User talk:Jan Hidders

For your information, Jan, I participated in the Air Force funded efforts to create IDEF-1X in the first place. Prior to the project I worked on (I worked for Boeing at the time) IDEF was just IDEF-1. It was with my participation that IDEF1 became IDEF-1X.

If you have things to ADD to what I wrote, fine. But I don't think you have the right to completely wipe it all out without the agreement of the original author!

Put back what I wrote on ER model!

KeyStroke

--- I want to know why you completely wiped out my contribution and replaced it with something else. This doesn't make me irritated, it makes me completely furious!

Put it all back!

KeyStroke

Hi Jan, I see you're replace occurrences of "mediaeval" with "medieval". Although there's nothing wrong with that, "mediaeval" is the perfectly correct spelling of the word, be it the British one. Americans spell it the other way (as always taking the easier way to write it). I don't mind if you continue your "hunt", but you may want to spent your time on something else :-) Jeronimo

Thanks for the tip, I really didn't know that. But actually on the page in question the word was spelled in two different ways when I came there. -- Jan Hidders 11:20 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks for all the hlep we recieved with spellchekking!!! :-) --Ed Poor

Jan, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, especially at the talk there as we try to formulate style rules for the new TeX support. AxelBoldt 00:04 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Its best to avoid making statements that have roots in logical fallacy, esp. you want to be a professional philosopher who garners respect for their capacity within that epistemic community.Fom my latest post of your edification:

The process of giving unique Goedel identifer to each grammatical expression in one axiomatic system ( one version of the foundations of mathematics, usually identified as principia mathematica.), is a reletively straight forward matter.

Grammatically true statements in their minimum form may be identified by hand or in software implementaion. They are expressed in a language of symbolic logic. Each term used in the symbolic logic is uniquely identified with a natural number.
Grammatically true statements are uniquely identified with a number through a mark-up procedure involving an member of the prime number sequence used as a power on each term of the expresion. The results of each operation are summed.
Following this procedure will produce uniquely identifiable positve number for each expression of sybolic logic.

Because it was a work of philosophy, in the field of meta-Matematics, the fact that the numbers become arbitraily huge after a few terms is irrelevant. For a philosopher, the fact that this can be done in any disipline that depends on symblic logic (including all fields of study in science that use mathematics.) Some statements have comparatively small number values.

Two16. All appeals to rank, privilage, and authority are logical fallacies in all cases, in all circumstances, in epistemic communities.

Sorry, but you are wrong, the appeal to authority is in some cases very appropriate in Wikipedia. That is because ultimately it is not a forum for scientific discussions about what is true and not, but merely reports the current understanding of the issues by leading authorities and scientists that are presumed to be the experts. Again, as Axel already said, if you want your theory to be mentioned in Wikipedia you should see that it gets accepted by the involved scientists. -- Jan Hidders 16:57 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Please please read my posts with more care in the future. Please reread what I actually posted. My post on this page gives the structure of Goedal arguement.It is best to remain silent when you know not of what you speak.

Two16

The structure of the proof is not what is disputed and therefore irrelevant for the discussion. What is disputed are the philosophical consequences and your view on that seems to be rather uncommon under the experts and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. End of discussion. -- Jan Hidders 22:44 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Read the 35 page work. You seem to not have confidence in the ability of the community to identify logical fallacey. Why don't you take a look at the action of axelBolht's most recent user contributions to the foundations of mathematics and to the goedel articles. Reread my posts, then you will not present strawman arguements in place of my use of logic.

A defence of appeal to authority which is itself an appeal to authority, is never good form. Normally it would be considered an embarrassment. Two16

I said "end of discussion" and I meant it. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -- Jan Hidders 23:45 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought your statement "End Of Discussion." was a rhetorical flourish to lend authority to your arguement and not an actual command. Again, my humblest apology. Two16

Two16 got a formal warning from Jimbo so he (she?) is on their best behaviour. Prepare to be lovebombed!!! JTD

I don't think that is how he meant it. If this is his best behaviour and he doesn't begin to realize that Wikipedia is not a debating club, I fear for his future here. Let's hope he does. -- Jan Hidders 18:05 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Jan, on Time hierarchy theorem I gave a definition of time-constructible, and I'm not sure if it is the standard one, or if it is equivalent to the standard one. Could you have a look? AxelBoldt 21:26 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jan, I ran into a problem at computable number. There are two definitions, one from Turing and another one that seems more sensible. You see the problem :-) AxelBoldt 15:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)