Jump to content

User talk:Cmglee

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
2O11 2O12 2O13 2O14 2O15 2O16 2O17 2O18 2O19 2O2O
2O21 2O22 2O23 2O24 2O25

Generations timeline

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, since Gen Beta has been added to the English Wikipedia to stay, I think now would be a good time to add it to the SVG file here. Thanks! DrMarvinGrey (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DrMarvinGrey: Given that very little of the trapezoidal shape will show on the chart, I think it's too early to add it to the SVG. Let's revisit this in about 5 years. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

How can we give credit to you for File:Comparison of surface area vs volume of shapes.svg

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, Loving your work! I would be interested in using this beautiful figure you made here File:Comparison of surface area vs volume of shapes.svg for an academic research article. 1) I would like to include new results in this figure - is it ok to modify your .svg and including it in a scientific publication? 2) Is there a good and proper way to give credit to you for this figure? 3) Could you please specify the source you use to make this figure? I'll credit it as well.

Thanks a lot, and keep the awesome work! Greenrock974 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Greenrock974: . Yes, you may modify it as long as your derivative work is also released under a compatible licence. Based on the examples on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line#CC-BY_and_CC-BY-SA_licenses , you could have
© CMG Lee / http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:comparison_of_surface_area_vs_volume_of_shapes.svg / CC-BY-SA-3.0
The graphs were calculated with the formulas in their respective articles.
Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your Visual Proof of Bayes' Theorem

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is so helpful. Thanks! 2601:C8:102:6D80:940A:8FFC:A5B0:6C1D 14:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind feedback! Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 16:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Concern about the 4x4_magic_square_hierarchy.svg

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

You have some fantastic graphics!

I am writing about the 4x4_magic_square_hierarchy.svg file here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandiagonal_magic_square#/media/File:4x4_magic_square_hierarchy.svg The categories as presented are in reversed order. For Venn & Euler Diagrams, as the "containers" get smaller, the sets become more and more restrictive. The (Ordinary) magic square has the properties of the Semimagic square, but not vice versa. The Most-perfect magic squares are the most restricted, and must obey more properties, than the Semimagic squares. So, All Most-Perfect magic squares are Semimagic, but only some Semimagic are Most-Perfect.

Here is a general form of a Most-Perfect 4x4 Magic Square

[a b a+e-g 34-2a-b-e+g]

[e 34-a-b-e g a+b-g]

[17-a-e+g 2a+b+e-g-17 17-a 17-b]

[17-g 17-a-b+g 17-e a+b+e-17]

Thanks, John Wilson Scirealm.org http://scirealm.org/Math-VennDiagrams.html http://scirealm.org/Math-MagicSquares.html

Euler diagram of the requirements
Thanks for the compliment and bringing this matter to my attention, John.
I now see how the diagram can lead to confusion: if one interprets the sets as squares themselves, it does appear reversed, e.g. "some semimagic squares are most-perfect magic squares". I intended it to show the requirements for a square to be considered as such instead, e.g. "the requirements for a square to be considered most-perfect includes the requirements for it to be semimagic". Could you suggest a way to make the distinction clear?
Incidentally, I've moved your message to the bottom to maintain chronological order.
Cheers,
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 16:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps say "property" instead of "square" in the current wording,
with a Chart Title-Heading of "4x4 Magic Squares".
The Panmagic property does include the Ordinary property, and the Ordinary property does include the Semimagic property, so the chart would be correct from the Venn/Euler diagram point-of-view with that wording.
I notice that a lot of your diagrams are math/physics related. What is your background? Do you do anything with Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics?
I also saw some visual illusions and stereograms and ambigrams. I am interested in those as well.  :)
John 12.188.175.154 16:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Girl with a Dutch cityscape
✓ Done for English-language pages – I don't know enough of other languages to pick the most appropriate word.
As you can likely tell, I've a STEM background with some interest in visual art. I don't know much about SR or QM but if you've any particular illustrations worth doing, please let me know.
Glad you're into illusions etc. Can you name any particular favourites? I've been particularly fascinated by hybrid image illusions and have been toying with AI generation. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
One type that I have played with a bit recently is Chromostereopsis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromostereopsis
I have some online stuff about it here.
http://scirealm.org/Stereograms-Chromostereopsis.html
I have been replicating in C# code some of the visual illusions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions
I have some online ambigrams:
http://scirealm.org/Ambigrams.html
I have some online auto-stereograms in Javascript:
http://scirealm.org/Stereograms.html
John 208.104.74.113 01:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll have a look over the week. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 10:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Log-log plot of Lorentz factor γ (left) and 1/γ (right) vs fraction of speed of light β (bottom) and 1−β (top) showing near-linearity in log-log scale
Slowly going through your list, and am enjoying your write-up on chromostereopsis.
As you wrote that you were interested in special relativity, you might be interested in a plot I just made.
Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi CMGLEE,
Nice SR log plot :)
John 208.104.74.113 22:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, John. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Cool,
As I said, I love visual illusions!
John 208.104.74.113 22:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi CMGLEE,
I have comment about the wording on another one of your pics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square#/media/File:Euler_knight_tour_semimagic_square.svg
It says "A semimagic square (its diagonals do not sum to its magic constant, 260) also forming a knight's tour – no fully magic tours exist"
More correct would be to say that "no fully magic 8x8 magic tours exist"
There is a fully magic knight's tour on a 12x12 magic square.
I know this because I used one in a cryptogram puzzle many years ago.
http://scirealm.org/RuneQuestSolution.html
Scroll down to near the end...
In fact, this knights tour roughly makes a tree shape, which I used for the puzzle. 208.104.74.113 22:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
A semimagic square (its diagonals do not sum to its magic constant, 260) also forming a knight's tour – no 8×8 fully magic tours exist,[1] though 12×12 ones do.[2]
Wow, interesting puzzle! I've also edited en:magic square with a reference to http://mayhematics.com/t/md.htm as such. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 08:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ MathWorld News: There Are No Magic Knight's Tours on the Chessboard.
  2. ↑ Mayhematics, "12×12 Magic Knight's Tours"

Hi Cmglee, Since you seem interested in Magic Squares, I thought I would share this with you.

Method of algebra

[edit]

Magic squares can be generally solved by assigning variables to each cell and doing the algebra.

1x1 Magic Square, with Magic Constant=1M

This square is trivally magic, since it is a single number. It can be a "normal" magic square by setting M=1, so that the magic constant = (1+1)/2*(1/1) = 1.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cmglee&oldid=1086847832"