User talk:SHAWWPG19410425

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello SHAWWPG19410425, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

== A question, apparently never discussed or answered ... This entry in the TALK PAGE has been edited out because it has been deemed as being in an inappropriate place [not for inclusion in the Talk Page].



PROPOSED CLOSURE OF WIKIVERSITY[edit source]

Could you please explain to me what this page is meant to be? I don't think the all-caps title is much appropriate for the wiki, nor the signature located after the commentary, as a learning resource. It could be relegated to some other namespace, but currently it doesn't seem to serve much as a mainspace learning resource. TeleComNasSprVen 08:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ans. - I was being audacious [as recommended], but really the above simply indicates that I am not at all familiar with the labyrinthine terminological ramifications either of computing or of Wikiversity - my sincere apologies. I really need a [second order] glossary to explain the [first order] glossary and do not begin to understand terms such as twitter, sandbox, portal, upload file, special pages, logs, colloquium, how to "contact us " ... . and don't know where others learn about these matters. STANDARD CURSIVE WRITING I was looking for the English alphabet written cursively. Many textbooks use cursive letters to denote mathematical quantities, this being necessary because of the paucity of letters in the Latin alphabet. Texts become unreadable where the cursive form has been mandated as obsolete. Cursive writing is artistic as well as of utility. The Russian alphabet of thirty-three letters that selects from the Latin, Greek and Hebrew alphabets is much better provisioned.

SHAWWPG19410425 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 11:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed the deletion of this page, since it is in mainspace but is not an educational resource. If you have any objection to the deletion, you may remove the speedy deletion tag that is at the top of the page, and/or let me know here or on my Talk page. I will define some of the terms you list. One step at a time!
  • Twitter: a rapid broadcast communication technique, twitter.com, usually using cell phones, but also accessible by computer.
  • Sandbox: a page designed for test edits, such as Wikiversity:Sandbox.
  • Portal: Beats me! Actually, Wikiversity has "portals," it is one of the namespaces, which I'll define if you like, so portals will have a prefix of "Portal:", like Portal:Mathematics. Portals are gateways to resources, it's a little different from "School," but there can be overlap. See School:Mathematics. The way I understand this is that a "School" would necessarily be a broad topic, whereas a Portal can be narrower. A School can have faculty and students, but a Portal would not. But it might include some kind of project which would have participants. Wikiversity structure is still very fluid, not necessarily written in stone.
  • Upload file: You may upload files to Wikiversity, the most common usage would be images, but other kinds of files can be uploaded as well. I'm not particularly experienced with this. You must provide licensing information when you upload a file, or it can be speedily deleted. I.e., if you took a photo, you own the rights, you can provide that information and release the image to be used by Wikiversity, or anyone copying from Wikiversity, following the Wikiversity licensing. It can get complicated.
  • Special pages: The MediaWiki software that Wikiversity uses, which is basically the same as what Wikipedia uses, provides for "special pages," which aren't pages that actually exist as such; rather, they are compiled on request from the database. So, for example, see Special:Contributions/SHAWWPG19410425. On the left of your display (probably) there is a "Special Pages" link which will list all of them. Some special pages are automatically linked from regular pages. For example, look at Climate control/An artificial " tornado" to supplant the real thing. At the top of the page (the way I see it, with my "skin,"), I can see a link to page history. History is actually a special page, but it isn't called that. Pressing the "View history" link, I see a list of, at this point, all edits that have been made to the page. Underneath the page title, that is relatively large and in black, for me, I see a link: "View logs for this page." Pressing that, I see nothing. That's because there has been no logged action taken for the page -- i.e., besides edits, which are logged in History. However, that page has been moved. Look at the source page, An artificial man-made " tornado" to supplanted the real thing. What? This shows you the page you just looked at before! But there is a small difference. Look just under the title, you will see a redirect notice. Click on that, and you will see that the original page, the one you created, has been replaced by a "redirect." That means that the new page will automatically transfer the reader to the new location, but there is a way to bypass this, which you just did, if you look at the link in your browser address bar, you will see "redirect=no" at the end of the command. Now look at the history of this page, you'll see that I created it. Actually the Move command automatically will create this redirect page, normally. Look at the "View logs" link under the title, and you will see that the Move was logged. Generally, all user actions on the project are logged, somewhere. Some logs are not visible to ordinary users, but are visible to administrators. Some logs are only visible to specially privileged users, such as the logs that show IP address for all edits. To see an example log, look at the Deletion log. There you can see all pages that have recently been "deleted." Deleted files aren't actually deleted, they are hidden. They still exist, usually. There are procedures for complete deletion, they involve special rights, and there are other complexities I won't address. This is just to give you a taste for what is accessible to you.
  • Colloquium: That's just a page, Wikiversity:Colloquium. It's self-explanatory.
  • How to contact us: Well, you can generally contact any user by editing their User talk page, you can contact me by editing User talk:Abd. As I have email enabled, and have set my Preferences this way, I'll get an email telling me I have a message, and whenever I log in, I'll see a banner that I have a message on my talk page, until I've actually looked at it. You can also, sometimes, contact participants on IRC, or, apparently, on twitter. I suggest, for the moment, that you ignore these channels. You can ask questions of the community on Wikiversity:Colloquium, you can request something that only an administrator can do on Wikiversity:Request custodian action, you can request a page be deleted or undeleted on Wikiversity:Requests for deletion, and there are certain other common pages like that. You can also ask questions or generally notify those who have edited a page by editing the attached talk page (The "Discuss" link). If users who have edited the page have set their preferences to Watch pages that they have edited -- most experienced editors do this -- then they will see all edits to the page or its attached talk page when they look at their Watchlist. Finally, if a user has enabled email, you may, provided that you have yourself enabled email, contact the user by email. When you do this, your own email address will be revealed to the user -- but not to anyone else.
  • Where users learn about these matters: By reading, sometimes, but it can be overwhelming. By asking questions is one way. Mostly, people learn by experience. You did not actually ask, you merely noted that you needed a glossary. I've now responded as if you asked. In turn, how about you create the glossary from my answers? Include any other terms you come across. You can also list in the glossary any terms you still don't understand. Tell me about the glossary on my Talk page and I'll review it, and so will others. This is how resources are created. I'd place this at Wikiversity:Glossary. Now this is a hint: When I placed that link, I did not remember that there was an existing glossary, it just seemed like the most reasonable place to create the glossary. But the link, when I pressed Show Preview, showed up as blue, showing me that it exists. It may not include all the terms I defined or commented on. Check it out. I've left my comment as I wrote it, instead of revising it, as if we were having a conversation. And thanks for asking, it may help others. --Abd 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

don't use initial spaces in paragraphs[edit source]

they mean something other than what you want in wikitext. Rather, use a double Return to separate paragraphs, as one possibility. It's also suggested to preview your text before saving, it keeps the number of edits down, which simplifies the history of the page. --Abd 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is a need or desire to close Wikiversity, then the management as far as I am concerned are perfectly at liberty to proceed with the closure. ...........

In the contribution: " Factorization uneven integers by solving elementary algebraic equations , using binary remainder theory. " it can be safely said that the first and the second part of this problem have now been solved. This is made clearer by doing more completely worked examples.

There is another way of finding the prime factors of a composite, once the periods of the prime factors had been established. This would be much quicker than solving for the binary remainders. But first, in order to find the periods, the proper Finite Discrete Function [F.D.F.] and the proper segment of the F.D.F., the ordinal of multiplication, M[Q[N]] is needed. The notion of a floor function and ceiling function is useful to be able to verify that the value of M found is indeed the correct value, an integer.

Referring to the above contribution: " Factorizing uneven integers ... binary remainder theory. " once M and consequently the proper segment of the proper F.D.F. and period or periods have been found, then the appropriate equation selected from Equations 6.1 and 6.2 or 7.1 and 7.2 can be used with an efficient algorithm to solve for m[1] and m[2]. Then it is a very simple matter to find the prime factors q[1] and q[2].

For example, q[1] = [[2.m[1] + 2^{N}] - 1] with a similar equation for q[2].

In the case where N is even, L[1] + L[2] = N, and there are [N/2] F.D.F's to work through. Where L[1] + L[2] = [N - 1], an odd number, there are [N - 2]/2 F.D.F.'s This makes a total of [N - 1] F.D,F's. However many involve very small and large prime factors , threes , fives, etc. at the lowest end. An algorithm to find the proper F.D.F. and segment would start with L[1] + L[2] = N and begin with the instance: L[1] = N/2 and L[2] = N/2.

If N is odd, then there are [N - 1]/2 F.D.F.'s from the equation L[1] + L[2] = N and [N - 1]/2 F.D.F.'s from the equation L[1] + L[2] = [N - 1]. The total number of F.D.F.'s is [N - 1] as in the case of N being even. The prime and composite factors in periods L[1] and L[2] are sufficient to populate period N with composites containing two factors.

Solving the equations for the binary remainders with the enormously large integers generated still remains valid.

This means that uneven integers can be factorized into two prime, composite or mixed factors in a fixed finite number of steps depending on the magnitude of the number to be factorized, by the processes of elementary arithmetic and algebra, without trial and error.

The floor and ceiling functions are key to finding the proper segment and ordinal of multiplication, M so that the appropriate equations 6.1 and 6.2 or 7.1 and 7.2 can be solved for m[1] and m[2].

A question: Is the previous statement appropriate in User talk? I now review my contributions prior to clicking on " save " and have deleted the major part of the list of my edits.

I shall have to learn some basic computer science in order to even begin to understand the previous discussion.

Replying briefly to Abd. There is a sentence indicating where I can get help - assistance with understanding computer terminology and policy of Wikiversity which at present I still only vaguely understand but am beginning to decode. That is a good sentence. I like that. In writing all of this, I might without knowing it have done something wrong.

About the use of capital letters, American English and British according to linguists are not only different languages, but are diverging. I would like to telephone you about these matters at a suitable time, a very short phone call [at my expense] just to let you know you are not communicating with a computer. The Germans begin every noun with a capital Letter. I will certainly refrain from doing that. I wrote and iterate that I do not intend to do anything more on Wikiversity until I have finished and exhaustively checked my work on factorization.

Noticing you don't like "caps". I don't to use exclamation marks except in literature and to denote the factorial function, for example 10/10! which is 1/9!.

Since you have sent me several e-mails, I thought it was polite to reply. Clearly, American English while apparently identical, is a completely different language to English as both spoken and written in the UK.

I would say that good two way communication with others is probably by far, the most difficult of all human activities.--SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

[[contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 12:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 15:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 00:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Complex page title[edit source]

Factorising uneven integers by solving elementary algebraic equations , using binary remainder theory. above page link has been edited to reflect a move of the page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We are working on the organization of Wikiversity. The basic concept that I'm considering is that Wikversity mainspace pages would be about things that might be in a course list in a real university, or an alternative free university. The subject page here wouldn't be that. However, an individual class might present this as a session, or it might be a student work presented as part of a class

Back in 2011, I moved An artificial man-made " tornado" to supplanted the real thing (with a grammatical error in the title) to a subpage of Climate control, but didn't go ahead and create the top level resource. I've now fixed that by creating the climate control page. That's a simple example of placing a specific essay or study underneath a more general resource that could be presented as part of a curriculum.

This present page obviously never would be a course, it is too specific. It is a math resource, but I'm here to today to ask you if you can identify an existing top-level resource that it could be moved under. It will be more visible that way!

And then the page title is probably way too complex. But we can address that separately. I want to resolve the basic issue here first. Creating a pile of redirects by moving pages prematurely, which can make work for custodians, I'd rather avoid.

You have other resources you created that are similarly isolated. Some of them are related; for example prime numbers are related to factorization. What do you think? --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Answering Abd: I would not have written about a dual wind turbine and a means of controlling a tornado if I did not seriously believe that a robust vertically mounted wind turbine would serve the two very different purposes.

About the topic of matrices of binary remainders, this could be placed where there is a call for non-singular matrices that have easily found determinants. Transitional matrices of binary remainders look like having the form of cyclic groups. If this proves to be the case, then that would provide examples of cyclic groups of matrices.

The topic " Factorizing uneven integers by solving elementary algebraic equations ... remainder theory " could be shortened to: " Factorizing uneven composites by solving algebraic equations. " or just: " Factorizing uneven integers. "

Most presentations on this subject treat the matter in a perfectly valid elementary way. Even composites are factorized, but this seems rather pedestrian. It is often much harder to factorize uneven composites. In any case not every known algorithm to factorize an uneven composite has been published or might ever be made generally known.

I could have a good look around the learning resources and if you agree, I could put some of my well verified results in the appropriate places. Mathematics is easily shown to be correct or otherwise.

Before placing somewhere the now styled: " Factorization of uneven integers " , I would like to finish this first and see if I have not ended up with a series of identities or otherwise unsolvable equations with integral solutions - I think they call these Diophantine equations. There is a theorem on the existence of solutions of Diophantine equations that I would say is really difficult advanced maths for me.

What I have written is essentially simple. I am not in the business of mystification, but in comprehensively resolving problems that have hitherto defied explanation.

In view of the fact that the problem of finding the period or periods of the prime factors has not been solved and might never be, I think it would be best to edit out examples [3] Q[7] = 143 [11, 13], [4] Q[9] = 551 [19, 29] and [5] Q[10] = 2021 [43, 47] which use the theory of binary remainders for their solution. The completely worked out examples [1] Q[5] = 35 [5, 7] and [2] Q[6] = 65 [5, 13] along with some general notes at the foot of the solution of example [3] could be retained. Beyond example [2], the solutions are far too time consuming ever to be solved on paper.

The only value of factorization by solving for binary digits [- 1, + 1] appears have is showing that it can be done.

It looks as if the failure to solve the problem of finding the period or periods of the prime factors is not going to matter from the point of view of solving the condition, Equation 12. and the equation in the ordinal m[1], derivation outlined.

I am considering changing my username to " DUNCE19410425 " I like the name Dunce. SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Birthday, perhaps? I favor short user names, it's easier to communicate. Dunce would be fine, I actually love it. User:Dunce is apparently registered here, but has no edits, there are no SUL links accounts, only a set of unlinked accounts on various wikis. It could be usurped. So you could name yourself Dunce plus something additional that makes it unique here, and then you could get a bureaucrat to allow you to shorten it. Or maybe you like long and complicated?
By the way, you can just register a new account, it's the fast way to change your name. Disclose that the accounts are linked, so that anyone looking at the new account can find out what you were named. Just don't use both accounts to edit the same pages or participate in the same discussions, it can put some users off their feed. If we had an active bureaucrat, I'd suggest account renaming instead. Our active 'crat is on vacation, but he should be back soon.
I've seen the wind turbine concept discussed elsewhere, as I recall. I personally prefer not to have "beliefs" about what hasn't been done, but I will often trust ("believe") that something is possible. That is, it is a "real possibility." Not yet a reality. Practical and workable are separate and distinguishable. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Factorization of uneven composites[edit source]

Okay, better, but still more complicated than necessary. Factoring even composites is boring, i.e., trivial, they are readily reduced to uneven composites times a power of two, or simply to a power of two.

So the only factorization problem worth looking at is that of uneven composites. Therefore any interesting factorization algorithm factors uneven composite numbers.

b:Algebra/Factoring Polynomials is the closest thing I've found so far to your work. The procedure given there for finding factors of integers sucks, in a word. w:Integer factorization covers the topic. Your resource, to me, appears forbiddingly complex. Just my sensibilities. Your topic is, in fact, integer factorization, using a particular approach. Integer factorizing using binary remainders? -Abd (discusscontribs) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering Abd. The username needs to be only sufficiently long to be distinguishable from other usernames. 1941, 04, 25 - no guesses.

How about " Factorization in periods " meaning the factorization of uneven integers that are contained in binary periods, for a title? Or " Prime factors in periods " Whatever the title, it is best to be unique.

The factorization of uneven integers by solving for the binary remainders is actually very straight forward but extremely lengthy. However, a knowledge of the period or periods of the prime factors is essential in the first place, before the involution equations can be written down. The integers produced are very large, even when small composites of as few as two decimal digits are factorized by this means. This way of factoring can be now seen to be only of academic interest and incomplete.

I had intended to separate the area of the contribution about factorization using binary remainder theory from the area about ordinals of uneven integers, ordinals of multiplication, linear segments of F.D.F.'s and the derived conditions and equations. The two ideas are quite different.

A good title might be " Factorization in Periods ". The area on factorization using binary remainders down to the end of this section proves to be little more than a mathematical curiosity. The first two examples of factoring by solving for the binary remainders have been been worked through and could be relegated to a contribution on the theory of binary remainders. The rest of this section up to but not including the section below would be best removed entirely.

The section starting with the subtitle: " The pattern or Structure of the Occurrence of the Period or Periods of the Prime Factors of the composite Q[N] " to the end of the contribution contains two equations in the making, requiring subsequent simplification, that could if there are satisfactory solutions, provide the lesser prime factor q[1] of the composite Q[N]. The second of the two equations where L[1] and L[2] are different appears, prior to simplification to be a quadratic equation in m[1].

An even shorter title might be " Factorization Periods " but " Factorization in Periods " makes better sense.

If it turns out that even the largest uneven composites can be factorized by first finding N, the period of Q[N] either by trial and error or by using Equation 2. followed by solving a few simple polynomial or quadratic equations, that would be very good. It looks like quadratic equations come about in this context. There are no identities.

SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 17:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 10:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, reading the above and looking again at your resource, I run into what appears to be undefined notation. You might think the notation obvious, but it isn't, unless, perhaps, the reader has a particular background in the study of composite and prime numbers. I've done a fair amount of work with primes and composites, where every integer is classified as prime or composite, and is assigned an index, either P(N), being the Nth prime, or C(N), being then Nth composite.
You write about the factorization of "even composite Q(N)," but I don't see that you define this. First of all, even composites are a subset of the composites, it just happens to be a subset that in base 10 (or any even number base) is trivial to identify. In the general case, it's found by dividing by 2. To express an integer in a number base, we repeatedly divide by the number base, so, with base 10, the identification of even composites falls out of that process, as does the identification of 5 as a factor.
So, let me suggest something. If it interests you, create a page on factorization and cover general methods of factorization. Define basic terms there. Underneath this, create subpages that go into detail on certain methods. If a method is well known, and the material is known to be sound, i.e., anyone knowledgeable about the math involved would say, yes, this works, then it need not be attributed. If this is a new method, unconfirmed, and even if you believe that you have a sound proof, please attribute the method to yourself or to the person responsible. We allow Original Research to stand on Wikiversity because it is not controversial that you are the author of what you write. And you wrote it. Otherwise we'd be like Wikipedia, requiring Reliable Source to back up material.
Yes, if it's math and you have done your work well, anyone with sufficient skill or experience could verify your claims. But in the administration of Wikiversity, there are many claims made, and we don't have the resources to confirm work. Wikipedia addresses this by requiring reliable sources. We address it by classifying' information. You'd never be allowed to write as you have written here, on Wikipedia. Many of our resources have been created without classification, but we are beginning to address the issue.
And remember, none of this is about you being right or wrong.
So: Factorization could be the resource. That page you would make rigorously neutral and verifiable. You don't need to source what you write there, but it should be possible. That page may contain a link to your method, as a subpage. That link should be attributed as your work (unless it's a known method that could be attributed to a known person). You may then write almost anything you please on the subpage. Others will be able to edit it, but if you don't like what they do, you may revert it. Just be civil. Ask for help if you run into any conflict, don't just attempt to handle it by yourself, you could run into problems. But you probably won't run into problems, if you follow what I've suggested.
The subpage, then, could have a name that is brief, reflecting the fact that the overall topic is already contained in the complete page name. So it could be Factorization/By periods, or Factorization/Method of binary remainders, or the like. When we settle on this, we can move your page. Factorization will eventually be linked to a broader math resource. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering Abd. I might have written " ... factorization of even integers ... " somewhere. That should have read " ... factorization of UNeven integers ... " , putting the first two letters in upper case for emphasis, but only on this occasion.

The work I wrote on factorization by solving for the ordinal m[1] of the lower prime factor, q[1], while not quite finished, is as far as I know entirely new. I have scoured the internet and nowhere else is this to be found. All that needs to be done now is for me to write out the two somewhat involved equations in m[1] for the two cases using the now known coefficients.

I hope civility or courtesy is my middle name.

If this all works out well, I would welcome others to change the notation and edit as they please. This would be a particular method of factorization.

If the mathematics is proved to be sound and logical, then this this will verify the equations perfectly.

Sorry, I wrote "even" when I meant "uneven." My point is that the method of factorization doesn't care if a number is even or uneven, it only happens that it is trivial to find the smallest factor of an even number, and that's an artifact of the number base we use. That is, in expressing the number, we have already repeatedly divided it by ten, that is, by two and five. So we can immediately tell from the number if it is divisible by 2, 5 or 10. In base 3, we could tell if the number is divisible by 3, but not so easily if it is divisible by 2.

(Actually, by analogy with base 10, I intuit a simple algorithm for determining divisibility by 2 in base 3. In base ten the sum of digits, repeated until there is only one digit, reveals, immediately, divisibility by nine. I'm guessing this works with n-1 in base n. But I haven't worked it out.)

Your notation is not clear. It may be that anyone familiar with what you are doing would recognize the notation, but I don't. Nobody is going to change the notation unless they first understand it, because they will not understand your method if the notation you use is not understood. For example, you refer to "the ordinal m[1] of the lower prime factor." What's that? If we order the prime factors of a number, is this the smallest factor?
I was suggesting that you write a resource on factorization in general, not your method, per se. Then as your method is your own invention, you place a subpage that covers your method (and there might also be subpages giving details of other methods, if you like). You do not have to write this general factorization page, but might create it as a resource. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering Abd. The notation I used came about in the process of trying to solve the prime factorization problem and to me was wholly appropriate. From a mathematical view point, I found that numbering the primes in the order in which they occur as [2, 3, 5, 7 .. ] was not only unhelpful but misleading when it came to understanding uneven integers.

I have found a strategy for simplifying the first equation in the unknown m[1]. Because of Equation 8., m[1] depends only on q[1], one of the prime factors. Having judiciously expressed Equation 9. in terms of the unknown q[1] instead of m[1] but leaving certain expressions in m[1] unchanged, I arrived at a quadratic equation where the coefficients depend only on N and Q[N]. Moreover, the coefficient of q[1] is negative and that is very interesting, meaning that the solution for q[1] is likely to be positive, which is what might be expected for a prime factor.

The instance of Equation 10. could be simplified by the same strategy, avoiding having to work out extremely complicated expressions containing m[1].

Once I have checked my work again to find consistency and typed in the results, then it would be useful for others to verify the results as well.

Replying to Abd. The present title about using binary remainders to factorize uneven integers definitely needs to be changed. The title " Factorization " would do, but " Factorization in Periods " would I think, be much better. If it turns out that the equations do give satisfactory solutions for the prime factors, then I would write in plenty of examples to illustrate the different cases. The saying is: " The proof of the pudding is in the eating. " If the work is sound then it will be seen to be sound.

I will repeat that I have never found any account of factorization by periods on the Internet. If you have the time to look on the Internet for this kind of factorization, then would you please let me know.

You use the word " sucks " in connection with polynomial factorization. I presume this means that the treatment is very elementary that a child recently out of their diapers would be able to follow. SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No. What struck me about the algorithm shown is that they proposed possible factors for N, for N not very small, i.e., not 2, as being (1, 2, ... N-1, N). First of all, including 1 and N as factors could be technically correct but operationally obtuse, because 1 and N are trivial factors. Then, there are no nontrivial divisors of N that are larger than N/2. If the potential composite we are factoring is non-even, there are no divisors larger than N/3, and we need only test primes as factors, if we are beginning from the smallest candidates. Each time we test a candidate, from the smallest, and the division fails to be exact, we reduce the upper limit for the largest possible factor. They stop the procedure when a set of prime factors is found that multiplied together, are the number. But they aren't really explicit about that as being what they are seeking, they are "teaching by example," perhaps hoping that the real situation will be transmitted through osmosis or something.
Factoring algorithms are covered at [[w:Integer factorization#Factoring algorithms. I will create a top-level resource here on Factorization. It is a sufficiently broad topic to be top-level, my opinion. Then I will create subpage links on each method, and I will also create a subpage Factorization/Proposed methods. Until and unless your method is validated in some way by those knowledgeable, you should leave it as a proposal, as your original research. Note that a page on a defective proposed method would still be useful educationally, i.e., the educational process that discovers the defect is educational for those who participate in it. I have no opinion at this point on whether or not your method is valid and useful. Maybe at some other time I will.
I will say that I find your writing on the method obtuse. It is possible that someone knowledgeable would not find it so, because they might have the background to immediately intuit the meaning of your terms, or perhaps those terms are standard in the field. However, then, we might consider that your exercise isn't pedagogically useful. However, that's not a fatal flaw. It merely means that we would not want to inflict it on users as something for beginners to study.
You are welcome to continue discussion with me, but my prime objective is the classification of Wikiversity resources, with a goal of educational inclusiveness while preserving neutrality standards. Without that, any resources that appear to be non-standard might ultimately be deleted. The concept of allowing original research here requires, to preserve neutrality, original research -- i.e, unvalidated and not necessarily readily validatable -- be identified as such and not presented as "fact." Rather, it is attributed. I will create the resources to contain your essay/exposition, and link to a proposed page title, based on my understanding of your intention. If you accept that title, you may move your page so that it is linked by it, or ask me to do the move. If you want to change the title, edit the page with that link. I do not want to link from mainspace to user space.
In the name, I will not be using "uneven" because it's unnecessary to specify that. Even composites are obviously factorized by first dividing by two, and repeating until the result is no longer even, that's all. Basically, then, a factorization method that is general for all composites obviously applies to uneven composites if only a trivial first step is included. We would not want a separate page on "Factorization of even composites"! --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I did the work, a little differently than I anticipated above, your page is now at: Factorization/Integer/Binary remainders. Factorization/Integer/Deduction Unless this is actually wrong, please leave it there, or discuss it. You will notice that Factorization/Integer eliminates unnecessary words in the proposed (redlinked) subpages, because these are all obviously, for example, "methods of factorization." Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Page later moved at user request, as shown --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing prior discussion[edit source]

Generally, please do not edit prior discussion, and especially avoid editing the comments of others. There are exceptions:

  • Editing a link to avoid an incoming link to a redirected page, which complicates deletion of otherwise unnecessary redirects. This edit should be noted, using smalltext.
  • Formatting to improve clarity of who wrote what. This ordinarily requires no note.
  • Minor spelling corrections in your own comments, this normally requires no note.
  • When you make a more significant edit to your own comments, don't keep adding new signatures to the bottom without explanation. Generally, if someone has responded to your comment, any change to it should be explained specifically (using smalltext, like this) and the explanation signed and timestamped -- use four tildes in the edit). Errors will normally, then, be shown with strike-out, i.e., like this. Essentially, if someone has responded to a comment, simply changing it leaves the response unintelligible.
  • Mostly, we avoid changing discussion unless leaving some error in place could be confusing.
  • These are not absolute rules, but following them will avoid confusion. Wikiversity is quite tolerant, violating some of the principles I've mentioned here on Wikipedia could get you warned or blocked. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Abd. I was not aware that I was breaking any of the rules Error No. 557753, particularly by editing the comments of someone else, apart from deleting a repeated definite article: the the. I have printed out the User talk page, since it is better to read a hard copy than off screen. I still cannot understand what most of the rules mean and I have had access to the internet since 10/10/2010.

Before seeing the message in my e-mail in box I had already decided that I would not write any more on Factorization in Periods until I have completed the derivation of two quadratic equations for the prime factors of a composite and thoroughly tested them.

I need a complete list of the rules. I have to understand the principles so that I can avoid violating them.

For experimenting it says to use the sand box. I understand that this is deleted after twenty-four hours. SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to have a page where you can work on some topic with minimal 'assistance' from others, just create your own personal sandbox or other subpage. Try something like User:SHAWWPG19410425/Sandbox. You'll find the Wikiversity sandbox gets reset much too often to be functional as a content sandbox. There are some users who monitor and reset it as often as every 30 minutes.
We try not to have too many rules here, but editing conversation history can be interpreted as changing the words of others. It's best not to do that if you can avoid it. But since this is your talk page, you are free to delete or archive any conversations you no longer want to have on your page.
Regarding other rules, first be bold! Don't worry about the rules. We're more interested in your contributions. We just need to find a good way to provide space for you to add those contributions that works with the vision of others familiar with the topic you're working on. Working in your own user space is one way to deal with that. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. SHAW, there is no "list of rules." There are some policies, which are the closest thing we have to rules. And often we have not formally implemented them, so they will be called "proposed policies." Then there are customs and traditions. I wrote, above, to explain to you one of them. I don't know that we have any explanation of that here. There is some explanation on Wikipedia at Talk page guidelines/Editing comments.
The best way to understand the "rules," which are often unwritten, is to pay attention to what others are doing. On Wikiversity, often, you may work in relative isolation, for long periods, and if you don't watch the community activity of others, you may not get the experience you need to be able to anticipate problems. Dave is correct, though. We are not going to block you or delete your contributions simply because you "violate a rule." As you gain experience, you will know more what will work and what won't.
What I wrote about is called, out in the world, "common law." It is not statutory law, it's not written out as such, but it is commonly accepted practice and may even be considered binding. It is not criminal law, which we have learned to require be completely explicit. If you "violate" common law, you won't get thrown in jail. You might, however, lose your property, or what you thought was your property, waste your time, or be sued and lose.
If something is truly "common law," there are good reasons for it, even you may not understand them. If you were involved in maintaining a wiki, with as much activity as we have, not to mention as much as Wikipedia has, you might understand why there is a guideline suggesting the comments of others not be changed. It makes maintenance easier, and avoids certain kinds of useless disputes.
Dave has again correctly pointed out that you can create your own sandbox. Sometimes users place a link to their sandbox on their user page for ready loading. However, Wikiversity:Sandbox is not "deleted." It's "swept," i.e., it gets blanked. The edits are still there in history, generally. See your edit there.
You may also simply create pages in your user space. For example, if you click on User:SHAWWPG19410425/My new pagename, which will appear to you at first as a redlink, you will get a screen with a link allowing you to create the page. Any pagename starting with "User:SHAWWPG19410425/" -- notice the slash -- will exist in your user space and we will mostly stay away from it, though we might comment on the attached talk page. All pages in your user space are routinely left alone, unless there is something truly illegal there (like serious copyright violation or libel).
SHAW, I was explicit that I was not referring to "absolute rules." I wrote what I wrote about editing comments because your edits of comments caused some problems. I did not explain all the problems. Basically, I don't expect you to understand these things ab initio. Understand that you have had "access to the internet" since 2010, but I've been active on-line since the mid-1980s. There is a bit of a difference there, don't you think? My job here is to advise you. Not to blame you. I do hope you will learn from it. If not, I'll be patient.
Some of the pages you have created might be moved into your user space. If I do that, it will largely be to hold them until it's decided where they would go. While they are in your user space, they are essentially no more any of my business, except with your consent. But in mainspace, and especially at the top level (i.e, they are not attributed or "owned" subpages), they are the business of all of us.
I am pioneering an exception, and your factorization page is an example of it. In my opinion, and with a little exception, that's your page, because it is attributed to you as your method. My opinion is that this is allowed. If not, and to be safe, your page would need to be back in your user space. If I see an edit to that page that is not from you, I'll revert it, unless it is obviously an improvement, and at worst harmless. But I'm commenting on the attached Talk page. If that were not your essay, I might be hacking away at the text, or requesting deletion of the page! And, I can tell you, it's quite likely someone else would do that, eventually.
Let me know if you need any assistance. Also, Dave is a custodian, he can help with anything that requires custodial tools. For example, I moved your page on factorization. I can't undo that, because the move back will fail due to the redirect automatically created cannot be moved out of the way, except by a custodian. Essentially, it must be deleted. This is why I discussed the matter with you extensively before actually doing the move. It's not hard to fix, Dave will handle it if its needed, it is very quick for him. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Some examples[edit source]

SHAW, some things I notice about your user page and user talk page. This is not about "rules." It's things that don't work very well.

  • You used User:SHAWWPG19410425 to draft an "research project," apparently. You can do that, nobody will delete it, but it's not what your User page is designed to do. The user page would normally be about you, your interests, might contain some useful links you want to have immediate access to (because you can just click on your username at the top of your screen and you are sent to your User page). Stuff like that. What you did on that page, back in early 2011, would better be done on a user subpage. What would you like to call that project? You could actually have a subpage, User:SHAWWPG19410425/Research projects and then a page under that, User:SHAWWPG19410425/Research projects/Division algorithm polynomial quotients. You could use all caps if you like, but then people will wonder why you are shouting....
  • When you were welcomed in 2011 by Ottava Rima, he had the habit of welcoming many users, but not actually watching to see if they needed something. You asked a question on your page, then, you can see the result here: [1]. There were formatting problems, of course. I later wrote to you about initial spaces. Another problem there was the really long section title with your signature in it. In any case, at that point nobody was watching your Talk page. Ottava would have had it on his watchlist, but wasn't necessarily checking, and, in any case, he didn't see what you wrote as a question for him, and he was a literature major. Math would not be his strong suit. So nobody responded. Basically, don't ask the community questions on your talk page! Only a few will see it, usually those who have edited your talk page already. That's not a lot of users! Some of them are not regularly participating in Wikiversity. They may or may not get email notification of the edit, and had I gotten that edit as an email, I might have scratched my head and done nothing.
  • Then you were asked by another editor about a page you had created in mainspace, inappropriately, about the closure of Wikiversity. That was eventually moved to your User space. Do you still want that page to remain? It's at User:SHAWWPG19410425/PROPOSED CLOSURE OF WIKIVERSITY. If you'd like it deleted, just say so, I'll arrange it. Or it can be left. Your "protest" must have been about [2], which was filed as a Request for comment on the meta wiki. It was improperly filed, by the way, and was unlikely to result in closure. I was familiar with two of the six proponents of closure, as highly abusive Wikipedia administrators. Notice the argument that "banned users" were being allowed to edit on Wikiversity. That means "banned on Wikipedia," and if these people were to get their way, they'd be banned everywhere. There were 51 "opposes." That request was demolished. Not just rejected. The argument about banned users was demolished with specific evidence showing the huge number of editors and the small number of ones banned on Wikipedia. I had gotten one of the administrators I mentioned sanctioned on Wikipedia, and the other was actually worse. Once upon a time, he practically owned Wikipedia. He hasn't edited it in over a year. The RfC was dead and then closed by May, 2010. So your "protest" in 2011 was way too late. --Abd (discusscontribs) 09:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Abd. Now I think I understand an essential matter of what you have been writing. About the main space and the sandbox. How all experimentation should be put in a sandbox. I shall delete from the prime factorization contribution everything that does not pertain to the solution of that problem, leaving only solid established results. I have a sandbox in Wikipedia. Ottiva Rima, that sounds like the name of a real human being, not a computer language.SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ottava Rima is a classical rhyme scheme, and User:Ottava Rima is currently inactive. It is not the real name of the user. I think you assumed that Ottava was a bot, i.e, an automated process. Hah! Some of us kind of thought so! But, no, a real human being. He might show up again. He was my mentor here for a while.
"Sandbox" is a temporary place to test edits or hold text for a while. There is a public sandbox at Wikiversity:Sandbox, but you may freely create files in your own user space, giving them whatever name you like, and they aren't likely to be edited by others; what is in the public sandbox is quickly edited. One way to create a file is to create a link to it, such as [[User:SHAWWPG19410425/My new file]] which will display as User:SHAWWPG19410425/My new file, unless I prevent the display with nowiki tags, as you can see if you edit this. That the file displays as a red link shows that it has not been created.
If you ever want to clean up files you create, and if you are the only contributor, you may place the following wikitext at the top of the page:
{{delete|own work}}
... and the file will be routinely deleted by an administrator. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Abd. The new title is perfectly good, in my view. The factorization comes down to the solution of Diophantine equations of a form to be established for each class of integer to be factorized. Solving Diophantine equations is not elementary maths. SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 12:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting Factorization/Integer/Binary remainders[edit source]

I have formatted this resource, because it seems to me that you wish to do certain things, but don't know how to do them. So I've done this to help you with the wikitext.

First of all, you may revert my changes. Go to the page, see the "View history" tab at the top, click on it, and after my edit, see an (Undo) link. You also have, from that screen, other options. You may view changes ("diff") with the (View) link. You may look at any version with the link that is the time and date of the change.

To undo a single changes, click on the (Undo) link after my edit summary, and then (Save Page) near the bottom of the screen.

However, because I missed some instances of "Equation N", I made more than one edit. To undo all of them, you would load your last version, click on the Edit link at the top, and then save it. This will overwrite all changes made after that version.

Because that history is there, and because your page isn't a discussion, but rather is your essay, you do not need to sign the page. It's there in history, including not only the time and date of every edit, but also the exact changes made. I suggest you blank those signatures. They simply confuse. However, if you do want to sign the page, you can sign it with just your user name (three tildes) or the name, time and date (four tildes). If you do want multiple signatures, you might want to put an asterisk before them, and place them in sequence at the bottom. That will display each signature with a bullet. I have done this with the three signatures you have there.

We do not know the screen size that viewers will be using, so you cannot push text to the right hand side of the screen with spaces. While it is possible to align text on the right, it's cumbersome. If you really want to do this, I can show you how.

Multiple spaces in wikitext are interpreted as if they are one space.

If there is a space at the beginning of a line, the line is interpreted in a special way.

This is text without a space at the beginning. But it has 10 spaces between the letters, A B.

The following is the same text, but with the space:

This is text without a space at the beginning. But it has 10 spaces between the letters, A          B.

Notice that the B is off the screen. Some of your formulas were like that.

I have instead indented them with a single colon. You may use multiple colons to increase the indent, if you like.

I have replaced the row of periods which you intended to be like a horizonatal dotted line. However, it will only display as a single dotted line on a particular sized screen. To create a horizontal rule, four hyphens does the trick.

You had placed Equation numbers to the right, having spaced them out, but as I point out above, the spaces were interpreted as a single space. I have, instead, used section headers for equations. I used a high-level section header ( with two equal signs on each side) for what appeared to be section headers in your text. I then used three equals for the first instance of Equation N, and four equals for the instance N.1.

As you can see, this also creates a table of contents for your essay, and you can, for example, jump to equation 6 from the top. I also provided intrapage links to the equations from the places where they are mentioned. That is an advantage of doing it this way. Those links show an initial #. That # display can be suppressed, but it requires repeating the same link text, after a | symbol. I decide that was more trouble than it was worth.

Now you may also edit each section separately, if you like. You do not have to load and edit the entire page.

You had placed a period in Equation references. This was confusing and unnecessary, I have eliminated it. It makes the links simpler, etc.

I hope you find the edit and comments helpful. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for page move[edit source]

I have a request. Would you please change the title: " Factorization/Integer/Binary remainders " to " Factorization/Integer/Deduction " . The word " Logic " could do in the place of the word " Deduction ", Unless you can think of something better. In Example [3] of the above title, the integer 742529 has been factored in just nine logical operations using elementary deduction. Compare this with one hundred and forty-eight long divisions to find the same result. Hence the need to change the title.

I am still trying to understand the computer terminology.SHAWWPG19410425 (discusscontribs) 15:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, simply understand how to edit discussions like this! This was a new topic. At the top of the page is a tab "Add topic." Press that tab and it will open an edit window. There is a field to add the title of the topic.
What you did was to edit the whole page, or the previous topic, and you placed your new text in the middle of my comment. That's considered rude. Don't worry! I know you are not skilled and don't mind, I simply fixed it, by moving your comment down and creating a new section header, as you can see in the wikitext (in the edit window).
When you are referring to a page, add double brackets around the name, so that it displays as a link, and a user may go directly too it. I've fixed that as well. Normally, we don't edit the comments of others, so I hope that's okay with you.
Now, as to your question. You may change a page title, but be sure it is what you want before you change it, because you will not be able to change it back easily. At the top of a page is a little down-arrow (I'm describing the default Vector interface, which, unless you have changed it in your preferences, is what you see), to the left of the search field. Press that arrow and you will see a command Move. "Moving" a page means changing the page name. Press that and a window will open up that allows you to move the page. There are some details there that might puzzle you. Especially new users sometimes change the "space" improperly. But if you simply leave that alone, it should be okay. Your page, you want moved, is in (Resource) space, which is the default. I.e., it has no space name.
Just change the page name! However, when you move a page, a "Redirect" will be left behind. I am going to move your page for you. Right now, if I look at this page, only the first name linked above is a blue link. The new name-to-be is a redlink, meaning that the page doesn't yet exist. You will see, after I've moved it, that both links are blue. If you click on the first one, you will be redirected to the old one. At the top, in small text, is a note that this was redirected. If you click on the link in that, you will then display the redirect page.
In the move, there is an option to move the attached Talk page. Keep that checked, because we don't want the Talk page in one place and the page it is about in another.
When moving a page, click on What links here while you are looking at the page to be moved. We want to avoid "double redirects." That is where a redirect points to a redirect. These don't work. So these links should be fixed. After the page move, look at the redirect page as described above, and find any references to it with What links here. Fix those links to point instead to the new page. When nothing is linked to the redirect, you may then have the redirect deleted if that is appropriate. You do that by placing a deletion tag at the top of the page. This is this {{delete|(reason)}} . For (reason) you give the reason. Such as "redirect not needed, no incoming links." A custodian will see this, may check to see that it's all okay, and will normally delete the page. It can sometimes take a few days, so be patient.
I will do all this for you. I'm just going to use the first name you suggested. It seems okay. Then, when I'm done, I'll take a look at the content! And thanks for working on Wikiversity resources. -- (unsigned by Abd, 2014)

Please don't sign paragraphs in your essay or at the end[edit source]

Factorization/Integer/Deduction is attributed to you as an essay or piece of original research. As an article of a kind, on a topic in mainspace, it should generally not be signed. It's all yours, at least for now. I am only doing copy editing. Do you know how to look at article history? The history tab at the top of the page will give you this display. From there, you can see all changes ever made to this page, and who made the change and when.

In a discussion, it matters who said what and when, so comments are signed. But when there is a product being worked on, whether along or in collaboration, the work is not, in the page, signed. You were adding a signature every time you edited the page, and it was making a big mess at the end, that meant nothing that can't be seen more clearly in history, where you can actually track down, if you want, precisely when a bit of text was introduced.

I don't know if you have been looking at the edit summaries. I've been asking you not to sign the page.[3][4], and now [5]. -- (unsigned by Abd, 2014)