User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2017/

381:

contradiction. I must admit that for a very mysterious reason why I have a vested interest in seeing someone find a perfect box. Around '96 or '97 a mystery person emailed me hinting at the existence of a Perfect Euler Brick. They never gave me a real name. Their hints contained enough mathematical jargon that I did not immediately dismiss their claims. Our email exchanges only lasted for a month or so. In one email, that I sent around my birthday on October 28th, the mystery person claimed to have that same birthday. They claimed that the sides of the Perfect Euler Brick measured in the Quintrillions (that's a detail that has remained with me since then, as it is oddly specific). If they are right, then probably no computer search will finish. Of course, the conversation left me a little deflated, as I had hoped to be the first. So if ultimately if someone proves non existence, then my chains were being yanked or if someone finds it I think that the answer will be the quintrillions. For better or worse, I am scanning old files trying to see if I saved the hints, but it looks like I didn't. Time has erased from my memories those hints. So I definitely prefer that someone finds one, so that I wasn't being duped.

933:

you at some point might want to see if you can find a native English speaker to help you edit the article for grammar and idiom. (You might also run the article through a spell-checker.) Third, I think you should consider the comments from other users about merging this article with another one -- sometimes it really does make more sense to explain extremely closely related concepts together, rather than in separate articles. This is particularly the case if it means you can attract more editors to work collaboratively with you, in the cooperative spirit of WP. Finally, I do not think the introductory paragraph currently does a good job of summarizing the contents of the article -- there are some claims made there that are not anywhere in the body (and maybe are not supportable by sources), and the next-to-last sentence doesn't really seem to have anything to do with ERF at all.

371:

is that he posted it on the archive, so that should anyone else use his results and discover a proof, he can claim co author credit (although that's risky, since if anyone else who comes up with a valid proof based on that particular parametric formula may not be ethically obligated to give him credit.) That's why I don't understand his publishing on the archive, he runs the definite risk of someone stealing his thunder (so to speak) by completing the proof. However, it's just my opinion that his parametric formula will not generate all Euler Bricks. The existence of a parametric formula that generates all Euler Bricks may actually be an unresolvable question. I too am thinking that I have a limited amount of energy to devote to this question, so if I do bring it to a larger audience I will certainly send you a link with no obligation to participate.

351:

be missing, actually is missing. I also read the Rathbun posting, but I did not find its summary particularly convincing, as it also seemed to avoid the relevant issue. (I don't think anyone doubts that Wyss, who is obviously not a crank, can correctly manipulate algebraic equations, after all.) So, I agree with all your qualms, and would prefer that Knowledge (XXG) report only that there is a claimed proof and a claimed verification, not that the question is settled, until the proof is published. (Is there any reason to believe that the proof actually has been submitted to a journal, incidentally?) I would be happy to add my comments to this effect to any talk page where you think it would be helpful, although I think I've decided that I have only a limited amount of energy to devote to this particular question.

880:, sorry for the delayed response. It is redundant in the sense that both give elementary constructions of prime gaps of arbitrarily large size, and are otherwise not important. The primorial construction has one advantage: it finds the gap much earlier. However, it is not optimal in any sense, so it's not clear why that matters much. I agree with you that the simpler n! construction has an obvious advantage that it's easier to understand. (I also think it's probably easier to find supporting citations for.) I am not likely to have time to do this in the next few days, but I think it would be better to replace the primorial argument with the factorial argument, at a similar level of detail (and with a citation if possible). I still think it's silly to have both appearing together. -- 123:, no apologies needed. I am totally overwhelmed in real life at the moment and so not prepared to engage in a substantive way with you about this, so let me throw out a few quick thoughts: this is an encyclopedia article, so what would be even better than a proof would be a reference to a proof in a textbook or something equivalent. I am very skeptical that two proofs of this result are needed, let alone an additional proof in a slightly more general setting. That said, including extra proofs is certainly not the worst sin committed in math articles in WP. If I had time I might take a swing at editing it myself, but I think realistically that is not going to happen any time soon. 308:

mathematics journal. Now, on an email server, a man named Randall Rathbun has announced that he believes Dr Wyss's proof to be correct. This has led other editors to reinstate some of the changes that declare that the question has been answered mostly because they believe that Rathbun's assertion is a reliable source confirming the proof. I have a B.S. degree in Applied Mathematics from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and an M.S degree in Mathematics from the University Of Arizona. I've long had an interest in this problem. So as you might imagine, I decided to read Dr Wyss's paper.

1102:, I am glad that you are pleased with how the arXiv paper is doing on Google. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to try to promote a new preprint by repeatedly linking to it in Knowledge (XXG). Also, you surely know as well as I do that arXiv is not a publisher, it is a preprint repository, and the fact that work appears there is not a particular indication of correctness, importance, or acceptance by the community. (Of course, the same is true for my own arXiv postings as well as yours!) -- 2420:

second is that you dropped your image in at seemingly random locations in the articles, without any sense of how it fit into the larger article. Possibly the articles you were editing would benefit from additional examples; but if so, those examples need to appear in a sensible place in the text, related to what comes before and after. If you find a place in an article where an extra example would be helpful, I'm sure I or someone else could help with any formatting issues.

709: 38: 320:

mathematical journal. It seems there are other editors who disagree. Since you seemed to be one of the editors who was hesitant to allow the edits until publication of the proof, I am writing to you. I think we need to bring this to the attention of the larger community of mathematics editors in order to see if we can reach consensus not about the validity of the proof but about its inclusion before traditional verification.

2524: 2211:

there would be no problems with the Reference Desks at all if StuRat was blocked from editing it (and perhaps Baseball Bugs, but one problem at a time). Now that we've gone so far as to vote to delete them entirely, maybe it is time to do something about StuRat specifically. I don't want the RDs to disappear but they obviously can't go on like this. I'll start a report, if you're on board.

262:, thanks for your response. On one hand, Bona is certainly an expert in the area and I trust his assessment on something like this. On the other hand, an audience report of what someone said in an unrecorded conference talk is of course not acceptable as a reliable source on WP. What was the conference? Perhaps we can track a proper source down. -- 2083:. Yes, I see your point. I guess the ultimate issue here is that the "correct" notion of big O for multivariate functions is not necessarily clear, which explains why this example is possible, and perhaps also why that section of the article is in pretty poor shape. I would not object if you restored your text to the article. 1364:

assumed to take a positive number of steps, you can find a relevant reliable source and add a small comment about it somewhere unobtrusive in the body of the article. On the other hand, changing the well sourced and correct theorem statement to something weaker because you think you are clever is a terrible idea.

201:

I do not think pedantry is relevant. Instead, it appears that you have invented a false theory about the relationship of word placement to meaning. Placing "only" at the end of a sentence is an artificial and stilted construction; it has the ring of sentences constructed by new learners of English,

370:

Joel thank you for the quick reply. I am glad to know someone shares my doubts about the proof. I don't know why he wouldn't submit it to a journal first, since it is a well known problem so credit for solving it will certainly enhance anyone's reputation. So my guess is that he hasn't. My guess

350:

I only glanced over the Wyss paper, but my impression was the same as yours. In fact my initial feeling was that no proof like this could possibly be correct, for exactly the reasons you mention. But as I say, I have not read the thing carefully enough to confirm that what appears superficially to

311:

As far as I understand the essence of Dr Wyss's proof is that he starts with a parametric formula for Rational Leaning Cuboids (that since an Euler Brick is a special case of a Rational Leaning Cuboid) and proves that his parametric formula cannot produce a perfect rational cuboid. I did not see an

2234:

is another person who explicitly called for blocking him, but surely many of the references to a small number of problematic users are about him. I would certainly support a serious attempt to make it happen. My beef is particularly about the mathematics desk (the only part of RD that I frequent)

1358:

Don't be an ass. If you think functions being 0 is allowable in this context then the only reasonable definition of big theta allows 0 constants, with 0 big theta of everything. If you don't think 0 constants are allowed then you are tacitly admitting that you live in a world where the 0 function

932:

I have a few comments for you about the article. First, as you've expanded it, it has come to resemble more and more a section of a textbook. This is not the goal of Knowledge (XXG), and it's something you should keep in mind as you work on it. Second, your mastery of English is not perfect, and

619:

Hi Joel, I read your notes on the Abby Johnson page. I disagree with your argument about the term "anti-abortion." While it is an accurate term to describe the pro-life movement, it has far narrower a meaning, and is much more negative than the preferred umbrella term of "pro-life." Being pro-life

94:

Thanks for the revert on the absolute convergence article. My apologies for wasting your time! I read the proof in a sloppy manner and deleted it while it was quite valid (although the WLOG required some clarification). I added a few lines to the beginning of the proof. Hope you don't mind the

1363:

when he was an undergraduate is a particularly nice demonstration of how misplaced your condescension is. (As if the title of a blog were evidence of something! I can't believe I'm actually writing this.) If you think it is really, really, really important to note that algorithms generally are

2419:

Unfortunately I do not think your image is suitable for Knowledge (XXG). One reason is that it makes no sense to write a bunch of text, put it in an image, and then put that image as an illustration in an article: the text of Knowledge (XXG) articles should be written as text, not as images. A

2210:

Hi Joel, in response to your comment on the Village Pump vote, I suppose it might be worthwhile to open another case about StuRat at ANI. The last time I did that, it was kind of a joke, but maybe if I treated it seriously other people would take it seriously as well. I do sincerely believe that

510:

Hi Joel, I do not see what the problem is with including glycomics in the introduction. I am a chemical biologists working in the field of glycomics and it is a very important field which is gaining light recently. In fact, big universities all over USA and Europe have a carbohydrate or glycomic

1041:

might be an excellent one; if so, it will be adopted and studied more widely in the relevant academic community, papers about it will be published by authors other than its inventors, and it will become possible to write a well sourced article on the topic and link it from other Knowledge (XXG)

315:

These possibilities exist: 1. I am incorrectly characterizing his logic, and have real egg on my face. 2. It has already been proven the the parametric formula does produce all rational cuboids, and he referenced it and I missed it, or didn't feel he needed to reference it. 3 It hasn't been

242:

edit you asked for the source of the statement about what the mathematical community believed. It was from a plenary conference talk by Miklos Bona. I have no idea if the background history is in the literature anywhere as permutations are not my field of study so I don't read their literature.

1120:

It's good to see that the topic is closed in 'WikiProject Mathematics'. But, our guys are worried about the image of the technology. Due to the fact that it was misunderstanding (not spamming), could you be so kind to change the title 'Aggressive spamming of a recent arXiv posting, "decision

307:

I'm contacting you because I noticed that you reverted the edit to the Euler Brick article because of the recent change related to a paper by Dr Wyss that purports to demonstrate that no perfect Euler Brick can exist. I agreed with this edit, since Dr Wyss's paper has not been published in a

380:

I was first introduced to this problem in the late 80s. I have been thinking about how to solve it off and on since then (obviously with no result). I've tried to computer searches as well as attempts at proof of non-existence. A proof of non-existence will probably have to be a proof by

319:

None of my analysis matters for a Knowledge (XXG) article (unless I am considered an authority and post my analysis to a mailing list), but I am just pointing out a serious concern. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that we should revert these edits until his proof has been published in a

853:

page: "An arbitrarily large prime gap of size n can always be found starting at (n+1)!-(n+1)." You said that this was redundant. However, it's a simple observation about finding a specifically-sized prime gap in a specific location. And this prime gap is easier to compute than the one at

2536:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1515:

Hello. On the MDPI page, I noticed your revert and of course your question in the edit history. I answered it on the article's talk page because I am guessing other editors who work in the Academic Journals area would also be wondering about it. Here is the diff for that section

857:

Maybe saying "Another prime gap of size n can be found starting at (n+1)!-(n+1)" would be acceptable? (It's different because P# is different that n! - and P# is also harder to calculate than n!). Do you think that's a different enough observation to include in the article?

620:

also includes supporting life from conception to natural death. This would also include the death penalty and assisted suicide. While Abby's main focus is on the abortion industry, it is not fair to disregard other parts of the movement by using the term "anti-abortion."

2594:

If I look to the list of your contributions, I can see that lately most of your contributions are just 'REVERTS'. Would you consider to be little more constructive with your criticism and improve the contributions instead of just reverting things which you do not like?

1538:

Hello. You reverted my addition to the section of the Big O notation page about a definition for multiple variables. If I understand your rationale correctly, you are saying that we get the same behavior in the univariate case. But I do not think this is true. If

810:. I reviewed the section and removed one statement that appeared to be referenced to a blog. The rest of it looked strongly sourced to me. I wanted to let you know because you've done a lot of recent, (and good,) work on cleaning up that section. Thanks! 1289:

0 is big theta of everything (with constants 0). But even if it weren't, this is a stupid and uninteresting boundary case and the correct way to resolve it would be to somewhere make sure the technical hypotheses include that either f or T is positive.

2602:

that "This is an alternative point of view, the previous solution is combining probability of events .... and this solution is getting just one probability by dividing amount of unique ways by total amount of possible ways when they can have birthday!"

1453:

The relevant sentence is "If in doubt, ask the editor in question to update their own post, or add a follow-up comment of your own suggesting the alternative link." The context is a user who obviously does not want you to edit their post, and who was

2106:

Okay, and thanks for the tip. I'm still getting acquainted with Knowledge (XXG) editing practice. But yes, if the section did not treat this particular definition as primary, I wouldn't necessarily care as much about including this caveat.

312:

error in his mathematics but I have a very serious question about his proof. In his proof he does not show that his parametric formula produces ALL rational Cuboids. If it does not, he cannot conclude that no perfect Euler Brick exists.

2468:, no apologies necessary -- I hope you will continue to add to Knowledge (XXG)! It is definitely true that many mathematics articles need good examples added -- but it can take some time to get used to the culture here. All the best, 539:

We are in the Internet, after all, and one of its vital parts is the possibility to link to content from anywhere around the world. (That's also why we have the 'H' in HTML.) With your revert you destroy the possibility for all users:

146:

You can reasonably argue that I am being pedantic, but I like to place the word "only" near the word or words that are being restricted, despite that colloquial English is more forgiving. We have several possibilities here for the

1028:, you have recently been posting references to a single paper across a wide variety of Knowledge (XXG) pages. Unfortunately, this behavior is not in accordance with the rules and policies of Knowledge (XXG). To quote 1490:

After being told to "leave my posts alone"? You've got a serious problem, then. Also, to remove all possibility of misunderstanding going forward, you are not welcome to post further comments here on this subject.

2564: 167:

elements a and b". In this case we have an elemental nature only. We are excluding the possibility that multisets contain insert-noun-here a and b, when insert-noun-here is other than "elements", e.g.,

159:

contain elements a and b". In this case we have containment only. We are excluding the possibility that the multisets insert-verb-here the elements, when insert-verb-here is other than "contain", e.g.,

1001:

The efficiency/uniqueness of Decision stream technique was demonstrated in the several labs. Could you be so kind to revert you last changes related to this topic (or inform us and we'll restore text).

2386:

This is saying how to solve any system of linear equations with the orthogonal complement I think it's a good application of the orhogonal complement. Please consider again include that image Thanks

2548:. 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 2491:? I think that you don't appreciate that example. Don't worry the article is okay without that image. In the other hand I agree with you on the first reason. Thanks for your advice. All the best. 779: 733: 2259:

we have StuRat inventing terminology in response to a question asking for standard names. Please let me know if/when you file; I will gladly add my own summary of his contributions to RD/MA. --

1258: 347:(I hope you don't mind, I have removed some blank spaces in your message so that I can more easily scan it while I respond. If this bothers you, please feel free to change it back.) 577:, I am not happy with the state of the article after your edit, but it is easy enough to preserve the aspects you like while also making myself happy, so I will do that now. Best, 2243:

discussion involves StuRat requesting information about someone's medical history (!!) while giving deeply inappropriate personal advice on a subject about which he is not expert;

1937: 2055: 2016: 443:

Sorry Joel, mistaken edit submitted while I was still working on something. I appear no longer to have a Sandbox, any ideas at how to test and work on edits before submission?

2255:

a question asker had to explain to StuRat that a math problem inspired by a military analogy requested a mathematical solution rather than inventing military strategies; and

2278: 1686: 1660: 1790: 1758: 1872: 1831: 1342: 1206: 1607: 1572: 1180: 511:

research center. For example, UCSD, Harvard, Emory, Johns Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic, Imperial College London etc. I will not undo the change but I leave it to you.

2612:

And I personally believe that excel example is much more useful and easier to understand and to play with to general population than the plain table with values.

1977: 1957: 1726: 1706: 2251:

we have two comments that show a total failure to understand the important parts of the problem (though at least the rambling was limited to two short posts);

1071:

on arXiv - currently in the top rate of Google search. Looks like you the only man in the world, who actively moves against this idea supported by community.

669: 2381: 2057:, at least under the definition stated in the article. Please let me know if I have misunderstood you or what I have not explained clearly. Thanks. 1404: 2371: 466:

you will be at the page ] (currently non-existent, so you will have to add some content). But in fact you do seem to have an extant sandbox,

2133:

about partial derivative expressions. You said there about some other concerning beside the nonstandard ratio variable to be held constant (x

960: 665: 2487:". Drop an example after a definition do you really think it is without any sense?. The image at gallery too? Do you prefer drop it on the 2578: 978:

that section to alert Widr to the behavior of a non-logged-in user who Widr had recently blocked. What is the point of these queries? --

910:. It feels you are good in math. Could you please have a look on article we are working on and give us few hints how can we improve it? 220:

I disagree on several points, but I've already put my best case forward and you did not find it convincing. Let's just do it your way.

1086: 1009: 2176: 2146: 2630: 2376:

I think it's better to keep the image on that page because if a student looks at the picture maybe he see what it's suggesting:

2252: 2247:

we have aimless incoherent ramblings being posted after a question has been entirely answered, with reference, by another user;

2574: 2506: 2453: 2401: 2240: 635: 2557: 662:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2256: 2248: 2244: 77: 829:, I appreciate the note. I agree that the sourcing of the statement you removed is weak. Thanks for the kind words! -- 1400: 896: 2079:

Apologies for the delayed response and thank you for the comment (although perhaps it would have been better placed on

2569: 2488: 1147:...takes zero time for every recombination step, and if further the elementary operation can be done in no time (ie. 650:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

467: 463: 45: 2142: 956: 2145:. (In order to attach a scanned page from that textbook containing formula, is it necessary to be registered?)-- 2545: 68:

Thanks for manually "mass-reverting" all those individual article insertion vandalisms recently by that IP...

2279:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat.27s_behaviour_on_the_Reference_Desks_.28again.29

1396: 1082: 2657: 2473: 2428: 2315: 2264: 2195: 2093: 1496: 1463: 1376: 1295: 1107: 1054: 1013: 983: 885: 834: 765: 613: 599: 582: 564: 493: 475: 448: 424: 361: 267: 210: 131: 2626: 2618: 2494: 2441: 2389: 1392: 1074: 1005: 623: 2230:, I think there is clearly a large body of people who think that StuRat is extremely problematic -- I see 2180: 2150: 1479: 1441: 1359:

is not allowed. These technicalities are not interesting or important, and linking to a blog by a person

1211: 787: 746: 106: 2239:

answer is utterly unrelated to the question, which had already been completely answered by someone else;

2649: 2341: 2286: 2216: 1524: 1097: 1078: 1025: 951:

Did you block Widr or are you not an administrator or did you just add == IP you block == on purpose? --

2643: 2622: 1208:, borrowing the notation of the article), the algorithm has zero running time, and is in ptic. not in 23: 2168: 1877: 1349: 1314: 1280: 1265: 1038: 952: 877: 866: 862: 395: 330: 2532: 2498: 2465: 2445: 2413: 2393: 2021: 1982: 627: 2502: 2449: 2397: 2164: 2080: 1133: 651: 631: 54: 17: 2541: 2653: 2469: 2424: 2311: 2260: 2191: 2172: 2108: 2089: 2073: 2058: 1665: 1612: 1492: 1459: 1372: 1291: 1103: 1050: 979: 915: 905: 881: 830: 761: 595: 591: 578: 574: 560: 516: 489: 471: 459: 444: 420: 357: 263: 221: 206: 195: 180: 127: 2130: 1763: 1731: 1122: 714:

Thank you for quality contributions to articles on math based on scientific background, such as

708: 2600:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Birthday_problem&diff=817764354&oldid=810618335

1473: 1435: 815: 783: 757: 742: 685: 287: 248: 120: 102: 73: 2553: 1836: 1795: 1037:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an appropriate venue to publicize brand-new research. The concept of

807: 2380: 2337: 2305: 2282: 2227: 2212: 2112: 2062: 1520: 1327: 1185: 806:

A complaint about the negative nature of the Climate Change section of this BLP was made at

282:]. Unfortunately as far as I know they don't publish the presentations or slides from them. 225: 184: 2661: 2634: 2582: 2556:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2549: 2510: 2477: 2457: 2432: 2405: 2345: 2319: 2290: 2268: 2235:-- here are a few examples of terrible answering behavior that I happened to have noticed: 2220: 2199: 2184: 2154: 2116: 2097: 2066: 1577: 1542: 1528: 1500: 1485: 1467: 1447: 1431: 1424: 1408: 1380: 1353: 1318: 1299: 1284: 1269: 1150: 1137: 1111: 1058: 1017: 987: 964: 919: 889: 870: 838: 819: 791: 769: 750: 689: 639: 603: 586: 568: 520: 497: 479: 452: 428: 399: 365: 334: 291: 271: 252: 229: 214: 188: 135: 110: 81: 2231: 1345: 1310: 1276: 1261: 412: 391: 341: 326: 2370: 98:

Anyway, what do I know? I'm just a chemist and I can only hope to dabble in math :-)

1129: 800: 1962: 1942: 1711: 1691: 760:, thank you very much for the kind message! It is warmly appreciated. Kind regards, 527:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Taylor_series&oldid=prev&diff=776283206

462:, it is easy to create new sub-pages of your user page. For example, if you click on 2141:) as if a pseudo-ordinary variable. Please identify the other problematic aspects on 926: 911: 676:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

534:"adds sub-headings for the TOC and for enabling deep-linking" is "Not an improvement" 512: 175:". In this case we have a and b only. We are excluding the possibility of "c", etc. 2609:

So I improved it and introduced it as a separate section, which you removed again.

2281:. I suspect it will go about as poorly as these things always do, but there it is. 826: 811: 681: 677: 283: 259: 244: 69: 2523: 2483:

Hi Joel, if you dislike that example don't worry, "De gustibus non disputant" or "

202:

not native speakers. The other two are totally understandable and read naturally.

2159:

Perhaps these non-trivial/non-standard aspects of the use of partial derivatives

53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1309:. And acknowledging and correcting one's mistakes is of supreme importance. -- 971: 850: 2606:

Later it was removed by Numbermaniac because: "it breaks the whole flow"

2310:, quite the contrary, it seems -- thanks again for getting this going! -- 1067:

The article 'Decision Stream: Cultivating Deep Decision Trees', which is

148: 2560:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

659: 655: 594:, thank you for your cooperation and your understanding. Regards, -- 546:

to see in the page's TOC what's exactly on that page at first sight

1344:

notation. It means bounded below and above (cf. Knuth p. 110). --

942:

P.S. It is never necessary to ping a user on their own talk page.

2365:

Hi Joel, you have reverted this image of orthogonal complement:

2336:

You're welcome - I honestly did not expect that outcome at all.

2563:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1123:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics

1306: 32: 1121:

streams"' to 'Decision stream references discussion' on page

2129:

Hi, JBL! Thanks again for your very enlightening reply from

549:

to deep-link to a section they are especially interested in

323:

Thank you for reading this far, what are your thoughts?

2599: 2544:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2236: 1517: 1029: 975: 849:

I see you've reverted my addition of a sentence to the

728: 722: 716: 654:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 533: 526: 416: 240: 2024: 1985: 1965: 1945: 1880: 1839: 1798: 1766: 1734: 1714: 1694: 1668: 1615: 1580: 1545: 1330: 1214: 1188: 1153: 854:P#+2,P#+3,...,P#+(Q-1). It's also a different gap. 316:proven so his proof is invalid until he proves it. 87:

Proof that absolute convergence implies convergence

2049: 2010: 1971: 1951: 1931: 1866: 1825: 1784: 1752: 1720: 1700: 1680: 1654: 1601: 1566: 1336: 1252: 1200: 1174: 2171:could be presented and analyzed (as examples) at 1430:If it is simple, then why are you unable to read 171:"multisets exist which contain elements a and b 2125:Partial derivative expressions and Refdesk Math 1519:. Just so you know, your edit is correct. --- 559:"Not an improvement" at all. Kind regards, -- 179:I am thinking that we want to emphasize #3. 8: 2616: 2492: 2439: 2387: 1390: 1072: 1003: 646:Disambiguation link notification for May 4 621: 2041: 2023: 2002: 1984: 1964: 1944: 1879: 1838: 1797: 1765: 1733: 1713: 1693: 1667: 1614: 1579: 1544: 1371:welcome to reply further on this page. -- 1329: 1230: 1225: 1213: 1187: 1152: 2648:the correct place to discuss this is on 1387:ALBERT EINSTEIN'S MOUSTACHE WAS FAKE!!! 300:Euler Brick and the Perfect Euler Brick 2438:Thanks for your answer, Joel, sorry. 51:Do not edit the contents of this page. 24:User talk:Joel B. Lewis/Archives/2017/ 2277:Great, thanks! I just submitted it - 2161:in the context of math-based sciences 1253:{\displaystyle \Theta (n^{c_{crit}})} 95:addition of some obvious statements. 7: 2533:2017 Arbitration Committee elections 2530:Hello, Joel B. Lewis. Voting in the 532:Hi Joel, do you mind to explain how 2546:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 1792:. But in the multivariate case, if 1534:Big O caveat for multiple variables 974:, I am not an administrator, and I 778:A year ago, you were recipient no. 555:I'm terribly sorry, but I consider 2517:ArbCom 2017 election voter message 2034: 1995: 1776: 1744: 1675: 1331: 1215: 31: 2018:, but not if they are defined on 419:your hesitation was sensible! -- 2615:Thank you very much for reply. 2522: 2379: 2369: 1932:{\displaystyle f(n,m)=O(g(n,m))} 717:improving Q-Vandermonde identity 707: 36: 2567:and submit your choices on the 2485:There is no arguing about taste 2167:like this one connected to the 2050:{\displaystyle [0,\infty )^{2}} 2011:{\displaystyle [1,\infty )^{2}} 845:Simple Observation on Prime Gap 782:of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- 390:Thanks for reading. Take care. 163:"multisets exist which contain 2038: 2025: 1999: 1986: 1926: 1923: 1911: 1905: 1896: 1884: 1855: 1843: 1814: 1802: 1779: 1767: 1747: 1735: 1672: 1649: 1646: 1640: 1634: 1625: 1619: 1590: 1584: 1555: 1549: 1529:21:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC) 1247: 1218: 1163: 1157: 723:detailed gentle edit summaries 1: 2662:17:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 2635:01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 2175:. How do you consider this?-- 1275:That is, please re-revert! -- 1042:pages. But now is too early. 2583:18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2511:10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 2478:16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2458:16:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2433:16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2406:03:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2346:01:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC) 2320:21:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC) 2291:17:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 2269:00:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 2221:17:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC) 2200:01:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC) 2185:11:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 2155:11:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 2117:15:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC) 2098:01:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC) 1681:{\displaystyle n\to \infty } 1655:{\displaystyle f(n)=O(g(n))} 1324:I see you misunderstood the 897:Exponential response formula 230:20:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 215:21:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 189:15:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 136:21:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 111:23:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 82:05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC) 2190:I have responded there. -- 2067:20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 1785:{\displaystyle [0,\infty )} 1753:{\displaystyle [1,\infty )} 1501:22:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 1486:22:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 1468:22:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 1448:22:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 1409:11:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 1381:15:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 1354:15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 1319:15:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 1300:15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 1285:15:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 1270:15:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 280:The conference was CGTC48, 2678: 2575:MediaWiki message delivery 729:points about applied stats 604:20:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 587:17:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 569:20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 521:17:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC) 429:22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 400:22:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 366:20:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 335:17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 292:13:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 272:20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 253:18:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2143:talk:Gibbs-Duhem equation 1688:), regardless of whether 1112:20:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 1059:16:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 1018:14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 988:22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC) 965:22:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC) 498:11:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 480:20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 453:14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 64:Thanks for the serial rvv 1867:{\displaystyle g(n,m)=n} 1826:{\displaystyle f(n,m)=1} 1138:18:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 920:07:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 890:16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC) 871:22:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC) 839:22:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) 820:21:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC) 1458:explicit about this. -- 1337:{\displaystyle \Theta } 1201:{\displaystyle n\leq k} 792:05:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 770:23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 751:08:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 690:10:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 640:02:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 614:Abby Johnson (activist) 155:"multisets exist which 2206:Reference Desks/StuRat 2051: 2012: 1973: 1953: 1933: 1868: 1827: 1786: 1754: 1722: 1702: 1682: 1656: 1603: 1602:{\displaystyle g(n)=n} 1568: 1567:{\displaystyle f(n)=1} 1338: 1254: 1202: 1176: 1175:{\displaystyle T(n)=0} 488:Hi Joel, many thanks. 2650:the article talk page 2542:Arbitration Committee 2361:Orthogonal Complement 2052: 2013: 1974: 1954: 1934: 1869: 1828: 1787: 1755: 1723: 1703: 1683: 1657: 1604: 1569: 1339: 1255: 1203: 1177: 732:, - Joel, you are an 49:of past discussions. 2169:Gibbs-Duhem equation 2022: 1983: 1963: 1943: 1878: 1837: 1796: 1764: 1732: 1712: 1692: 1666: 1613: 1578: 1543: 1328: 1212: 1186: 1151: 678:opt-out instructions 235:Source you asked for 2165:applied mathematics 808:the BLP noticeboard 18:User talk:JayBeeEll 2598:I explained here: 2558:arbitration policy 2173:Partial derivative 2047: 2008: 1969: 1949: 1929: 1864: 1823: 1782: 1750: 1718: 1698: 1678: 1652: 1599: 1564: 1511:MDPI journal entry 1472:I had no doubt. — 1397:Antiseismographite 1361:who was my student 1334: 1307:annoyingly precise 1250: 1198: 1172: 1143:If an algorithm... 734:awesome Wikipedian 668:• Join us at the 652:Legendre's formula 2637: 2621:comment added by 2513: 2497:comment added by 2460: 2444:comment added by 2408: 2392:comment added by 2081:article talk page 1972:{\displaystyle g} 1952:{\displaystyle f} 1721:{\displaystyle g} 1701:{\displaystyle f} 1411: 1395:comment added by 1090: 1077:comment added by 1020: 1008:comment added by 673: 642: 626:comment added by 61: 60: 55:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 2669: 2647: 2526: 2383: 2373: 2309: 2056: 2054: 2053: 2048: 2046: 2045: 2017: 2015: 2014: 2009: 2007: 2006: 1978: 1976: 1975: 1970: 1958: 1956: 1955: 1950: 1938: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1873: 1871: 1870: 1865: 1832: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1783: 1759: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1727: 1725: 1724: 1719: 1707: 1705: 1704: 1699: 1687: 1685: 1684: 1679: 1661: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1608: 1606: 1605: 1600: 1573: 1571: 1570: 1565: 1482: 1476: 1444: 1438: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1335: 1259: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1207: 1205: 1204: 1199: 1181: 1179: 1178: 1173: 1101: 970:I did not block 936:Hope this helps, 909: 731: 725: 719: 711: 663: 40: 39: 33: 27: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2641: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2527: 2519: 2363: 2303: 2208: 2140: 2136: 2127: 2037: 2020: 2019: 1998: 1981: 1980: 1961: 1960: 1941: 1940: 1939:if we restrict 1876: 1875: 1835: 1834: 1794: 1793: 1762: 1761: 1730: 1729: 1728:are defined on 1710: 1709: 1690: 1689: 1664: 1663: 1611: 1610: 1576: 1575: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1513: 1480: 1474: 1442: 1436: 1428: 1326: 1325: 1305:Mathematics is 1226: 1221: 1210: 1209: 1184: 1183: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1095: 1039:decision stream 996: 994:Decision stream 953:Carmen Melendez 949: 947:Blocked or Not? 903: 900: 847: 804: 739: 738: 727: 721: 715: 712: 697: 670:DPL WikiProject 648: 617: 530: 508: 506:Regarding Omics 441: 302: 237: 144: 89: 66: 37: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2675: 2673: 2665: 2664: 2591: 2588: 2565:the candidates 2528: 2521: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2481: 2480: 2436: 2435: 2423:All the best, 2421: 2417: 2368: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2272: 2271: 2207: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2138: 2134: 2126: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2101: 2100: 2087: 2084: 2077: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1968: 1948: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1717: 1697: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1621: 1618: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1563: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1535: 1532: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1427: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1365: 1333: 1322: 1249: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1220: 1217: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1144: 1141: 1115: 1114: 1062: 1061: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 995: 992: 991: 990: 948: 945: 944: 943: 940: 937: 934: 930: 899: 894: 893: 892: 846: 843: 842: 841: 803: 801:William Happer 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 773: 772: 706: 704: 699: 698: 696: 693: 647: 644: 616: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 553: 552: 551: 550: 547: 529: 524: 507: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 483: 482: 440: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 405: 404: 403: 402: 385: 384: 383: 382: 375: 374: 373: 372: 355: 352: 348: 345: 301: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 275: 274: 236: 233: 218: 217: 203: 199: 177: 176: 169: 161: 143: 140: 139: 138: 126:All the best, 124: 115: 88: 85: 65: 62: 59: 58: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2674: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2596: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2561: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2525: 2516: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2490: 2486: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2384: 2382: 2377: 2374: 2372: 2366: 2360: 2358: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2132: 2124: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2042: 2031: 2028: 2003: 1992: 1989: 1966: 1946: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1881: 1861: 1858: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1840: 1820: 1817: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1799: 1773: 1770: 1741: 1738: 1715: 1695: 1669: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1628: 1622: 1616: 1596: 1593: 1587: 1581: 1561: 1558: 1552: 1546: 1533: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1510: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1477: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1439: 1433: 1426: 1423: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1323: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1169: 1166: 1160: 1154: 1142: 1140: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1126: 1124: 1118: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1099: 1098:46.39.231.142 1093: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079:46.39.231.142 1076: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1031: 1027: 1026:62.119.167.36 1023: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1010:62.119.167.36 1007: 999: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 954: 946: 941: 938: 935: 931: 928: 924: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 907: 906:Joel B. Lewis 898: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 859: 855: 852: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 809: 802: 799: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 776: 775: 774: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 737: 735: 730: 724: 718: 710: 705: 703: 694: 692: 691: 687: 683: 679: 674: 671: 667: 661: 657: 653: 645: 643: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 615: 611: 605: 601: 597: 596:Gerold Broser 593: 592:Joel B. Lewis 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 575:Gerold Broser 573: 572: 571: 570: 566: 562: 561:Gerold Broser 558: 548: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 537: 535: 528: 525: 523: 522: 518: 514: 505: 499: 495: 491: 490:AirdishStraus 487: 486: 485: 484: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464:this red-link 461: 460:AirdishStraus 457: 456: 455: 454: 450: 446: 445:AirdishStraus 438: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 401: 397: 393: 389: 388: 387: 386: 379: 378: 377: 376: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 356: 354:All the best, 353: 349: 346: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 324: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 299: 293: 289: 285: 281: 279: 278: 277: 276: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 241: 234: 232: 231: 227: 223: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 197: 193: 192: 191: 190: 186: 182: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 153: 152: 150: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 122: 118: 117: 116: 113: 112: 108: 104: 99: 96: 92: 86: 84: 83: 79: 75: 71: 63: 56: 52: 48: 47: 42: 35: 34: 25: 19: 2617:— Preceding 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2597: 2593: 2568: 2562: 2539: 2531: 2529: 2493:— Preceding 2484: 2482: 2440:— Preceding 2437: 2388:— Preceding 2385: 2378: 2375: 2367: 2364: 2356: 2209: 2177:82.137.15.34 2160: 2158: 2147:82.137.15.34 2128: 1537: 1514: 1475:nihlus kryik 1455: 1437:nihlus kryik 1429: 1391:— Preceding 1386: 1385: 1368: 1360: 1304: 1146: 1127: 1119: 1117:Dear Joel, 1116: 1073:— Preceding 1068: 1066: 1063: 1004:— Preceding 1000: 997: 950: 901: 860: 856: 848: 805: 784:Gerda Arendt 758:Gerda Arendt 743:Gerda Arendt 740: 713: 701: 700: 675: 649: 622:— Preceding 618: 556: 554: 538: 531: 509: 442: 325: 322: 318: 314: 310: 306: 304:Hello Joel, 303: 238: 219: 178: 172: 164: 156: 145: 121:Alsosaid1987 114: 103:Alsosaid1987 100: 97: 93: 90: 67: 50: 44: 2644:Cruiserupce 2623:Cruiserupce 2570:voting page 2338:Adam Bishop 2306:Adam Bishop 2283:Adam Bishop 2228:Adam Bishop 2213:Adam Bishop 1521:Steve Quinn 998:Dear Joel, 720:, and with 702:gentle math 160:"surround". 91:Dr. Lewis, 43:This is an 2554:topic bans 2489:video-link 2232:Iridescent 1346:Mathmensch 1311:Mathmensch 1277:Mathmensch 1262:Mathmensch 1064:Hi Joel, 878:MDWeathers 863:MDWeathers 680:. Thanks, 439:Pythagoras 417:looks like 413:TheRingess 392:TheRingess 342:TheRingess 327:TheRingess 168:"subsets". 2550:site bans 2499:Solinruiz 2466:Solinruiz 2446:Solinruiz 2414:Solinruiz 2394:Solinruiz 1456:extremely 1130:AlexNet22 1069:published 902:Hello Mr 851:Prime gap 664:Read the 628:Erink1993 151:article: 2631:contribs 2619:unsigned 2590:Question 2507:contribs 2495:unsigned 2454:contribs 2442:unsigned 2402:contribs 2390:unsigned 2131:WP:RD/MA 1405:contribs 1393:unsigned 1367:You are 1128:Thanks, 1087:contribs 1075:unsigned 1006:unsigned 961:contribs 927:Wandalen 912:Wandalen 695:Precious 636:contribs 624:unsigned 513:Coolakul 149:Multiset 1874:, then 1609:, then 827:Sperril 812:Sperril 682:DPL bot 660:Ternary 284:Jbeyerl 260:Jbeyerl 245:Jbeyerl 239:In this 222:𝕃eegrc 181:𝕃eegrc 101:-Jimmy 70:Chill-- 46:archive 2109:Germyb 2074:Germyb 2059:Germyb 1760:or on 1432:WP:TPO 1425:WP:TPO 1049:Best, 1030:myself 726:, for 656:Binary 205:Best, 196:Leegrc 2652:. -- 2464:Dear 2086:Best, 1024:Dear 976:added 756:Dear 470:. -- 16:< 2658:talk 2627:talk 2579:talk 2540:The 2503:talk 2474:talk 2450:talk 2429:talk 2398:talk 2342:talk 2316:talk 2287:talk 2265:talk 2257:here 2253:here 2249:here 2245:here 2241:this 2237:this 2217:talk 2196:talk 2181:talk 2163:aka 2151:talk 2113:talk 2094:talk 2063:talk 1959:and 1833:and 1708:and 1662:(as 1574:and 1525:talk 1497:talk 1481:talk 1464:talk 1443:talk 1434:? — 1401:talk 1377:talk 1350:talk 1315:talk 1296:talk 1281:talk 1266:talk 1182:for 1134:talk 1108:talk 1083:talk 1055:talk 1014:talk 984:talk 972:Widr 957:talk 939:Joel 916:talk 886:talk 867:talk 835:talk 816:talk 788:talk 780:1651 766:talk 747:talk 686:talk 658:and 632:talk 612:Re: 600:talk 583:talk 565:talk 557:this 517:talk 494:talk 476:talk 468:here 449:talk 425:talk 396:talk 362:talk 331:talk 288:talk 268:talk 249:talk 226:talk 211:talk 185:talk 173:only 165:only 157:only 142:Only 132:talk 107:talk 74:talk 2654:JBL 2470:JBL 2425:JBL 2412:Hi 2312:JBL 2261:JBL 2226:Hi 2192:JBL 2090:JBL 2072:Hi 1979:to 1493:JBL 1460:JBL 1373:JBL 1369:not 1292:JBL 1260:.-- 1104:JBL 1094:Hi 1051:JBL 980:JBL 925:Hi 882:JBL 876:Hi 831:JBL 825:Hi 762:JBL 666:FAQ 579:JBL 472:JBL 458:Hi 421:JBL 358:JBL 340:Hi 264:JBL 258:Hi 207:JBL 194:Hi 128:JBL 119:Hi 76:) ( 2660:) 2633:) 2629:• 2581:) 2573:. 2552:, 2509:) 2505:• 2476:) 2456:) 2452:• 2431:) 2404:) 2400:• 2344:) 2318:) 2289:) 2267:) 2219:) 2198:) 2183:) 2153:) 2137:/x 2115:) 2096:) 2065:) 2035:∞ 1996:∞ 1777:∞ 1745:∞ 1676:∞ 1673:→ 1527:) 1499:) 1491:-- 1484:) 1466:) 1446:) 1407:) 1403:• 1379:) 1352:) 1332:Θ 1317:) 1298:) 1290:-- 1283:) 1268:) 1216:Θ 1193:≤ 1136:) 1125:. 1110:) 1089:) 1085:• 1057:) 1032:: 1016:) 986:) 963:) 918:) 888:) 869:) 861:-- 837:) 818:) 790:) 768:) 749:) 741:-- 736:! 688:) 638:) 634:• 602:) 585:) 567:) 536:. 519:) 496:) 478:) 451:) 427:) 415:, 398:) 364:) 333:) 290:) 270:) 251:) 228:) 213:) 187:) 134:) 109:) 80:) 2656:( 2646:: 2642:@ 2625:( 2577:( 2501:( 2472:( 2448:( 2427:( 2416:, 2396:( 2340:( 2314:( 2308:: 2304:@ 2285:( 2263:( 2215:( 2194:( 2179:( 2149:( 2139:3 2135:1 2111:( 2092:( 2076:, 2061:( 2043:2 2039:) 2032:, 2029:0 2026:[ 2004:2 2000:) 1993:, 1990:1 1987:[ 1967:g 1947:f 1927:) 1924:) 1921:m 1918:, 1915:n 1912:( 1909:g 1906:( 1903:O 1900:= 1897:) 1894:m 1891:, 1888:n 1885:( 1882:f 1862:n 1859:= 1856:) 1853:m 1850:, 1847:n 1844:( 1841:g 1821:1 1818:= 1815:) 1812:m 1809:, 1806:n 1803:( 1800:f 1780:) 1774:, 1771:0 1768:[ 1748:) 1742:, 1739:1 1736:[ 1716:g 1696:f 1670:n 1650:) 1647:) 1644:n 1641:( 1638:g 1635:( 1632:O 1629:= 1626:) 1623:n 1620:( 1617:f 1597:n 1594:= 1591:) 1588:n 1585:( 1582:g 1562:1 1559:= 1556:) 1553:n 1550:( 1547:f 1523:( 1495:( 1478:( 1462:( 1440:( 1399:( 1375:( 1348:( 1313:( 1294:( 1279:( 1264:( 1248:) 1241:t 1238:i 1235:r 1232:c 1228:c 1223:n 1219:( 1196:k 1190:n 1170:0 1167:= 1164:) 1161:n 1158:( 1155:T 1132:( 1106:( 1100:: 1096:@ 1081:( 1053:( 1012:( 982:( 959:| 955:( 929:, 914:( 908:: 904:@ 884:( 865:( 833:( 814:( 786:( 764:( 745:( 684:( 672:. 630:( 598:( 581:( 563:( 515:( 492:( 474:( 447:( 423:( 394:( 360:( 344:, 329:( 286:( 266:( 247:( 224:( 209:( 198:, 183:( 130:( 105:( 78:c 72:( 57:. 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index