User talk:Watchduck

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Boolean Algebra)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tagging SVG[edit]

Hi Tilman, your question about text rendering has been answered in the meantime. At this opportunity I saw that the tagging you are using for SVG is suboptimal.
Please, don't categorize into Valid SVG and into Created with Inkscape! Rather categorize into Valid SVG created with Inkscape.
Better will be into one of its subcategories as Valid SVG created with Inkscape:Diagrams.
Best might be to use e.g. Valid SVG created with Inkscape:Hasse diagrams. The tagging is easy as you can see at your Nested set V4; elements in Hasse diagram.svg.
Not any problem if you prefer other subcategories. Of course the tagging can occur in the description, but there is as well an own field for the tag (SVG rozwój).
If you have any other question about that, or when I can help you to categorize your fine work, please just tell me. sarang사랑 05:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarang, your templates are sophisticated, but really not easy to use. (I will think about writing a Python script that generates the right template parameters after selecting options from a menu.) You used |other fields={{Igen|+|s=hd}} and it generated the SVG development field in the table. But in File:8-cube matrix.svg I used |other fields={{Igen|T|s=:Diagrams}}, and the boxes are outside of the table now. Watchduck (quack) 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To have them inside the table use the "+" parameter: |other fields={{Igen|T|+|s=d}}. That will work! sarang사랑 05:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Octeract Petrie polygon.svg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Octeract Petrie polygon.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Alexei Kopylov (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

3-ary Boolean functions; cube permutations; 0.svg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 3-ary Boolean functions; cube permutations; 0.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg[edit]

Λ and Л can look the same in some special "monumental" styles, but in the great majority of ordinary text they are not the same. I would suggest that you not make any further radical changes to that file without, at a minimum, discussing the proposed changes first. AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered on file discussion page. (File_talk:Venn_diagram_gr_la_ru.svg#Cyrillic_versus_Greek_L) Watchduck (quack) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Genji chapter symbols[edit]

User:Lipedia, User:Boolean_Algebra, User:Mate2Code, User:Watchduck, User:WatchDuck -- Why did you place Category:Genji chapter symbols in Category:Language-neutral diagrams, when not all images in that category are Language-neutral diagrams? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I took it from your file File:Genji chapter symbols groupings of 5 elements.svg, and thought that the symbols themselves are the "diagrams" in question. But a view at Category:Language-neutral diagrams shows me, that "diagrams" refers to the complete images. Thanks for the hint. Watchduck (quack) 11:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Category: Chiral images with rotational symmetry[edit]

This is wrecking. I won’t look for another word for it, even knowing that this damage to the system of categories might be non-deliberate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Inkscape radial gradient test; red displayed as green.svg[edit]

The file you uploaded had inconsistent conflicting "stop-color" specifications. In the following code fragment, how is the SVG renderer supposed to know whether you want #0a0 or #bf0000? Doing either one really could not be called an error... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

         style="stop-color:#bf0000;stop-opacity:1" />
Thanks. I will be suspicious of the style attribute in SVG code generated by Inkscape. --Watchduck (quack) 11:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi Tilman. Two of your graphics that appear on the 'Permutohedron' page (and other places) appear to have errors.

In the file 'Symmetric group 4; permutohedron 3D; l-e factorial numbers.svg' the vertices are labeled correctly but the edge coloring is wrong. If the edge coloring indicates the coordinate transpositions where blue swaps (1 2), green swaps (2 3) and red swaps (3 4), then the edges of all 6 squares should alternate between red and blue and the 12 edges interconnecting the squares should all be green.

In the file 'Symmetric group 4; Cayley graph 1,2,6 (3D).svg', the edge coloring is correct but the vertices may be labeled wrong. I'm not sure since I don't understand the difference between a permutohedron and Cayley graph. The section on Cayley labeling is somewhat opaque; perhaps the Cayley labeling should be 'the inverse of the permutation given by its coordinates'. So coordinate (1,2,3,4) should be labeled (4,3,2,1)?

In other words, a fully correct image of an order 4 permutohedron can be generated by combining the vertices and edges from the first graphic with the edge coloring of the second. Tomldavis (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at v:Inversion_(discrete_mathematics)#Weak_order_of_permutations, and see if it clarifies this indeed confusing topic for you. Dont forget to open the box with the Cayley graph. The permutohedron is not the Cayley graph, so of course the colors are not what you would expect in a Cayley graph. They just illustrate which digit of the vector below the permutation changes. Watchduck (quack) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion of syllogisms[edit]

Hello We were discussing your entry on Celaront and other four-step syllogisms that are represented as dubious three-steps in the narrative legend on the left-hand side of the page.

I hesitate to amend your entries. Would you like to do it?


Bob —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:05, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How about giving me a link to the article or talk page you mean? And how about logging in? Watchduck (quack) 19:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Achim (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving subdivision triangles category[edit]

Thank you for your work on the math categories. I've moved a few categories that you've created:

And created a new category, Category:Skew subdivision triangles, that I'll be filling shortly. Sorry if I didn't give you much notice, but those categories were fairly new, and the semicolon in the names was going to interfere with my upload tool. -Apocheir (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you move a category, please move also the files. (Currently I see images on this redirect page.) You can use Cat-a-lot to do that.
Semicolons in category names interfere with your upload tool?! Then you are using a horrible upload tool, and you should stop using it. That tool should use a pipe instead (like Commonist does).
You removed Category:Triangular tilings and Category:Yellow triangles. Do you think these images should not be in these categories, or do you mean to add them in a different way?
In short: Do what you think is right, but please finish what you start. Watchduck (quack) 23:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cube permutation 4 5.svg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cube permutation 4 5.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cube permutation 0 0 JF.png
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cube permutation 0 0 JF.png, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Simplified Venn Diagrams For Syllogisms[edit]

Dear Watchduck,
the three-circle Venn diagrams for the Syllogisms are much too complicated (absurdly so), IMHO. Apparently, these are traditional? They appear on the Syllogism pages in many languages. Maybe all are copying from the same source? I am a retired maths prof and would NEVER use the onnes shown now in one of my classes. I would like to submit to you for inclusion or replacement some examples of vastly simpler Venn diagrams, which I hope you would like and prefer. They are now in crude form using only keyboard characters, but of course could be converted easily using professional graphics software into a style similar to the current three-circle style. How can I send you my examples? Wikipedia has my email, as a registered user/ occasional editor. Skeptiker (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Skeptiker,
first of all I want to clarify, that I will not overwrite these graphics. There is nothing wrong with having different images representing the same thing. So I would suggest that you just upload your set of images, and put it in a category parallel to Syllogism charts with all Venn diagrams (but not in the same one). Ideally you first create vector versions with a software like Inkscape. But you could upload your raster graphics. If the content is great, someone else will make vector versions. I hope you have representations of all 24 syllogisms. Do your representations also work as proofs? Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 07:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Duck,
Thanks for your quick reply. Being 82 years old, and otherwise busy writing a paper in scientific philosophy that explains where in the brain all of Kant's philosophy can be found, I am not enthusiastic about following your DIY suggestions. What would be so terribly difficult about emailing you my samples, about six or eight so far, which I did as work-therapy. I managed to carelessly ruin them yesterday, but could fwd to you an email to my son, also a mathematician, which had about four of them. -- Yes, my Venn diagrams are proofs, visually speaking, which does not quite go with modern axiomatic maths idea of what a proof is. -- Okay, I will put down Barbara, Celarent and Felapton (I also did Ferio, Darii & Baroco; the diagram for Fesapo is identically the same as for Felapton) by cut-and-paste from the email to my son & you can take it from there, they are very easy to do. The predicates S, M, P are denoted by boxes with characteristic borders, as follows:
   S = /     \
   M =  |    |
   P =  {    }

(The paste did not work very well, repairs seem okay though:)

Modus Barbara (Euler).svg


all M is P; all S is M: all S is P

M:Men S:Greeks P:mortal

      All men are mortal. (MaP)
      All Greeks are men. (SaM)
   ∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)
   {     mortals        }
   {     …………………………………  }  
   {    |     men    |  }
   {    |    ………………  |  }   
   {    |  / Greeks\ |  } 
   {    |  \_______/ |  }
   {    |____________|  }

- - - - -
Modus Celarent (Euler).svg


no M is P; all S is M: no S is P

M:reptiles S:Snakes P:fur

      No reptiles have fur. (MeP)
      All snakes are reptiles. (SaM)
   ∴ No snakes have fur. (SeP) 
     |           |          …………………
     |   ………………  |         {       }  fur
     |  /snakes\ |         {_______} 
     |  \______/ |     
- - - - - 
Modus Felapton (Euler).svg


no M is P; all M is S: some S is not P

M:flower S:plant P:animal

      No flowers are animals. (MeP)
      All flowers are plants. (MaS)
   ∴ Some plants are not animals. (SoP)
     …………………………………  plants 
    /  …………………    \     
   /  |       |  ……\………………………
  /   |  ($)  | { ? \        }
  \   |flowers| {___/________} 
   \  |_______|    /         animals

The symbol ($) means that set S of flowers is not empty, there is stuff in it (flowers) . .!! Skeptiker (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So basically you want to use Euler diagrams instead of Venn diagrams.
Someone has already made graphics like that: Category:Syllogism charts with all Euler diagrams (PNGs)
They are used in the Japanese article: w:ja:三段論法
I don't like that Barbara and Barbari look the same. How would you distinguish them?
Anyway, I don't think that Euler diagrams are better, and I think adding separate diagrams for premises and conclusion adds extra clarity. Watchduck (quack) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Watch,
Euler diagrams?? He was one clever guy, published more papers than I any other mathematician, living or dead, I've heard.
I think you misspoke in the last reference to "Euler"diagrams. You sound defensive, which is okay, but not necessary.
So basically want the utter simplicity of the syllogisms to be apparent, and if two syllogisms are identical, fine ..!!
Your (?) three-circle diagrams are unintelligible except after long and careful study, not the idea of an encyclopedic article, I would say
I will take a look at the Jap site, thanks.
Did fix up my Ferio, Darii and Baroco Venn diagrams, here they are:
- - - - -
Modus Ferio (Euler).svg


no M is P; some S is M: some S is not P

M:homework S:reading P:fun

     No homework is fun. (MeP)
     Some reading is homework. (SiM)
   ∴ Some reading is not fun. (SoP) 
       |                |
     ……|…………………………………………|……………………………………………………   reading            
   /   |                |                     \            
  /    |   ($)          |     ……………………………………………\………………………………
 /     |                |     {                 \           }             
 \     |                |     {        ?        /           }
  \    |                |     {                /            }
   \   |                |     { ______________/_____________} 
    \_|_________________|____________________/           fun                               
- - - - -
Modus Darii (Euler).svg


all M is P; some S is M: some S is P

M:rabbit S:pet P:fur

     All rabbits have fur. (MaP)
     Some pets are rabbits. (SiM)
   ∴ Some pets have fur. (SiP) 
         {                                } fur
         {     ………………………………………………………      }   
         {   |  rabbit              |     }
         {   |             ………………………|……………}……………………………       
         {   |           /  ($)     |     }    ?      \    
         {   |           \__________|_____}___________/                               
         {   |______________________|     }        pet
- - - - - 
Modus Baroco (Euler).svg


all P is M; some S is not M: some S is not P

M:useful S:website P:informative

     All informative things are useful. (PaM)
     Some websites are not useful. (SoM)
   ∴ Some websites are not informative. (SoP)
   |    ……………………………………………………         |  
   |   {   informative       }       |       
   |   {     …………………………………………}…………………|………………………………       
   |   {    /                }       |            \      
   |   {   /    ?            }       |     ($)     \      
   |   {   \                 }       |             /    
   |   {    \________________}_______|____________/    
   |   {_____________________}       |     website

Skeptiker (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Watchman Duck, looked at Jap page, those diagrams far less clear than mine. Skeptiker (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WatchDuck, let me explain difference of Euler diagrams from Skeptiker diagrams. My trick is to use contrasting borders for S, M, P predicates. Also, add labels like pet, fur, rabbit, etc. This way I don't need extra diagrams for premises & conclusions like the Jap page does. Basically, my diagrams exhibit the utter triviality of syllogisms in our times as opposed to the days of Aristotle, who was a true mental giant, ahead of his times by two millennia, although lacking science. E.g., he thought that leaves on dicot plants serve to shade the fruit, and that the brain's purpose was to cool the blood, aided by the numerous folds, as raditator grills. He seems to have thought like an engineer . .!! The medieval scholastics being idle monks needed something to do, not having computer games available to them, yet. Skeptiker (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between your diagrams and those on the Japanese page. I have created what I consider improved versions of the Japanese diagrams, which I have included next to your ASCII diagrams. Watchduck (quack) 00:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's not lose sight of the main point: My diagrams are vastly simpler than the three circle diagrams now on the article page. You could put my diagrams on article page. They still are superior to the Jap style, as follows: -- Yes, you adopted one of my tricks without giving me credit, marking a boldface 'x' for my ($), and thereby you did improve the Jap diagrams. And I have two more tricks, (1.) the shape of the borders instead of colors which stands out more, and (2.) using example predicates as labels, which are completely missing on the Nippon page and in your "improved" version. Diagrams for premises and conclusions are implied by the full diagram. Adding them separately only serves to clutter up the picture, adds a false appearance of sophistication and obscures the triviality of syllogistic logic in the 21st century. Skeptiker (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It's even worse: I usurped your trick five years before you revealed it to me - and no one knows how I did it.
I prefer leaving the choice of an example to the person who eventually uses the diagram.
Creating a false appearance of sophistication is pretty much all I do here.
You are still free to download Inkscape and DIY. Watchduck (quack) 08:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Not young enough to learn Inkscape and DIY. Working on my philosophy paper which is in bad shape. At 82 need all my remaining life-force to complete that job. Changed "usurp" to "adopt" above. Still, in my now humbler opinion, the Wikipedia articles should strive to avoid such absurdly and needlessly complicated material as the existing three-circle diagrams, as was my main point originally. Adding example, including labels in diagram, plus dropping separate diagrams for premises & conclusion (to unclutter page), all would help people to comprehend the utter simplicity of three logical inferences flowing from the three predicates in each syllogism. We should simplify learning for the benefit of students. True, "knowledge is power," but power corrupts, and Wikipedia has acquired absolute power. Skeptiker (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I did what makes sense to me, and don't intend to do what makes sense to you. So I consider this discussion closed.
But I would like to share this cat image with you. This is the internet after all. Watchduck (quack) 19:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You are certainly free to join the great unteachables. Just to mention: The example syllogisms in my diagrams are from the English-language page about syllogisms. Skeptiker (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Watchduck, trying to catch your attention, feel free to erase.

I thought you might like to have a look at the English-language "Syllogism" talk-page. Today I added carefully chosen examples for use in simplified diagrams in eleven (11) "reduced" syllogisms. Here the reduction is by (1.) dropping weak syllogisms; (2.) declaring equivalent any two syllogisms which differ only by an interchange of AiB & BiA, or AeB & BeA.

Thus we now do not need to learn 24 but only 11 syllogisms. Skeptiker (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add only to the end, and don't make changes to anything that is before someone elses answer.
So you made more ASCII art. Why not - it's your life time.
11 is also the number of columns in my table of Venn diagrams (if you count columns not separated by a border as one). Watchduck (quack) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You got it, was trying to get you to respond, which you did. -- Latest count: Es giebt nur sieben (7) wesentlich verschiedene Syllogismen:
      *  *  *   Barbara, Darii, Felapton, Ferio, Celarent, Bocardo, Baroco   *  *  * 

Bitte englische Wikipedia "talk-page" wegen Update einsehen. Es geht mir aber wirklich nicht um Zeitvertreib, sondern um Klarstellung der grundsätzlichen Einfachheit der Syllogismen-Theorie (für uns heute). Und eineme 82 Jahre alten Greis solltest Du es nicht übelnehmen. Natürlich verstehe ich Deinen berechtigten Stolz auf Deine preiswürdige Grafiken, nur hast Du diese hier glaube ich falsch angebracht. Eine einfache Sache sollte man nicht künstlich (von Kunst ..!!) schwierig machen. Skeptiker (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Seufz. Es ist wirklich nicht schwierig in Inkscape ein paar Kreise und Beschriftungen zu machen, und es gibt auf Youtube jedem Menge Videos wie man das macht. Das sollte schneller gehen als deine ASCII-Diagramme. Ich würde dir empfehlen eine Wikiversity-Seite zu machen - vielleicht v:Syllogisms simplified. (v:Syllogisms habe ich mal gemacht.) Wenn du es ordentlich präsentierst (ohne ASCII-Art) und verständlich schreibst, dann liest es vielleicht auch mal jemand. Ich finde es nicht besonders spannend, und ich glaube auch nicht, dass es besonders viele Leute gibt, die sich dafür interessieren, auf wie viele "wesentlich verschiedene" man die Anzahl der Syllogismen herunterbringen kann. Es ist ja nicht so, als müsste die Dinger heute noch jemand auswändig lernen. Viel Spaß dabei, aber lass mich da raus. Ich glaube die Arbeit über Kant war die bessere Idee. Watchduck (quack) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Traurig, daß Du auf den Hauptpunkt gar nicht eingehst: Deine Diagramme machen eine einfache Sache auf absurde Weise kompliziert. Und jetzt hast Du, durch Einsetzen (unter meinem Einfluss) der japanischen Kreise in Deine elf Spalten, das Bild noch mehr verunstaltet. Als Graphiker fehlt Dir jedes Verständnis dafür, was eine gute Darstellung ausmacht. -- Die Diagramme sind mir leichte Geistesübung, Seelengymnastik, work therapy, um zu verstehen, was für Aristoteles wesentlich war. -- Der Kant Aufsatz wird geschrieben, aber der berühmte Philosoph ist jetzt nicht mehr Mittelpunkt, sondern wie das neuverstandene Gehirn unsere Welt verständlich zu machen versucht. Skeptiker (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)