempt to describe the set of sounds he has in mind, much less the set of feelings occasioned through them, but writes down a set of commands which, if they are obeyed by the performer, can result in a reproduction, to the listener, of the composer's original experience."

These excerpts relate to the distinction in metalogic between the object language, the formal language of the logical system under discussion, and the metalanguage, a language (often a natural language) distinct from the object language, employed to exposit and discuss the object language. The first quote seems to assert that the canons are part of the metalanguage. The second quote seems to assert that statements in the object language are essentially commands addressed to the reader by the author. Neither assertion holds in standard metalogic.

Syntax
Given any valid primary arithmetic expression, insert into one or more locations any number of Latin letters bearing optional numerical subscripts; the result is a primary algebra formula. Letters so employed in mathematics and logic are called variables. A primary algebra variable indicates a location where one can write the primitive value or its complement. Multiple instances of the same variable denote multiple locations of the same primitive value.

Rules governing logical equivalence
The sign '=' may link two logically equivalent expressions; the result is an equation. By "logically equivalent" is meant that the two expressions have the same simplification. Logical equivalence is an equivalence relation over the set of primary algebra formulas, governed by the rules R1 and R2. Let "C" and "D" be formulae each containing at least one instance of the subformula A: R2 is employed very frequently in primary algebra demonstrations (see below), almost always silently. These rules are routinely invoked in logic and most of mathematics, nearly always unconsciously.
 * R1, Substitution of equals. Replace one or more instances of A in C by B, resulting in E. If A=B, then C=E.
 * R2, Uniform replacement. Replace all instances of A in C and D with B. C becomes E and D becomes F. If C=D, then E=F. Note that A=B is not required.

The primary algebra consists of equations, i.e., pairs of formulae linked by an infix operator '='. R1 and R2 enable transforming one equation into another. Hence the primary algebra is an equational formal system, like the many algebraic structures, including Boolean algebra, that are varieties. Equational logic was common before Principia Mathematica (e.g., Peirce,1,2,3 Johnson 1892), and has present-day advocates (Gries and Schneider 1993).

Conventional mathematical logic consists of tautological formulae, signalled by a prefixed turnstile. To denote that the primary algebra formula A is a tautology, simply write "A = ". If one replaces '=' in R1 and R2 with the biconditional, the resulting rules hold in conventional logic. However, conventional logic relies mainly on the rule modus ponens; thus conventional logic is ponential. The equational-ponential dichotomy distills much of what distinguishes mathematical logic from the rest of mathematics.

Initials
An initial is a primary algebra equation verifiable by a decision procedure and as such is not an axiom. LoF lays down the initials:

The absence of anything to the right of the "=" above, is deliberate.

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;" {|
 * J2:
 * J2:
 * J2:

 * }
 * }
 * C
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

J2 is the familiar distributive law of sentential logic and Boolean algebra.

Another set of initials, friendlier to calculations, is:

{|
 * J0:
 * J0:
 * J0:

 * A
 * A.
 * }
 * }

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * J1a:
 * J1a:
 * J1a:

 * }
 * }
 * }

It is thanks to C2 that the primary algebra is a lattice. By virtue of J1a, it is a complemented lattice whose upper bound is. By J0, is the corresponding lower bound and identity element. J0 is also an algebraic version of A2 and makes clear the sense in which aliases with the blank page.

T13 in LoF generalizes C2 as follows. Any primary algebra (or sentential logic) formula B can be viewed as an ordered tree with branches. Then:

T13: A subformula A can be copied at will into any depth of B greater than that of A, as long as A and its copy are in the same branch of B. Also, given multiple instances of A in the same branch of B, all instances but the shallowest are redundant.

While a proof of T13 would require induction, the intuition underlying it should be clear.

C2 or its equivalent is named: Perhaps the first instance of an axiom or rule with the power of C2 was the "Rule of (De)Iteration", combining T13 and AA=A, of C. S. Peirce's existential graphs.
 * "Generation" in LoF;
 * "Exclusion" in Johnson (1892);
 * "Pervasion" in the work of William Bricken.

LoF asserts that concatenation can be read as commuting and associating by default and hence need not be explicitly assumed or demonstrated. (Peirce made a similar assertion about his existential graphs.) Let a period be a temporary notation to establish grouping. That concatenation commutes and associates may then be demonstrated from the: Having demonstrated associativity, the period can be discarded.
 * Initial AC.D=CD.A and the consequence AA=A (Byrne 1946). This result holds for all lattices, because AA=A is an easy consequence of the absorption law, which holds for all lattices;
 * Initials AC.D=AD.C and J0. Since J0 holds only for lattices with a lower bound, this method holds only for bounded lattices (which include the primary algebra and 2). Commutativity is trivial; just set A=[[Image:Laws_of_Form_-_double_cross.gif]]. Associativity: AC.D = CA.D = CD.A = A.CD.

The initials in Meguire (2011) are AC.D=CD.A, called B1; B2, J0 above; B3, J1a above; and B4, C2. By design, these initials are very similar to the axioms for an abelian group, G1-G3 below.

Proof theory
The primary algebra contains three kinds of proved assertions:
 * Consequence is a primary algebra equation verified by a demonstration. A demonstration consists of a sequence of steps, each step justified by an initial or a previously demonstrated consequence.
 * Theorem is a statement in the metalanguage verified by a proof, i.e., an argument, formulated in the metalanguage, that is accepted by trained mathematicians and logicians.
 * Initial, defined above. Demonstrations and proofs invoke an initial as if it were an axiom.

The distinction between consequence and theorem holds for all formal systems, including mathematics and logic, but is usually not made explicit. A demonstration or decision procedure can be carried out and verified by computer. The proof of a theorem cannot be.

Let A and B be primary algebra formulas. A demonstration of A=B may proceed in either of two ways: Once A=B has been demonstrated, A=B can be invoked to justify steps in subsequent demonstrations. primary algebra demonstrations and calculations often require no more than J1a, J2, C2, and the consequences (C3 in LoF),  (C1), and AA=A (C5).
 * Modify A in steps until B is obtained, or vice versa;
 * Simplify both [[Image:Laws of Form - (A)B.png|50px]] and [[Image:Laws of Form - (B)A.png|50px]] to [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]]. This is known as a "calculation".

The consequence, C7 in LoF, enables an algorithm, sketched in LoF's proof of T14, that transforms an arbitrary primary algebra formula to an equivalent formula whose depth does not exceed two. The result is a normal form, the primary algebra analog of the conjunctive normal form. LoF (T14–15) proves the primary algebra analog of the well-known Boolean algebra theorem that every formula has a normal form.

Let A be a subformula of some formula B. When paired with C3, J1a can be viewed as the closure condition for calculations: B is a tautology if and only if A and (A) both appear in depth 0 of B. A related condition appears in some versions of natural deduction. A demonstration by calculation is often little more than: The last step of a calculation always invokes J1a.
 * Invoking T13 repeatedly to eliminate redundant subformulae;
 * Erasing any subformulae having the form [[Image:Laws of Form - ((A)A).png|50px]].

LoF includes elegant new proofs of the following standard metatheory: That sentential logic is complete is taught in every first university course in mathematical logic. But university courses in Boolean algebra seldom mention the completeness of 2.
 * Completeness: all primary algebra consequences are demonstrable from the initials (T17).
 * Independence: J1 cannot be demonstrated from J2 and vice versa (T18).

Interpretations
If the Marked and Unmarked states are read as the Boolean values 1 and 0 (or True and False), the primary algebra interprets 2 (or sentential logic). LoF shows how the primary algebra can interpret the syllogism. Each of these interpretations is discussed in a subsection below. Extending the primary algebra so that it could interpret standard first-order logic has yet to be done, but Peirce's beta existential graphs suggest that this extension is feasible.

Two-element Boolean algebra 2
The primary algebra is an elegant minimalist notation for the two-element Boolean algebra 2. Let: If join (meet) interprets AC, then meet (join) interprets $$\overline{\overline{A |} \ \ \overline{C |} \Big|}$$. Hence the primary algebra and 2 are isomorphic but for one detail: primary algebra complementation can be nullary, in which case it denotes a primitive value. Modulo this detail, 2 is a model of the primary algebra. The primary arithmetic suggests the following arithmetic axiomatization of 2: 1+1=1+0=0+1=1=~0, and 0+0=0=~1.
 * One of Boolean join (+) or meet (×) interpret concatenation;
 * The complement of A interpret [[Image:Laws of Form - not a.gif]]
 * 0 (1) interpret the empty Mark if join (meet) interprets concatenation (because a binary operation applied to zero operands may be regarded as being equal to the identity element of that operation; or to put it in another way, an operand that is missing could be regarded as acting by default like the identity element).

The set $$\ B=\{$$ $$,$$ $$\ \}$$ is the Boolean domain or carrier. In the language of universal algebra, the primary algebra is the algebraic structure $$\lang B,-\ -,\overline{- \ |},\overline{\ \ |} \rang$$ of type $$\lang 2,1,0 \rang$$. The expressive adequacy of the Sheffer stroke points to the primary algebra also being a $$\lang B,\overline{-\ - \ |},\overline{\ \ |}\rang$$ algebra of type $$\lang 2,0 \rang$$. In both cases, the identities are J1a, J0, C2, and ACD=CDA. Since the primary algebra and 2 are isomorphic, 2 can be seen as a $$\lang B,+,\lnot,1 \rang$$ algebra of type $$\lang 2,1,0 \rang$$. This description of 2 is simpler than the conventional one, namely an $$\lang B,+,\times,\lnot,1,0 \rang$$ algebra of type $$\lang 2,2,1,0,0 \rang$$.

The two possible interpretations are dual to each other in the Boolean sense. (In Boolean algebra, exchanging AND ↔ OR and 1 ↔ 0 throughout an equation yields an equally valid equation.) The identities remain invariant regardless of which interpretation is chosen, so the transformations or modes of calculation remain the same; only the interpretation of each form would be different. Example: J1a is. Interpreting juxtaposition as OR and as 1, this translates to $$\neg A \lor A = 1$$ which is true. Interpreting juxtaposition as AND and as 0, this translates to $$\neg A \land A = 0$$ which is true as well (and the dual of $$\neg A \lor A = 1$$).

operator-operand duality
The marked state,, is both an operator (e.g., the complement) and operand (e.g., the value 1). This can be summarized neatly by defining two functions $$m(x)$$ and $$u(x)$$ for the marked and unmarked state, respectively: let $$m(x) = 1-\max(\{0\}\cup x)$$ and $$u(x) = \max(\{0\} \cup x)$$, where $$x$$ is a (possibly empty) set of boolean values.

This reveals that $$u$$ is either the value 0 or the OR operator, while $$m$$ is either the value 1 or the NOR operator, depending on whether $$x$$ is the empty set or not. As noted above, there is a dual form of these functions exchanging AND ↔ OR and 1 ↔ 0.

Sentential logic
Let the blank page denote False, and let a Cross be read as Not. Then the primary arithmetic has the following sentential reading:

 * =  False

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] =  True  =  not False

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif]] =  Not True  =  False

The primary algebra interprets sentential logic as follows. A letter represents any given sentential expression. Thus:

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - not a.gif]] interprets Not A

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - a or b.gif]] interprets A Or B

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - if a then b.gif]] interprets Not A Or B or   If A Then B.

 * [[Image:Laws of Form - a and b.gif]] interprets Not (Not A Or Not B)
 * or Not (If A Then Not B)
 * or A And B.

{| {| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"

 * }
 * }
 * both interpret A if and only if B or A is equivalent to B.
 * }
 * }

Thus any expression in sentential logic has a primary algebra translation. Equivalently, the primary algebra interprets sentential logic. Given an assignment of every variable to the Marked or Unmarked states, this primary algebra translation reduces to a primary arithmetic expression, which can be simplified. Repeating this exercise for all possible assignments of the two primitive values to each variable, reveals whether the original expression is tautological or satisfiable. This is an example of a decision procedure, one more or less in the spirit of conventional truth tables. Given some primary algebra formula containing N variables, this decision procedure requires simplifying 2N primary arithmetic formulae. For a less tedious decision procedure more in the spirit of Quine's "truth value analysis", see Meguire (2003).

Schwartz (1981) proved that the primary algebra is equivalent — syntactically, semantically, and proof theoretically — with the classical propositional calculus. Likewise, it can be shown that the primary algebra is syntactically equivalent with expressions built up in the usual way from the classical truth values true and false, the logical connectives NOT, OR, and AND, and parentheses.

Interpreting the Unmarked State as False is wholly arbitrary; that state can equally well be read as True. All that is required is that the interpretation of concatenation change from OR to AND. IF A THEN B now translates as instead of. More generally, the primary algebra is "self-dual", meaning that any primary algebra formula has two sentential or Boolean readings, each the dual of the other. Another consequence of self-duality is the irrelevance of De Morgan's laws; those laws are built into the syntax of the primary algebra from the outset.

The true nature of the distinction between the primary algebra on the one hand, and 2 and sentential logic on the other, now emerges. In the latter formalisms, complementation/negation operating on "nothing" is not well-formed. But an empty Cross is a well-formed primary algebra expression, denoting the Marked state, a primitive value. Hence a nonempty Cross is an operator, while an empty Cross is an operand because it denotes a primitive value. Thus the primary algebra reveals that the heretofore distinct mathematical concepts of operator and operand are in fact merely different facets of a single fundamental action, the making of a distinction.

Syllogisms
Appendix 2 of LoF shows how to translate traditional syllogisms and sorites into the primary algebra. A valid syllogism is simply one whose primary algebra translation simplifies to an empty Cross. Let A* denote a literal, i.e., either A or $$\overline{A |}$$, indifferently. Then every syllogism that does not require that one or more terms be assumed nonempty is one of 24 possible permutations of a generalization of Barbara whose primary algebra equivalent is $$\overline{A^* \ B |} \ \ \overline{\overline{B |} \ C^* \Big|} \ A^* \ C^* $$. These 24 possible permutations include the 19 syllogistic forms deemed valid in Aristotelian and medieval logic. This primary algebra translation of syllogistic logic also suggests that the primary algebra can interpret monadic and term logic, and that the primary algebra has affinities to the Boolean term schemata of Quine (1982: Part II).

An example of calculation
The following calculation of Leibniz's nontrivial Praeclarum Theorema exemplifies the demonstrative power of the primary algebra. Let C1 be $$\overline{\overline{A |} \Big|}$$ =A, C2 be $$A \ \overline{A \ B |} = A \ \overline{B |}$$, C3 be $$\overline{\ \ |} \ A = \overline{\ \ |}$$, J1a be $$\overline{A |} \ A = \overline{\ \ |}$$, and let OI mean that variables and subformulae have been reordered in a way that commutativity and associativity permit.

{| {| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;" {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * [(P→R)∧(Q→S)]→[(P∧Q)→(R∧S)].
 * Praeclarum Theorema.

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;" {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * primary algebra translation
 * }
 * primary algebra translation

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * }
 * }

{|
 * }
 * }
 * C1.
 * C1.

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * }
 * C1.
 * }
 * C1.

 * R
 * }

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"

{|
 * }
 * }
 * OI.
 * OI.

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"

{|
 * }
 * }
 * C2.
 * }
 * C2.

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * S
 * }

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * }
 * }
 * OI.
 * OI.

{|
 * }
 * }
 * C2.
 * C2.

{| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"

{| {| style="border-top: 2px solid black; border-right: 2px solid black;"
 * }
 * }
 * OI.
 * OI.

{|
 * }
 * }
 * C2.
 * C2.

{|
 * S
 * }
 * C1.
 * C1.

{|
 * S
 * }
 * OI.
 * }
 * OI.

{|
 * }
 * J1a.
 * J1a.

 * }
 * OI.
 * C3. $$\square$$
 * }
 * }
 * OI.
 * C3. $$\square$$
 * }
 * C3. $$\square$$
 * }

Relation to magmas
The primary algebra embodies a point noted by Huntington in 1933: Boolean algebra requires, in addition to one unary operation, one, and not two, binary operations. Hence the seldom-noted fact that Boolean algebras are magmas. (Magmas were called groupoids until the latter term was appropriated by category theory.) To see this, note that the primary algebra is a commutative:
 * Semigroup because primary algebra juxtaposition commutes and associates;
 * Monoid with identity element [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif]], by virtue of J0.

Groups also require a unary operation, called inverse, the group counterpart of Boolean complementation. Let denote the inverse of a. Let denote the group identity element. Then groups and the primary algebra have the same signatures, namely they are both $$\lang - \ -, \overline{- \ |}, \overline{\ \ |} \rang$$ algebras of type 〈2,1,0〉. Hence the primary algebra is a boundary algebra. The axioms for an abelian group, in boundary notation, are: From G1 and G2, the commutativity and associativity of concatenation may be derived, as above. Note that G3 and J1a are identical. G2 and J0 would be identical if   =    replaced A2. This is the defining arithmetical identity of group theory, in boundary notation.
 * G1. abc = acb (assuming association from the left);
 * G2. [[Image:Laws of Form - a=a.png|80px]]
 * G3. [[Image:Laws of Form - (a)a=.png|80px]].

The primary algebra differs from an abelian group in two ways: Both A2 and C2 follow from B's being an ordered set.
 * From A2, it follows that [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif]] ≠ [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]]. If the primary algebra were a group, [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif]] = [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif]] would hold, and one of  [[Image:Laws of Form - (a).png|20px]] a = [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif|30px]]   or   a [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif|30px]] = a   would have to be a primary algebra consequence. Note that [[Image:Laws of Form - cross.gif|20px]] and [[Image:Laws of Form - double cross.gif|25px]] are mutual primary algebra complements, as group theory requires, so that $$\overline{\ \overline{\ \overline{\ \ |} \ \Big|} \ \Bigg|} = \overline{\ \ |}$$ is true of both group theory and the primary algebra;
 * C2 most clearly demarcates the primary algebra from other magmas, because C2 enables demonstrating the absorption law that defines lattices, and the distributive law central to Boolean algebra.

Equations of the second degree (Chapter 11)
Chapter 11 of LoF introduces equations of the second degree, composed of recursive formulae that can be seen as having "infinite" depth. Some recursive formulae simplify to the marked or unmarked state. Others "oscillate" indefinitely between the two states depending on whether a given depth is even or odd. Specifically, certain recursive formulae can be interpreted as oscillating between true and false over successive intervals of time, in which case a formula is deemed to have an "imaginary" truth value. Thus the flow of time may be introduced into the primary algebra.

Turney (1986) shows how these recursive formulae can be interpreted via Alonzo Church's Restricted Recursive Arithmetic (RRA). Church introduced RRA in 1955 as an axiomatic formalization of finite automata. Turney (1986) presents a general method for translating equations of the second degree into Church's RRA, illustrating his method using the formulae E1, E2, and E4 in chapter 11 of LoF. This translation into RRA sheds light on the names Spencer-Brown gave to E1 and E4, namely "memory" and "counter". RRA thus formalizes and clarifies LoF's notion of an imaginary truth value.

Related work
Gottfried Leibniz, in memoranda not published before the late 19th and early 20th centuries, invented Boolean logic. His notation was isomorphic to that of LoF: concatenation read as conjunction, and "non-(X)" read as the complement of X. Recognition of Leibniz's pioneering role in algebraic logic was foreshadowed by Lewis (1918) and Rescher (1954). But a full appreciation of Leibniz's accomplishments had to await the work of Wolfgang Lenzen, published in the 1980s and reviewed in Lenzen (2004).

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) anticipated the primary algebra in three veins of work: Ironically, LoF cites vol. 4 of Peirce's Collected Papers, the source for the formalisms in (2) and (3) above. (1)-(3) were virtually unknown at the time when (1960s) and in the place where (UK) LoF was written. Peirce's semiotics, about which LoF is silent, may yet shed light on the philosophical aspects of LoF.
 * 1) Two papers he wrote in 1886 proposed a logical algebra employing but one symbol, the streamer, nearly identical to the Cross of LoF. The semantics of the streamer are identical to those of the Cross, except that Peirce never wrote a streamer with nothing under it. An excerpt from one of these papers was published in 1976, but they were not published in full until 1993.
 * 2) In a 1902 encyclopedia article, Peirce notated Boolean algebra and sentential logic in the manner of this entry, except that he employed two styles of brackets, toggling between '(', ')' and '[', ']' with each increment in formula depth.
 * 3) The syntax of his alpha existential graphs is merely concatenation, read as conjunction, and enclosure by ovals, read as negation. If primary algebra concatenation is read as conjunction, then these graphs are isomorphic to the primary algebra (Kauffman 2001).

Kauffman (2001) discusses another notation similar to that of LoF, that of a 1917 article by Jean Nicod, who was a disciple of Bertrand Russell's.

The above formalisms are, like the primary algebra, all instances of boundary mathematics, i.e., mathematics whose syntax is limited to letters and brackets (enclosing devices). A minimalist syntax of this nature is a "boundary notation". Boundary notation is free of infix operators, prefix, or postfix operator symbols. The very well known curly braces ('{', '}') of set theory can be seen as a boundary notation.

The work of Leibniz, Peirce, and Nicod is innocent of metatheory, as they wrote before Emil Post's landmark 1920 paper (which LoF cites), proving that sentential logic is complete, and before Hilbert and Łukasiewicz showed how to prove axiom independence using models.

Craig (1979) argued that the world, and how humans perceive and interact with that world, has a rich Boolean structure. Craig was an orthodox logician and an authority on algebraic logic.

Second-generation cognitive science emerged in the 1970s, after LoF was written. On cognitive science and its relevance to Boolean algebra, logic, and set theory, see Lakoff (1987) (see index entries under "Image schema examples: container") and Lakoff and Núñez (2001). Neither book cites LoF.

The biologists and cognitive scientists Humberto Maturana and his student Francisco Varela both discuss LoF in their writings, which identify "distinction" as the fundamental cognitive act. The Berkeley psychologist and cognitive scientist Eleanor Rosch has written extensively on the closely related notion of categorization.

Other formal systems with possible affinities to the primary algebra include:
 * Mereology which typically has a lattice structure very similar to that of Boolean algebra. For a few authors, mereology is simply a model of Boolean algebra and hence of the primary algebra as well.
 * Mereotopology, which is inherently richer than Boolean algebra;
 * The system of Whitehead (1934), whose fundamental primitive is "indication".

The primary arithmetic and algebra are a minimalist formalism for sentential logic and Boolean algebra. Other minimalist formalisms having the power of set theory include:
 * The lambda calculus;
 * Combinatory logic with two (S and K) or even one (X) primitive combinators;
 * Mathematical logic done with merely three primitive notions: one connective, NAND (whose primary algebra translation is $$\overline{A \ \ B \ |}$$ or, dually, $$\overline{A |} \ \ \overline{B |}$$), universal quantification, and one binary atomic formula, denoting set membership. This is the system of Quine (1951).
 * The beta existential graphs, with a single binary predicate denoting set membership. This has yet to be explored. The alpha graphs mentioned above are a special case of the beta graphs.

Editions

 * 1969. London: Allen & Unwin, hardcover.
 * 1972. Crown Publishers, hardcover: ISBN 0-517-52776-6
 * 1973. Bantam Books, paperback. ISBN 0-553-07782-1
 * 1979. E.P. Dutton, paperback. ISBN 0-525-47544-3
 * 1994. Portland OR: Cognizer Company, paperback. ISBN 0-9639899-0-1
 * 1997 German translation, titled Gesetze der Form. Lübeck: Bohmeier Verlag. ISBN 3-89094-321-7
 * 2008 Bohmeier Verlag, Leipzig, 5th international edition. ISBN 978-3-89094-580-4

title: Laws of Form