User talk:Ryguasu
|
|
I just left a question on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Where_Mathematics_Comes_From that you might answer, if you have the time... --Kencomer 08:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Insider trading
Hi. I was the one who made the comment about market efficiency concerning "insider trading."
I read your comment on the insider trading talk page and just want to mention that I do agree with your comments -- the view I was representing on the help page was what I take to be the view of neo-classical economists (which I am not) who do define efficiency their own way, and do make the claims about markets, efficiency, and complete knowledge. I do agree with you that one can (and should) question both their definitions of efficiency, and the construction of a model that assumes total information. But I do think it is this model that is at least a partial basis for codes penalizing insider trading. Slrubenstein
-on NVN, etal. no, i dont think people with superiority complexes can get very far (in a genuinely democratic system at least) , and I appreciate your follow up. if my writing was ambiguous, it was somewhat deliberate, and done in the attempt to navigate the ambiguous reality behind NVN. Its a good article though, and taking on a cultural charachter, rather than a scientific one, because thats largely what NVN is, where science can deal with NVN as a serious issue, politicians (i.e. culture) et al, often latch onto the euphemism as if it were science.
The issue of genetic testing for employment - (insurance/health risk factors) is a very hot topic culturally, though superior thinkers, like Justice Breyer, et al, will see through it simply as a question of conflicting purposes - employer costs, vs employee privacy. Very, very ambiguous and murky stuff. But once again ive gone on too long.... --Sv
Logic
The Wikipedia articles on the laws of con-contradiction are not as clear as they could be. Would you mind taking a whack at our articles on Law of excluded middle and Law of non-contradiction? In particular, how could we give an example showing how the these are similar, and how they are diferent? Functionally, when are they practically identical? What examples can best show us when differences between these laws arise? RK 20:14 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, I was about to ask the same thing. I see you're interested in logic, could you have a look at bivalence and related laws? Specifically, do you know anything about fuzzy logic and the like? If so, have a look at the last section and see if what I've written is totally wrong. If you have time and feel so inclined, of course. :-) Evercat 00:12 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think you both overestimate my knowledge in this area. I do have an interest in logic, but I haven't found all that much time to pursue it. Perhaps I'll eventually get around to learning more about some of these fine distinctions and updating the articles. But no promises. --Ryguasu 03:54 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
unconscious
hi there -
in the "unconscious" article, you asked about contemporary psychoanalysis. there is quite a bit of it, mostly object relations and self psychology. some of the, how should i say, more "new agey" therapists also have pretty strong connections with psychoanalysis.
you may note in the article on the unconscious that i've added back the stuff on behaviourists - which is VERY relevant. also a reference to popper (noticed someone else pointed to him, too, in a different context).
and ... was quite delighted to see your name - recognized it as guarani right away. lived in paraguay for a few years myself. saying that i loved it there would be an understatement ...
isabella (morimom) - jan 2 2004
Nick stuff
Recalling our earlier, somewhat abortive discussion of the educational potentials or nonpotentials of wikis, what do you think of "wikigogy" as a general term? (And thus the even more entertaining "wikigogue") (I'm always happier when I can coin things.) Also, looking over the m:Wikiversity discussion, I'm wondering if maybe I shouldn't be considering the wiki as a vehicle for Freirean teacherless teaching...and whether that makes it more or less sexy.कुक्कुरोवाच ("Nick")
Re: The search for non-Chris-stupid Wiki discussion, how do you feel about the formatting at http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/SiteMap where each commenters comment gets a different shading and their picture?
- I don't see why you are referring me to this particular URL. I don't know what you mean by "the formatting", nor do I see different colors (basically everything is some shade of green) nor do I see anybody's pictures. Is my browser incompatible with CommunityWiki, or are you being incoherent, or am I missing the obvious, or what? --Ryguasu 00:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- You have to actually go to a page where there's discussion. here's one: http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/InternetBonding
Education reform
Okay, I've deleted some of the more egregious stuff, and I can fill in a certain amount of information about some areas of practical ed reform, especially in modern times, but there are huge structural problems with the article. Do you have any suggestions, as a consumer of this sort of information, about how it should be put together? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know anything about those things. Sorry. You could talk to Prof. Modell about it... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wow.
Are you familiar wtih Project Xanadu? Doubtless so, but I still had to make sure. I mean, wow. Wow. That is weird. Also amusing is: http://www.udanax.com/green/index.html -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also...
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/zigzag/xybrap.html is absolutely hilarious, and pertinent to our conversations on certain topics, I believe. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Holy shnap, batman
Whenever you're here next, consider this:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?action=browse&id=AnnoWiki&revision=29
It sounds like a considerable portion of what we were talking about in Wikibrowsing. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nietzsche and Will to Power
Hi, I left a response to your question (from January) on the Nietzsche discussion page. If you would like to discuss it more I'd be delighted. Otherwise, hope the answer helps. --DanielCD 15:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Can you help with the intro to the Fundamental category?
I saw your note about Lakoff's viewpoint for categories; you may be able to fill in an introductory paragraph in the :Category:Fundamental page. I am not skilled in the thought processes required to categorize something, and I am searching for someone who is. Today, the 'Wikipedia:Browse by category' is the primary portal to enter the article namespace for Wikipedia. The top of this page is the :Category:Fundamental. Many of the other categories are obvious, such as Category:Nature and the Nature article is a nice introduction to Wikipedia.
However, the Category:Fundamental is another story. We need an expert who can advise others how to categorize articles or perhaps how to find the illuminating connections between articles. Any perspective you have on this would be appreciated. Ancheta Wis 00:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
anti-foundationalism is...
I just saw your addition to your main user page. What is it that your are? Why don't you like foundations? Puzzled, I am. P0M 22:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This raises the actually not-unserious problem that Wikipedia doesn't have an Anti-Foundationalism article. However, the short answer is that Ryguasu being anti-foundationalist means that he opposes Foundationalism; that article should make reasonably clear what is meant by its contrary. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What's even more disconcerting is that, googling Anti-Foundationalism, UGP's entry (http://kukkurovaca.objectis.net/ugp/AntiFoundationalism) on the subject comes up on the first page of results. Ouch. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
- Just created a stub for anti-foundationalism. I'm turning this innocent comment on a third-party discussion page into my own little thing, aren't I? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also...
What do you think about Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards? My own thoughts are mixed -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Force Dynamics
Hi Ryguasu,
I noticed that you have been contributing to articles related to Cognitive linguistics. I wonder wether you might be able to take a look at Force Dynamics. It has been listed on Requests for peer review for quite some time now, but no-one has commented, which I think is due to the fact that there are not much people here who are interested or knowledgeable in this area. Maybe you could comment on it and suggest improvements? — mark ✎ 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for contacting me. I'm going to leave your message here for a while as a reminder to me, but I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able to contribute to Force Dynamics. For one thing I don't seem to be finding much time for Wikipedia these days and for another I've only done some pretty mild dabbling in Cognitive Linguistics. (I alternate between thinking they've hit the nail on the head and thinking they'll all insane.) But we'll see; maybe the bar is so low that any help would be a great help. =)
- Thanks in advance — take it easy.
One thing I'll say now is that I think the language maps you've made look very neat. And another is that I'm interested in your efforts to make the linguistics articles less Indo-European-centric. I'm not exactly sure what this latter project entails, but I have definitely noticed that English-speaking linguists don't seem to have too much interest in non-Indo-European languages. Hell, many of them have no interest in studying anything except English! Ryguasu/Chris
- Thanks for your kind words regarding the maps! Some of those languages are rather obscure, so I'm glad that they are noticed. As for the Countering Systemic Bias Project, I think that your characterization hits the nail on the head. And that is bad, since empirical tunnelvision leads to bad theory.
- Anyhow, good luck in the things you have to do. — mark ✎ 01:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there a category for articles that need improvement
Hi,
I just ran across an article that is in pretty drastic need of improvement -- written by a techie type I guess, but so opaque that I have now way to make it mean anything to the average well-informed reader. Is there a way of calling people's attention to this kind of article? Thanks. P0M 00:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi There,
Here are two options: First, you could go to the article's "talk page" (by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of the page when you're viewing the article), and post your request for clarification there. Anyone who is "watching" the page (i.e., who is getting automatically informed of updates to the page) should see your comment, and hopefully one of them would reply. This is definitely an accepted Wikipedia practice. Second, you could go to Wikipedia:Reference_desk, and ask your question there. I'm not quite as confident that that is the socially appropriate place to ask your question (I haven't been using Wikipedia much lately), but you might be more likely to get a response there than in the first option. Perhaps you should try the first approach and then, if that doesn't help, try the second.
--Ryguasu 00:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, here's a better idea: try Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. --Ryguasu 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ryguasu,
I notice that your situation can be characterized as Not-Well posed problems or Ill-Posed problems in Partial Differential Equations. If you want to work with computers then I suggest that you look into finite machine design or Theory of Computation. It is about writing Input/Output models.
Benjamin Cuong P. Nghiem bcnghiem@hotmail.com