User talk:Tamfang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ditrigonary polyhedra

Hi Anton, if you'd like to use your editing skills or geometry knowledge, seeing a couple dead links I added a new article: ditrigonary polyhedra. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus Project talk-page

Hi, I'm messaging you as one of three most recent talk-page contributors to The_Venus_Project. I seem to be having difficulty reaching a consensus with another editor on the talk-page at Talk:The_Venus_Project#Info_on_split_with_Zeitgeist. In case the article might not be on your watchlist and you might still be interested in the topic, I wanted to bring the discussion to your attention (in the hopes of getting a third, informed opinion). Best, startswithj (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

JE's "crime"

Hi. I've replied to your comment on my talk page there. DOwenWilliams (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bitruncated tesseract stereographic (tT).png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

{∞,3} variations

Hi Anton, I'm thinking about the Hexagonal_tiling_honeycomb, {6,3,3} and also existence of {7,3,3} which has {7,3} "cells" that never converge at infinity. So I'm thinking the only equivalent in 2D would be like order-3 apeirogonal tiling {∞,3} created with an edge length somewhat too long, so it diverges at infinity. But then I wondered what happens if the edge-length is too short - maybe this causes overlapping faces, so each apeirogon is self-intersecting?! So I was curious if your script could show those variations? Also it might be more visible in a triangle family with 3 colors, like File:H2 tiling iii-7.png. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the first case, yes, I suppose I could move the ideal vertex to an arbitrary point "outside" the horizon.
What would distinguish the latter case from {N,3} with N large but finite (and perhaps fractional)? —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the later case apparently just becomes a star polygon with, in general, infinite intersections! Tom Ruen (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, Tom's talking irrationally. —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
At your convenience, if you'd like to try the first case, or a sequence of values, I'd love to see it. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried [∞,beyond] and got junk; the checker pattern is quadrants. I'll try again later. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, I put the wrong sign on the last mirror. —Tamfang (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded your emailed example (1.1) as File:H2 tiling 2iu-7.png, so compares to File:H2 tiling 2ii-7.png except for the center shift. If you'd like to replace it with a 2520 pixel version, it would be great! (and others in 2iu family (2-6, and checker), and 23u, 23u families!) At your convenience, thanks! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
p.s. Norman Johnson uses Coxeter diagram branch iπ/λ to represent ultraparallel mirrors, separated by length λ. The imaginary value transforms a mirror angles to a hyperbolic form, causing cos(π/n) = cos(πλ/(iπ)) = cosh(2λ) or something like that. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I see – given the unit normals to two lines (in the hyperboloid model), their dot product if they intersect is ±cos(θ), and if they're ultraparallel it's ±cos(iλ), i.e. ±cosh(λ). So henceforth I'll make π/λ an integer. —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Close I think, not sure what integer means. See Norman's book, G&T ch11, p.141. He calls [iπ/λ] a pseudogonal group (like [p] is p-gonal group, integer p), generated by 2 diverging mirror in the hyperbolic plane, with λ separation between real mirrors, or "period" between ultraparallel infinite set of virtual mirrors. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I will henceforth choose λ from { π/n | n∈Z }. Is that clearer? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think! I haven't thought about what λ values to pick for various groups. Like beyond [3,∞], if you want to say group [3,iπ/λ], you can say [3,i*n]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Thank you for your note about when to use the Talk page for each article. I have been using the Talk page to note each and every change I have done to that article, but if I do not need to use the Talk page to note minor changes, this will save me a lot of work. Thanks.

Transcendentalist01 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Iris cat.jpg

Thanks for your help with how and when to use the Talk page on articles that I edit. I have been noting each and every edit I have made on the Talk page because I thought that that was what people were supposed to do. Not using the Talk page when I make minor edits is going to save me a lot of work!

Transcendentalist01 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Name is Nobody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


My experience is that once you reach the hardcore followers of Karl Marx or Ayn Rand you have moved into the realm of heterodox economics - that is, people for whom economics is more a matter of faith than an empirical discipline. I'm quite open to new ideas, but I generally try to avoid getting caught up in conversations with people whose view of economics is conditioned by their political or philosophical outlook. As it happens, I'm deeply regretting contributing to the current discussion on the Reference Desk; I usually try not to contribute anything to Wikipedia in economics precisely because there is such a huge gap between academic economists and lay opinion, and I certainly shan't be making this mistake again. I don't really enjoy teaching unwilling students, unfortunately, and I feel that Wikipedia should be something I do for fun, not as something that's too much like work! Have a good weekend. RomanSpa (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's futile to mention that Roderick Long is not (as far as I know) even a soft follower of either Marx or Rand; or that his "zaxlebax" speech is not so much about economics as about political language. —Tamfang (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you're being disingenuous here: our article about him clearly states that he is an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. He's also a "scholar" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in company with a wide selection of other crackpots - Samuel T. Francis, Paul Gottfried, Gary North, Murray Rothbard, Joseph Sobran, Clyde N. Wilson and Ron Paul. It should be instantly obvious to you from Long's activities and interests that he is not a serious economist, but has a specific political agenda (and not, I can see, a particularly pleasant one). RomanSpa (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
One can study or even admire a philosopher without following her, and I'm pretty sure Rand would disown Long if she knew him. Still, okay, you can have that point. And I agree that the LvMI is a bit dodgy; but, y'know, guilt by association?
If you think libertarians are necessarily crackpots and our aim (de-legitimizing the systematic threat of violence as an organizing principle) "unpleasant", I won't bother you further. —Tamfang (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that these people are fairly obviously crypto-racists and crypto-anti-semites - indeed, in some cases we don't even need the "crypto-" designation. Further, my experience is that virtually all libertarians turn out to be crackpots, or at the very least do not apply evidence-based techniques correctly in their pursuit of economic understanding. Amongst my colleagues it's easy to find people who have changed their minds about this or that aspect of economic theory - I've done it myself often (at least once on a very significant issue in financial economics which changed my stance on a whole area of regulatory theory), as the evidence guides me - but I haven't met any "heterodox" economist (Marxist, Georgist, Randian etc.) who has. This strikes me as evidence that they're more interested in economics as a function of their political views, and this tends to be supported by the fact that most of them tend not to have studied economics as a serious academic discipline. It's very frustrating. Of course, it's not an experience unique to this field: in mathematics there are the circle-squarers, in physics there are the aether advocates, in meteorology there are the climate change denialists, and unlucky biology has to deal with literally millions of swivel-eyed loons. What all these groups have in common is that when you show them evidence from the real world that counters their position they respond not by changing their minds, but by saying "Yes, but...". To question evidence once or twice, and to check one's facts, is sensible: to continue to hold beliefs in the face of strong evidence to the contrary is the hallmark of the crackpot. Sadly, my experience of libertarians is that they are not susceptible to reasoned debate, but cling to their particular truisms. In this respect, my experience of libertarianism is that it's more like a religion than a valuable school of thought. Sorry, but that's my experience. RomanSpa (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly there are racists with their own version of libertarianism, and libertarians not too proud to ally with them; and most libertarians defend a right to bigotry in one's private affairs. But for an essentially antisemitic movement it reveres a remarkable number of Jews, e.g. Mises and Rand and Rothbard; a large fraction of the people I knew in my Party days are/were homosexual; and no true libertarian accepts bigotry in the public sector.
(One of my old chums wrote an intentionally silly anti-government rant that eventually turned up on White Power websites. It's great fun to tell such webmasters that the author was a gay Jewish anarchist, though I never got a reply.)
When we say that repealing vast amounts of legislation would be good for Blacks, feel free to take it as evidence of cryptoracism.
As for economics, I am in no position to comment on the intellectual honesty of people I don't know in a field I don't know. Probably most people see every field through their own ideological filters; to some degree one must, because one cannot understand a complex matter without a theory. Perhaps you even know someone who filters out evidence that conflicts with a theory that you share; would you notice such a person? —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
My remark about racists and anti-semites was meant to refer specifically to the people I named earlier. I certainly didn't mean to imply any kind of generality. As for the reverence for some jewish people, there's nothing particularly odd about the cognitive dissonance that allows people to respect individuals from one group whilst still disliking the group as a whole. The point is that there are plenty of libertarians who are bigots or accept bigotry, as your reference to Scotsmen clearly accepts.
My more general point, though, is that libertarians are not, in my experience, "reasonable". By this I mean that they are not susceptible to reason. Of course there are such people in other political parties too - pretty much all communists, in my experience, the vast bulk of socialists, almost all greens, many conservatives and UK liberals, and all tea-partiers. There is, however, a sort of filtering effect that happens: "activists" tend to be largely unreasonable, but as you go further up the hierarchy these types tend to be winnowed out - the skills needed to progress in politics tend to be those of compromise and conciliation - and by the time you reach people who actually have governmental power there are more who will look at evidence rather than dogma. This tends to happen because once you're in government you have to actually do the job right, rather than just following your particular -ism. If libertarian politicians were ever elected in large numbers, they would quickly be decried by the "grass roots" for their impurity as they tried to actually get things done. A good recent example of this is the Tea Party, where activists regularly accuse the very people they've elected of ideological drift once they get to Washington. The reason I generally try not to waste too much time discussing anything serious with libertarians (or communists, etc.) is that there's no susceptibility to empirical evidence or careful thought. Perhaps if some libertarians got into power a few ambitious young people would join the libertarian party as a possible route to power - such people are much less likely to be doctrinaire, I've found - but there's little sign of that happening right now.
On the question of knowing people who ignore evidence against a theory that we share, I'm happy to say that I know many, and debate with them is one of my greatest pleasures. Of course there are some people who have particular unalterable beliefs, and I generally try to avoid those, but there's not much better than saying to someone "Have you read so-and-so's latest paper on X?" This generally allows me to have a very smug conversation with them a few days later, as they re-balance the weight they ascribe to different pieces of evidence. The downside of this, of course, is that from time to time people will say the same thing to me, and it's usually not pleasant to have to admit that I've got something wrong, or that I've not placed enough weight on something. (To be honest, I'll usually resist for a couple of weeks, before grudgingly conceding that "actually, they do have a point". One good thing is when you find a good-sized methodological failure in the relevant paper, as it can lead to an interesting new research area, or, at the least, a nit-picking letter to a journal.)
I suppose if I met a libertarian and he genuinely wanted to discuss economics at a level beyond sloganeering I'd suggest (after recovering from the shock) that he start by putting all his existing economic beliefs to one side and take a couple of degrees in the subject from a respectable school, with a focus on quantitative methods. At that point the basic errors of gold buggery, anarcho-capitalism and fair trade should have been ironed out! RomanSpa (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There exist libertarian Fair Trade fanatics?? —Tamfang (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
By now you've spent more time telling me why you won't waste your time on cranks than you'd have spent reading or listening to Long's essay about political language. Don't think I'm not grateful for the attention. —Tamfang (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah. I did look at it, and have just done so again. It struck me as being entirely uninteresting - some sophomoric (I'm using this word whilst being aware of its pejorative meaning because the alternative - "dull" - might not convey to you the idea that it's merely the shallow reasoning of an average undergraduate in a Friday afternoon tutorial, but just make you think it's not personally interesting to me) philosophy of language stuff (including the zaxlebax stuff, which JL Austin and others have already dealt with much better), and a lot of debate about terms. There was nothing of economic interest, and little that appeared to be evidence-based. The impression for me was rather the same as attempting to read some Deconstruction. Again, I am guided by my experience, which is that documents of that kind tend to lead to endless debates and holy wars among adherents of the faith, but don't really address any real-world issues.
As for my devoting time to this, you should by now have worked out some aspects of my character. One, which I strongly dislike in myself but find immensely difficult to change, is a terrible arrogance that believes that if I only keep talking long enough I can win everyone to my position (partly because I like winning arguments and partly because I genuinely believe that if people follow an open-minded empiricist approach they will tend to agree). Another is that I perseverate in hopeless cases, which costs me a lot of time. So there we are! RomanSpa (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"I know you've heard this a thousand times, but the important thing is that you haven't yet heard it from me." —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Hi, thanks for the further explanation of the use of the Talk pages. Because of your help, I have been using the Edit Summary instead of the Talk pages, for the most part, because my edits have been fairly small.

Transcendentalist01 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License