Conservapedia:Conservapedian mathematics/The Riemann Correspondence
From RationalWiki
Conservapedia user SamHB attempted, in March 2009, to have the Riemann Integral article improved preparatory to its being made a "Featured Article". Sam has sent me (User:Gauss) the correspondence. Comments in italics were added by me.
The 19 email messages involved in this are reproduced below. SamHB has asked to make the following statements about them:
- These email messages are the entire communication on the subject. No other communication took place anywhere. TK's belief, for example, that someone "charged me" with this project, was simply wrong. Throughout the correspondence, he seemed concerned that someone might be communicating with me through channels that he could not see. No one did.
- Do not ask me to join RW. While I share your disdain for the way CP has treated me and others, I find RW's style distasteful.
- And no, I am not AlanS, and I have no idea who AlanS was.
[edit] Message 1, also known as "(a)", from Sam to the Featured Article committee, March 5, 2009
- At this time, the voting for the Riemann integral article as a Featured Article was 2-0 in favor.
from SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:36 PM
subject Copy of your message to [7 recipients below]:
- Conservapedia e-mail -- SamHB -- Riemann integral
This mail is being sent to the members of the "featured article" committee:
- DeanS
- Geo.plrd
- Joaquín Martínez
- Learn together
- Philip J. Rayment
- TK
It is also being copied to Foxtrot as a courtesy, since he is the one who recommended the article in question for featuring.
- [Foxtrot: It would appear, from your failure to respond to a number of communications from me (kernel, elementary proof, NP-complete, and complete metric space) that you may still bear some animosity and hostility toward me. That is unfortunate. I forgive you for your transgressions against me, and hope that you can forgive my transgressions against you.]
The article in question is "Riemann integral". The article is, in fact, very nice. Informative, useful, well-written (mostly the work of William Beason), nice picture. I'm not questioning the quality at all. It is a really good article. But here's the problem: The Riemann integral is not what the page is about! (Yeah, I know, the triple-single-quotes-for-bolding only works on the wiki.)
A title that more accurately describes the article might be "Approximating integrals as Riemann sums" or perhaps just "Riemann sums". The article is an excellent exposition of this topic.
Bernhard Riemann was a brilliant theoretician. In addition to creating the field of differential geometry, he put integration (the process of finding the area under a curve) on a firm theoretical basis. He did this by defining the integral of a function (what we now call the Riemann integral, as opposed to the Lebesgue, Riemann-Stieltjes, etc.) as the limit of the "Riemann sums". To put this on a sound theoretical basis, this limit must be carefully defined, in terms of partitions, fineness, epsilon, deltas, etc. When this is done properly, one gets the theorems about the limit converging (and hence the Riemann integral being defined) if the function is continuous eveywhere, or continuous except on a finite set, or continuous except on set of measure zero, and so on. And one gets the fundamental theorem of calculus.
This is what we credit Riemann with when we name the integral after him. The idea of approximating the area under a curve, by dividing it into thin strips ("Riemann sums") and adding, was known to the ancients.
The existing article gives an amazingly good intuitive motivation of the approximation process, that is accessible to the students that are our target audience. (I just can't say enough about the importance of properly targeting the articles to the student audience!) But an article titled "Riemann integral" has to address the theoretical problem that Riemann laid out. This is a much harder problem, but still solvable.
There are a few approaches that I can suggest:
(1) Change the name of the article to "Approximating an integral" or "Evaluating an integral". Or maybe "How the Riemann integral works". Or "Riemann sum". I don't recommend this at all. The most important drawback is that an article with such a contorted name is much harder to take seriously as a featured article.
(2) Add material to the article covering the theoretical aspects, and explaining what Riemann's definition is. My guess is that this additional material would be near the front, and would comprise about 1/4 of the finished article. (That is, 1/4 of a finished article that is correctly pitched to the student audience. One could imagine going hog-wild with the theory, but that wouldn't be pitched correctly.) The rest of the article (the bottom 3/4; the existing material) could be sections titled "Riemann sums" and "Example". The "Riemann sums" section could continue to have its reference to Simpson's rule and parabolas. (BTW, the parabola reference started the chain of events that led to William Beason leaving Conservapedia.)
I support option (2), though it means taking the article "back into the shop" for a while, so it won't be a candidate for "featured article" status during that time.
Can we really explain what a limit means, in a way that is properly pitched to the audience? Yes! See the article [1] (Mostly written by yours truly.) The mention of limit in the Riemann page would reference and leverage that, so that the integral would be defined along the lines of "For every epsilon, there is a fineness of subdivision such that the upper and lower sums are within that epsilon."
Proving that the upper and lower limits converge, or proving the fundamental theorem of calculus, is far beyond the scope of CP.
Speaking of upper and lower sums, the existing article says that there are 3 ways of choosing the function point: left edge, right edge, and center. As a practical trick for evaluating, this makes sense. But in fact there are many ways to choose the point, and the article needs to say so. In particular, one can choose the maximum function value (leading to the "upper sum") or the minimum function value (leading to the "lower sum".)
I'm willing to write up a draft of this, or to discuss this further. I can be contacted at Sam4557@gmail.com
Sam B.
--- This e-mail was sent by SamHB to [7 recipients above] by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.
[edit] Message 2, also known as "(b)", from Geo.plrd to Sam, March 5, 2009
from Geoffrey Plourde <email address>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM
subject Re: Conservapedia e-mail -- SamHB -- Riemann integral
I think the current title is acceptable. If you are willing to improve the article go ahead.
[edit] Message 3, also known as "(c)", from Sam to Geo.plrd, April 5, 2009
from SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM
subject Copy of your message to Geo.plrd:
- Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page (looong)
Greetings
The response to my communication about the Riemann integral page has been disappointing. You are the only person who replied. A low reply rate was to be expected (one response is all it takes), but Foxtrot's silence is overriding.
I really can't do anything without Foxtrot's consent. I, and probably he, and just about everyone else, consider him to be the "keeper of the math articles." (Ed Poor sometimes writes as though that title is his, but I think he would admit that it isn't. He plays an advisory role but does not adjudicate content. The actual dynamic is of course more complicated than this; you can look around if you are curious.)
Unless Foxtrot makes some statement about this one way or the other, I can't proceed with submitting a change to the article; I need to know where he stands. To suggest that you make changes at my behest could be leading you unwittingly into a minefield. I simply do not know what Foxtrot's position on this will be. Nor do I know how much of this arises from personal animosity toward me.
I attempted (perhaps ineptly) to extend an olive branch to him in my mail about the integral article. The comment about mutual forgiveness was of course a reference to Matthew 6:12.
- (For the record, my major transgression against him was accusing him of parody in the [2] article. He's gotten worse than that -- Ed Poor once accused him of sabotage.
- His major transgression against me, other than blocking me, was the accusation on the Axiom of Choice talk page: [3] that "people like you don't agree with the article's position and want to change it to your own." He never explained "people like me" -- I never edited the AC page, or said anything about the AC. I was only editing the AC talk page in a vain attempt to get Ed Poor's attention.)
There are a number of theories about all of this:
1) Foxtrot is my implacable foe, and intends to continue as "keeper of the math". I hope this is not the case. If it is, there is simply nothing I can do.
2) Foxtrot is my implacable foe, but will, willingly or unwillingly, give up his position or otherwise allow the article to be changed. I don't know how to proceed to test this. A failed test could lead to a more serious permaban.
3) Foxtrot can have his attitude toward me improve. I don't know how to proceed here. He has ignored 3 attempts to contact him. There is a Japanese term for this -- Mokusatsu -- to kill with contemptuous silence.
4) Maybe Foxtrot's CP email link is not a mailbox that he reads regularly, and he hasn't seen any of this. His link might be a secondary account. (I would guess that many CP users set things up this way.)
So it's possible that Foxtrot never saw any of this. That's where you come in. Could you find some way, on or off wiki, to sound him out on these issues? Be gentle. I don't want you to step into a hornet's nest and have your own reputation damaged. And the math articles *ARE* a hornet's nest -- I have the scars, and the blocks, to prove it. And I would hope that you can do this, perhaps more tactfully, than I have, without bringing up demons from the past.
If we can't fix the integral page, the next best thing is to leave a note on the "featured article suggestions" page (whatever it's called) saying that this article's inclusion has been challenged on content grounds.
Thanks a lot for anything you can do.
Sam
P.S. Recent events, relating to JosephMac, indicate that there may be a glimmer of hope for me to get my permaban reversed. I'm going to try. Very carefully.
--- This e-mail was sent by SamHB to Geo.plrd by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.
[edit] Message 4, also known as "(d)", from TK to Sam, April 5, 2009
- Geo seems to have shown message 2 to TK, with its reference to Foxtrot's consent.
from TK <email address>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM
subject Conservapedia e-mail
Actually, Sam, you really can't do anything until I change my mind. Foxtrot's consent not withstanding. I think you forget I assumed jurisdiction over those math articles.
Last I heard from you, on your user page, you pledged to stay away until BRichtigen was unblocked. I can assure you that will never happen.
--TK
--- This e-mail was sent by TK to SamHB by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.
[edit] Message 5, also known as "(e)", from Sam to TK and Geo, April 7, 2009
- Sam has apparently dropped the other Featured Article committee members due to their non-participation.
from SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:48 AM
subject Copy of your message to [Geo.plrd and TK]
- Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
Geoffrey, and TK: [this message is being sent to both]
TK's response (you got it, right? If not, I will forward it) changes the situation. It looks as though I don't need to worry about Foxtrot. Apparently he [TK] is the steward/custodian/keeper of the math articles, not Foxtrot.
Therefore, I am proceeding with the rewrite. I have a rough draft now, and will polish it a little more and send it to both of you. It's not as good as I would like--I would have preferred to rearrange both the "integral" and "Riemann integral" pages, moving material between them. But I have addressed the problems that I thought made the article not suitable as a featured article. And we're not proposing to make both articles together into a featured article. The Riemann integral page itself will be self-consistent, and, IMHO, a suitable featured article candidate.
BTW, I assume you forwarded my entire message to TK, including the references to "minefields", "hornet's nests", and Foxtrot being my "implacable foe", with all the details, right? (No problem with this; it's all true.) And I assume that there is no longer any need for you to sound Foxtrot out on this.
The new article will be sent in a few hours. It's currently a draft written on paper. Yes, I still write drafts on paper.
Note 1 to TK: It was never my intent to slight you in your stewardship of the math articles.
>> I think you forget I assumed jurisdiction over those math articles.
I didn't forget that; I simply didn't know it. My previous description of the mathematical landscape (the stuff about Foxtrot and Ed Poor) was just some surmises based on informal observations. I've looked at a lot of math pages.
Note 2 to TK: The BRichtigen stuff was not a "pledge". It was a "statement of intent". At that time he was blocked for only two weeks. I would not have used the phrase "for the duration of" if the block had been permanent at the time. BRichtigen has since gone over to RW. He no longer gets any sympathy from me. If/when you unblock me (I hope to persuade you) I will remove that statement.
Sam
--- This e-mail was sent by SamHB to Geo.plrd by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.
[edit] Message 6, also known as "(f)", from Sam to TK and Geo, April 7, 2009
- This had the article itself.
from SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM
subject Copy of your message to [Geo.plrd and TK]
- Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
Geoffrey and TK:
OK, it's done, and is just below. You should be able to replace the existing page with the text below (sorry I couldn't make it an attachment), show changes, show preview, fix/add any wikilinks that aren't right, and save it.
Now something came up since my last message. Looking at the "Featured articles" page, I found that this item has been deferred from consideration. So my understanding of what it means to be the steward/keeper may not have been the same as yours. I was referring to the decision to accept the changes, that is, to who was the judge of the article itself. I knew that the judgement of whether it should become a featured article was in other people's hands. I never thought that it had a high probability of becoming a featured article; I just want it to be the best that it can be.
Now I see that "prime number" is up for featuring. It's an excellent article. Do it.
[The article itself was here. You can now see it, here on aSK, at Riemann integral]
--- This e-mail was sent by SamHB to Geo.plrd by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.
[edit] Message 7, from TK to Sam, Geo, and Ed Poor, April 7, 2009
- Among other things, TK wants to know "What concern is it of Ed Poor or Geo?" Sam had simply mentioned Ed's connection with maths articles. Sam got Geo involved because Geo was on the committee. TK is the one who added Ed to the discussion. What concern is it of Ed Poor? Why don't you tell us, TK?
from TK <email address>
to SamHB <Sam4557@gmail.com>
cc Geoffrey Plourde <email address>, Ed Poor <email address>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM
subject RE: Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
1. I clicked reply to all, but only SamHB's email showed up, so I really have no idea who these messages are being sent to.
2. I stepped into the situation, before Sam was blocked (by me), to stop the endless arguing with Foxtrot. We do not have custodians or "keepers" of certain articles, officially, insofar as I know.
3. SamHB, your preoccupation as to who gets what messages, shows your own bad faith and manipulations. You well know I stepped in and saved you from being blocked by Foxtrot, and I don't see any indication in your previous messages that you were concerned in the least with his getting copies, right? So why do you insinuate to Geo (or anyone) as to if they got a copy? Did you copy me in your message of Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:45:51 PM? Am I not the Administrator who blocked you? What concern is it of Ed Poor or Geo? Not that I mind, but asking merely rhetorically, because you introduced the concern with who is getting copies of what, and it seems to me you are the one who has been removing people from this dialog.
4. Should not your primary concern be with your own block before "submitting" your proposed re-vamp of the math articles?
5. I entered into the math fray, because Ed Poor initially had stated in a post, and to me privately, that his thoughts were we should have only elementary and medium level math articles. In talking with Ed, I suggested that if someone had the knowledge, upper-division articles would be a benefit to CP. I also stated, and Ed (and Geo separately via IM) agreed with my thought that such articles should, at the very least, contain an introductory paragraph(s) understandable at the 12 Grade (High School graduate) levels, as to what the article was about. My thinking being that if one is versant enough with the material, they should also have the capability of explaining at a basic level, what it is about. This was a topic and conversation that occurred months ago.
6. I am still confused (bemused?) as to how you were charged, as a blocked user, with this revision.
7. Are you prepared to deal with your past socks (AlanS) before proceeding, or even thinking of being allowed back?
--TK
[edit] Message 8, from Sam to TK, April 7, 2009
- This was a repeat of message 3. Sam thinks maybe TK hadn't gotten it, and wants to fill him in.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to TK <email address>
cc sam4557@gmail.com
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:10 PM
subject Re: Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
TK:
This is the message you asked about (Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:45:51 PM) in your recent message to me. I assumed you had gotten it. I have nothing to hide.
I am writing up a looooooooong reply to your recent message.
[The rest was a copy of message 3.]
[edit] Message 9, from TK to Sam, April 7, 2009
- TK rejects Sam's attempt to provide him with missing info, in his usual polite way. Accuses Sam of implying deceit. I (Gauss) can't figure out what Sam said that would have implied that.
- Was the reference to being obtuse inspired by the movie "The Shawshank Redemption"? Excellent movie.
from TK <email address>
to Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM
subject RE: Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
Dude!
I have that one.....are you somehow trying to be obtuse? My meaning was clear: You were implying deceit, asking Geo if he had seen my message to you. Get it?
[edit] Message 10, from Sam to TK, Geo, and Ed, April 7, 2009
- This is a detailed summary of all messages so far. Sam seems to be trying to figure out what message TK wants. He is also trying to explain everything to TK in a rational way. Never a good idea.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to TK <email address>
cc Geoffrey Plourde <email address>, Ed Poor <email address>, sam4557@gmail.com
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM
subject Re: Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
This message is being sent with the real, Honest-to-God "reply to all" function, so there will be no question about who gets it. The CP "email the user" function has no such feature, which is what has caused some of the problems TK notes below.
When I sent messages to multiple people, I had to do hem separately, once per user. I attempted to be sure everyone knew who all the recipients were, by saying so in the message body. My initial message about the integration article, sent at about 2:36PM EST on March 5, had to be sent separately 7 times. People often like to know who else is part of a discussion, and, normally, they just have to look at the recipient list. But I had to say so explicitly. In all cases I was completely truthful in this. There was no "bad faith" or "manipulation".
Now that we all know each other's email addresses, we no longer have that problem.
TK's message covers an enormous amount of ground, including a lot of history that I knew nothing about. So this message is going to have to be a bit rambling. And unbelievably long. Sorry. There's a lot of ground to cover.
- TK>> 1. I clicked reply to all, but only SamHB's email showed up,
- TK>> so I really have no idea who these messages are being
- TK>> sent to.
See above. In all cases they were sent to exactly who I said. That list changed as this drama unfolded. I am trying not to be "preoccupied as to who gets what messages", but, since TK asks quite a number of questions, here's the full history. People who are bored easily should skip this :-)
- (a) First message, about the integral page, 2:36PM EST March 5. Sent to everyone on the "featured article committee", plus "as a courtesy", Foxtrot. As it turned out, the Foxtrot issue was much more complicated than I thought. The list was: DeanS, Geo.plrd, Joaquín Martínez, Learn together, Philip J. Rayment, TK, Foxtrot.
- --->Ed, you weren't one of them. I'm sending you a copy.<---
- (b) Reply from Geo to me, 11:01PM March 5, saying to go ahead with the rewrite.
- (c) After hearing from no one else for some time, my message to Geo, 2:46PM April 5, expressing my concern about getting Foxtrot's approval. TK was not sent a copy, because he had not replied initially, and I had no idea at the time that he would become involved.
- (d) Message from TK, 11:31PM April 5, specifically referring to my concerns with Foxtrot's consent. This was my first hint of TK's interest in any of this. I assumed that Geo had forwarded (c) to him.
- (e) Message to Geo and TK, labeling it as such, 9:48AM April 7. At this time I knew of TK's interest in this. This message was about the integral page, saying that I was ready with the rewrite. I did not know whether TK had copied Geo on (d), and hence my "you got it, right?" comment.
- (f) Message to Geo and TK, 1:58PM April 7, containing the rewritten article.
Yes, it's long and complicated. This sort of thing is inevitable when the list of participants changes during a discussion. And made worse by not being able to see all the recipients in the header.
- TK>> 2. I stepped into the situation, before Sam was blocked (by me),
- TK>> to stop the endless arguing with Foxtrot.
The block by you was on 31 December, so your stepping into the situation was long before the recent integral/featured article discussion. Whatever you did was ancient history. My arguing with Foxtrot was ancient history also. I had absolutely no awareness of any intervention. Whatever it was, it was completely unknown to me---your only comment on my user page or talk page was a dicussion that involved William Beason and JY23, about uploading images. (The images that help make Mr. Beason's articles so nice!)
You very well may have done something to keep the endless bickering with Foxtrot from being even more endless. If so, I appreciate that. But I was totally unaware of it.
- TK>> We do not have custodians or "keepers" of certain articles, officially, insofar as I know.
Of course we don't. Many people think that articles have "owners", but I am not one of them. My concern about Foxtrot was more general, about the "endless bickering". He has blocked a number of people over mathematical content disputes. Including, believe it or not, a certain AlanS, about whom I'll say more below.
- TK>> 3. SamHB, your preoccupation as to who gets what messages, shows
- TK>> your own bad faith and manipulations.
I'm not preoccupied, and there is no bad faith or manipulation. You have asked many questions about what messages are going where. I am answering them. My seeming preoccupation may be the result of all the "[This message is being sent to X, Y, and Z.]" comments. I explained that above.
- TK>> You well know I stepped in and saved you from being blocked by
- TK>> Foxtrot, and I don't see any indication in your previous messages
- TK>> that you were concerned in the least with his getting copies,
- TK>> right? So why do you insinuate to Geo (or anyone) as to if they
- TK>> got a copy?
HUH????? You saved me from being blocked by Foxtrot? I've been blocked, by you, since December. So this must have been before that. Foxtrot blocked me on August 28th, for one month, over an intemperate comment. (I guess this was part of the "endless bickering". I was the guitly party.) If you prevented him from blocking me on some other occasion, I'm grateful, but I knew nothing about it.
- TK>> Did you copy me in your message of Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:45:51 PM?
You must be 5 time zones ahead of me, and that must be message (c) above. No, as explained above. Have you still not seen it? Do you want it? Never mind. I've just sent it to you.
- TK>> Am I not the Administrator who blocked you?
Yes. That is, the current block. I never doubted that.
- TK>> What concern is it of Ed Poor or Geo?
What concern is what? What concern is your block of me? None, except that I need to explain why I'm asking other people to do my bidding because I can't do it myself. What concern is the Riemann integral page? Geo is on the committee. Ed is not, and I didn't bring him into this. Well, I discussed my perception of the "mathematical lay of the land", which of course included Ed. You're the one who added Ed to this email discussion. Which is fine; he's an important figure, and I'm glad to see that he is now part of it, and that you have been discussing the philosophy of math articles with him (as have I) all along.
- TK>> Not that I mind, but asking merely rhetorically, because you
- TK>> introduced the concern with who is getting copies of what, and it
- TK>> seems to me you are the one who has been removing people from this
- TK>> dialog.
I've explained above the concern about who got what. You seemed much more concerned than I. I have not removed anyone from this dialog. Well, when I got no reply from Joaquín Martínez and Learn together, for example, I stopped mailing them. It didn't surprise me in the least that Joaquín isn't interested in integrals. But he was on the committee. In all cases I have tried to be inclusive. I haven't concealed anything from anyone.
- TK>> 4. Should not your primary concern be with your own block before
- TK>> "submitting" your proposed re-vamp of the math articles?
VERY good question! It's like this. Other people I have spoken to have indicated that getting a "multiple account"/"sockpuppetry" ban (I am innocent!) reversed is nearly impossible. So, for some time, I have been doing occasional editing through other people. (Right, Ed?) It's inconvenient, but it's better than nothing. When the Riemann integral / featured article thing came up, I felt that it was worth getting into this the same way, and that it would take too long to try to get the block fixed first. This may not have been the right decision. But, now that you mention this, I'll say more about it below.
Hang in there!!!!!! I'm nearly done!
- TK>> 5. I entered into the math fray, because Ed Poor initially had
- TK>> stated in a post, and to me privately, that his thoughts were we
- TK>> should have only elementary and medium level math articles. In
- TK>> talking with Ed, I suggested that if someone had the knowledge,
- TK>> upper-division articles would be a benefit to CP. I also stated, and
- TK>> Ed (and Geo separately via IM) agreed with my thought that such
- TK>> articles should, at the very least, contain an introductory
- TK>> paragraph(s) understandable at the 12 Grade (High School graduate)
- TK>> levels, as to what the article was about. My thinking being that if
- TK>> one is versant enough with the material, they should also have the
- TK>> capability of explaining at a basic level, what it is about. This was
- TK>> a topic and conversation that occurred months ago.
Good! I'm very much interested in this topic. And I have had a number of "spirited" discussions with Ed on this. (Is that a good characterization?) I always had a hard time convincing him that I was on his side. My somewhat abrasive style (OK, if you look at my talk page in detail, it was more than "somewhat"!) has hurt this. Perhaps, now that Ed is part of this discussion, I can convince him of my good faith.
- Ed, I'm on your side. All the things you accused me of, about not pitching articles correctly to the audience, were in fact things that people did. But I wasn't one of those people. Really.
- TK>> 6. I am still confused (bemused?) as to how you were charged, as
- TK>> a blocked user, with this revision.
No one charged me with this. This is a wiki. I volunteered to improve the article.
- TK>> 7. Are you prepared to deal with your past socks (AlanS) before
- TK>> proceeding, or even thinking of being allowed back?
Yes. As noted above, I expected the order of events, if they happened at all, to be: (1) deal with Riemann integration, (2) try to convince you that I am not a sock of AlanS or anyone else, and (3) think about being allowed back. As noted above, I did not expect (2) or (3) ever to come about.
By "before proceeding" do you mean convince you that I am not a sock before the Riemann integral article gets improved? I'd really like to keep those issues separate. The integral article can be improved in any case. That's why I chose this rather awkward order of doing things.
But, now that you bring it up. I AM NOT A SOCK OF ALANS. Or anyone else. I do not know who AlanS is or was.
Looking around, I see that AlanS was one of the people editing the Axiom of Choice page. And that he got into a big fight with Foxtrot over it, and got banned. I didn't realize the connection until today. Did Foxtrot think that was me? Was that the origin of his comment to me on December 5 "it's only because people like you don't agree with the article's position and want to change it to your own."???? Did he think that "people like you" was referring to both of us, because he thought we were the same person?
I never edited the AC article! I am not AlanS. Look at the history. AlanS was all over the place, but not me. I edited the talk page only once, but it was about a different topic. I was editing there only to get Ed's attention on the general topic of pedogogy.
That's enough.
Sam
[edit] Message 11, from TK to Sam, Geo, and Ed, April 7, 2009
- TK explains the block. Sam and AlanS had an IP conflict, of course. No surprises there. Sam and AlanS might have even lived on the same (liberal) planet.
from TK <email address>
to Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
cc Geoffrey Plourde <email address>, Ed Poor <email address>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM
subject RE: Conservapedia e-mail -- the Riemann integral page
The reason the connection between you and SamS was made, is that you both edited from the same IP. That is how and why when a block reason is given, saying that someone is a sock of so-and-so.
There is way too much explaining and recounting of things in this email to hold anyone’s interest, so I doubt most will read it all.
--Terry
[edit] Message 12, from Sam to Ed, April 7, 2009
- Sam fills Ed in on the early parts of the drama, since Ed apparently arrived late. Sam should know better. Ed has the attention span of a cockroach, so there was no point to this.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to Ed <email address>
cc sam4557@gmail.com
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM
subject You missed the first few acts
Greetings, Ed:
You may be wondering what this is all about. And you have seen the long discussion....
This started when I noticed that the "Riemann integral" page was up for "featured article" status. (It's since been demoted, but things sometimes take on a life of their own.) I had some objections to the article; namely that, fine article that it is, it isn't about what the title says. So I sent a message to the committee member explaining this. The message is as follows. Earlier today I sent my proposed new article. Will send that next, if you want.
[The rest was a copy of message 1.]
[edit] Message 13, from Ed to Sam, April 7, 2009
- Ed praises part of Sam's description of Riemann. Ed occasionally does have an ear for good writing. It's too bad he is so clueless about how to promote it in practice.
from Ed Poor <email address>
to Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
cc TK <email address>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM
subject Re: You missed the first few acts
Here's the part I like:
- Bernhard Riemann was a brilliant theoretician. In addition to creating the field of differential geometry, he put integration (the process of finding the area under a curve) on a firm theoretical basis. He did this by defining the integral of a function (what we now call the Riemann integral, as opposed to the Lebesgue, Riemann-Stieltjes, etc.) as the limit of the "Riemann sums". To put this on a sound theoretical basis, this limit must be carefully defined, in terms of partitions, fineness, epsilon, deltas, etc. When this is done properly, one gets the theorems about the limit converging (and hence the Riemann integral being defined) if the function is continuous everywhere, or continuous except on a finite set, or continuous except on set of measure zero, and so on. And one gets the fundamental theorem of calculus.
It reminds me of what I learned in high school and college about integrals. Please donate this text to Conservapedia?
Ed Poor
[edit] Message 14, from TK to Sam and Ed, April 7, 2009
- TK goes off the deep end.
from TK <email address>
to Ed Poor <email address>,
Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
date Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:40 PM
subject RE: You missed the first few acts
This is surreal.
Editor is blocked, never once disputes the block, or asks for reconsideration. Block was because his IP address was exactly that of another user he claims not to know.
Editor then continues editing, apparently, by asking others to post his work. Editor emails Admins about an issue that was discussed and decided upon months before.
I've taken two Excedrin.
--Terry
[edit] Message 15, from Sam to Ed, April 8, 2009
- Sam thanks Ed him for message 13, and then fills him in on more history (Ed had still missed a lot of the early material), and sends the article itself. Sam attempts to lower the temperature of the Ed/Sam relationship.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to Ed Poor <email address>
cc sam4557@gmail.com
date Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM
subject Re: You missed the first few acts -- here's the actual article!
- >> Here's the part I like:
- ......
- ......
- ......
- >> It reminds me of what I learned in high school and college about integrals.
- >> Please donate this text to Conservapedia?
Thank you for your kind words. I really do appreciate that.
But you haven't yet seen the article itself! It is attached. The paragraph that you liked is, roughly, in the article. Worded slightly differently, because we can't really talk about measure theory to high school students.
In case you're not yet fully up to speed on this, I complained about the Riemann article, in the context of its being proposed for "Featured Article", and that it was a good article but wasn't really about what the title said. Before it becomes a Featured Article (at that time it appeared to be on track for that) it should either have its name changed or have some content added. I volunteered to add the content. Geo said OK. Other discussion ensued, about whether Foxtrot was "keeper of the math articles", and that I needed his consent. (You were mentioned in that. I believe I said that you did not seem to consider yourself the keeper of the math articles, but more as an advisor on pedagogical issues, so I didn't think you would have any problem with what I was doing. I'll send you that message if you haven't already seen it, but I don't want to get distracted just now. I hope you weren't / won't be offended by what I wrote. No offense was intended.)
Then TK came in (and brought you in, which I fully support), and everything went downhill. All I want is for the Riemann integral article to be replaced with the text that I submitted. Geo seems to have gone silent (I hardly blame him :-) and TK seems preoccupied with everything other than Riemann integration. That leaves you. Could you make the edit? Please? Assuming you agree, of course. Make any changes you want, obviously.
- >> Please donate this text to Conservapedia?
Of course!!!!! That's the whole point. The article, and, if you want, material from the little blurb in the email, though I think the version in the article is pedagogically better.
On a more general personal note:
Ed, do you realize how hard it has been to talk to you? I spent months chasing you from one end of Conservapedia to the other, trying to engage you in a calm discourse about math pedagogy, and convince you that we're on the same side. (OK, I wasn't always calm.) I followed you to the Axiom of Choice page, with the section
and all I got for it was that Foxtrot accused me of sabotaging the Axiom of Choice.
- I even attempted to engage you in some light-hearted banter about the "Wff-N-Proof" game (Was I right? Dark blue vinyl case, pink foam rubber, cubical dice with logic symbols, and an "egg timer" to keep people from falling asleep while playing the world's most boring game? :-)
Well, you did give an on-topic reply--"But I disagree with his [my] high/low caution. We don't need a "one size fits all" approach ...." and you said that you would start a real discussion of this: "I'll probably move this thread to the appropriate page", but that never happened. You were off on other things, and I was busy getting blocked by TK.
Any wiki, and especially Conservapedia, is an incredibly noisy place. Especially when you're a sysop, I'm sure. It occurred to me that, if we could discuss things by email rather than on the wiki, we would have a calm and quiet place to talk, away from all the noise. But it never happened.
Peace, Sam
[The article itself was sent as an attachment].
[edit] Message 16, from Ed to Sam, April 8, 2009
- Ed still doesn't get it. He can't stay on topic, and gives Sam a (rather confused) "writing assignment", still apparently unaware that Sam is blocked.
from Ed Poor <email address>
to Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
date Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM
subject Re: You missed the first few acts -- here's the actual article!
Sam,
Less drama and more work, please. If you have contacted me under various aliases, I would hardly be expected to realize it was you all the time.
Anyway, the article that we should be preparing to feature should be Integral Calculus. It's a part of mathematics that plays a key part in astronomy and physics. Please write about how Newton and Leibniz discovered it, as well as how the calculations it made possible have helped scientists to learn about God's creation. Also explain how students can perform integration to get the volume of a solid like a cone, among other things. A derivation of the formula showing the distance a falling object travels would be very nice, presenting a contrast with Aristotle's long unchallenged dictum.
Ed Poor
[edit] Message 17, from Sam to Ed, April 8, 2009
- Sam offers to try to do the writing assignment, but reminds Ed "attention span of a cockroach" Poor that he (Sam) is blocked. Suggests that, therefore, Ed would have to do the actual upload of the writing assignment, and that he (Ed) could show that he understands this by first uploading the Riemann integral. No such luck. Ed can't read and comprehend two consecutive sentences.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to Ed Poor <email address>
cc sam4557@gmail.com
date Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:13 PM
subject Re: You missed the first few acts -- here's the actual article!
- EP>> Less drama and more work, please.
OK, I will look at Integral Calculus. There is no page by that name, so you mean the "Integral" page, right? Do you think it should be renamed? I'm kind of leaning in that direction.
But you do realize that I've been banned by TK, right? I thought that was clear; maybe you haven't seen enough of the emails. That's why I want YOU to edit the Riemann Integration page and upload my version. OK? That's why I've been sending it around in email. I CAN'T MAKE THE EDIT! This whole thing would have been incredibly simple otherwise, without all the drama. (That's why I used email to contact you about Schindler's list.)
Dead man editing! Dead man editing! Yes, way too much drama.
- EP>> If you have contacted me under various aliases, I would hardly be expected to realize it was you
- EP>> all the time.
Nope. Never used an alias. It was SamHB in all cases.
I will think about integral calculus, and see what I can do. But please do the Riemann Integral edit, OK?
[edit] Message 18, from Sam to TK and Ed, April 13, 2009
- Final salvo. He seems to have given up on TK, and knows that the Riemann article is doomed. Among other things (including biblical quotes), he quotes from email from "a very highly respected CP sysop". He will not tell me (Gauss) who that was. But, between that and the "Does that bother you?" comment, Sam shows that he has figured out TK's extreme sensitivity about the possibility that people might be communicating behind his back. Sam is clearly going in for the kill. The mention of 26 messages, instead of 18 (so far), seems to be explained by the his counting multiple instances of the "email this user" function.
from Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
to TK <email address>
cc Ed Poor <email address>, sam4557@gmail.com
date Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:42 AM
subject Re: You missed the first few acts
The number of email messages over this issue has now reached 26, and this will be the last. I don't recall ever seeing so much unproductive activity, and accusations of deceit and malice, made over such a simple thing. My proposed change to the Riemann integration article has STILL not been made. I am aware that, in the intervening time, it has been voted down as a featured article candidate, but it still makes sense to make the article the best it can be.
- TK>> I have that one.....are you somehow trying to be obtuse? My meaning
- TK>> was clear: You were implying deceit, asking Geo if he had seen my
- TK>> message to you. Get it?
I take deceit, and accusations of same, very seriously. This is why:
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.
There was no implication of deceit. The reason I asked Geo whether he had received your message (that would be message (d), at 11:31PM April 5), was that I didn't know whether he had received it, and I wanted to know. So I asked. The message showed no other recipients, but, having been sent with the "email this user" function, it couldn't have shown any other recipients whether there were any or not. I want to know; I ask. Fairly simple logic, don't you think? Or was I being obtuse?
- TK>> The reason the connection between you and [AlanS] was made, is that
- TK>> you both edited from the same IP. That is how and why when a block
- TK>> reason is given, saying that someone is a sock of so-and-so.
I am aware that that is the mechanism by which (often unfounded, as in this case) accusations of sockpuppetry are made.
- TK>> There is way too much explaining and recounting of things in this
- TK>> email [my message to all of you at 5:05PM April 7] to hold
- TK>> anyone's interest, so I doubt most will read it all.
You're undoubtedly correct. But your preoccupation with the details of who said what to whom, and your accusations that I was preoccupied with the same, and that I was showing "bad faith and manipulations", and that I was "the one who has been removing people from this dialog", made it necessary for the message to go into excruciating detail on all the messages.
- TK>> This is surreal.
It sure is.
- TK>> Editor is blocked, never once disputes the block, or asks for
- TK>> reconsideration. Block was because his IP address was exactly
- TK>> that of another user he claims not to know.
"*Claims* not to know"? Let me say it again: I take deceit, and accusations of same, very seriously. This is why:
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.
I do not know AlanS.
For a long time I assumed that there would be no way to get the block reversed. People were telling me to simply do what everyone else does---find a proxy and make a new account. I refused to do that.
As an example of the belief that appealing a block was not likely to be successful, here is a clip from a very highly respected CP sysop:
- SYSOP>> you are right - TK rarely budges on undoing a block. But try
- SYSOP>> e-mailing him and see what he says, you never know.
Once I changed my mind on this, I guessed that the process would be
- (1) convince you that I am not AlanS
- (2) work out some kind of arrangement in which future IP collisions with other users would be avoided or tolerated, without the danger of bringing down whole companies, schools, libraries, or ISP's covering whole metropolitan areas.
I had guessed that (1) would be easy, and (2) would be problematical. But I never imagined that I wouldn't even get past (1). How did JosephMac solve this problem? Did he convince you that he wasn't Rhodes? How? Or did you just decide to let him keep his account even though you believe he is a sock of Rhodes?
- TK>> Editor then continues editing, apparently, by asking others to post
- TK>> his work.
That's right. Does that bother you?
- TK>> Editor emails Admins about an issue that was discussed and
- TK>> decided upon months before.
Not so. I mailed the Admins on March 5 about improving the Riemann integral article to make it more suitable as a featured article. At that time the article had two votes, both positive. One from Foxtrot, and one unsigned but from JY23.
The voting gradually changed, to one positive and three negative, over the next few weeks, but the article was still not marked "past". It was moved to "past" at 08:11 on April 5. We may take that as the instant of the decision not to make this a featured article. That isn't "months before". In fact, it's exactly one month *after*.
- TK>> I've taken two Excedrin.
I'm sorry that this has given you a headache.
[edit] Message 19, from TK to Sam and Ed, April 13, 2009
- He has "settled the issue". A short while later he shows what he meant by that. He burned and salted a former Featured Article candidate (and one of the few really well-written maths articles in all of CP.)
from TK <email address>
to Sam B <sam4557@gmail.com>
cc Ed Poor <email address>
date Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:10 AM
subject RE: You missed the first few acts
Well, no worries. I have settled the issue.
--TK
