User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (15)

Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (12) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (13) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (14) (most recent)

---

Categories

In Inverse problem I changed the category to Applied Mathematics, which seems right as it is a distinct branch of applied mathematics, however the discipline is called Inverse Problems while in the usual wikipedia way the article title is singular. How do I make it appear as Inverse Problems in the list of categories of Applied Maths? Billlion 08:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More categories

I saw you put linear programming in category:applied mathematics. At the moment, linear programming is also in category:optimization which is in category:numerical analysis which is in category:mathematics. I think it would be better if category:numerical analysis were in category:applied mathematics instead. This would make the category:applied mathematics in linear programming redundant. Let me know if you have any problems with this, otherwise I will do so. -- Jitse Niesen 12:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

\nu as subscript

Hi there. On two pages, I edited. you changed my subscript from $\nu$ to $i$. I am not interested in changing it back I just want to explain my reason for using $\nu$.

When you have a lot of subscripts (as for example in numerical mathematics) it gets quite hard to keep track of the purpose of each subscript. Say for example you have

$\sum _{i=0}^{j}\sum _{k=0}^{i}a_{k,i}$

it is not clear what subscript is used as counter and what subscript is used as maximum.

$\sum _{n=0}^{N}\sum _{\nu =0}^{n}a_{\nu ,n}$

is much clearer as there is a hierarchy of subscripts $\nu ,n,N$ and the subscripts are linked by their common pronounciation as n.

On the article on polynomial your change was ok because the article is quite basic and a lot of people without math background will look it up so the $\nu$ might scare them. The article on inner product space requires more math background so we can assume the reader knows the greek alphabet and therefore I think my version is easier to understand although this is probably debatable. But in articles on numerical mathematics my version in clearly easier to understand. MathMartin 10:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

it's idiosyncratic - no text I've encountered uses nu in this way. Using a typical subscript such as i,j,k,s,t, or whatever, is much more lucid. Compare $\sum _{\xi =0}^{\Xi }x_{\xi }$ to $\sum _{i=0}^{n}x_{i}$.

I think the first example is a bit better (depending on the context used) but I agree the second example is more common. Even better than both would be

$\sum _{n=0}^{N}x_{n}$.

The numerical analysis script I am currently reading uses $\nu$ and I guess most numerical math text do as they need more subscripts. Have you ever seen $\zeta$ to denote the zero of a polynomial ? I think this is a similar case as the $\zeta$ is used because zero starts with z and in the same way if I do a sum I would use $\nu$ because the upper limit of the sum is denoted by n.

The issue is using Greek letters as subscripts, not as zeros of polynomials or any other use. I've no problems with Greek letters elsewhere. I think the "better than both" example you provided is about equivalent to using i as an index subscript.

it's not completely accessible to all readers, it may be jarring to inexperienced readers to have a Greek latter as a subscript

This is true as I already admitted.

your statement that the "hierachy of indices" makes things clearer, may make things more confusing to some as well (ie "too many n's")

I do not understand how they make things more confusing. If you have two sums

$\sum _{n=0}^{N}\sum _{\nu =0}^{n}a_{\nu ,n}$

and

$\sum _{m=0}^{M}\sum _{\mu =0}^{m}a_{\mu ,m}$

the m's and n's provide a hint which subscript belongs to which sum.

As do using is and js would be more lucid also.

As I already said I am not interested in reverting your changes so I see no problem. I even agree to your change on the polynomial page. But have a look at Newton polynomial (even on the off chance you would change the subscripts there). Do you really think in this case your convention would make the page clearer ? MathMartin 11:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it was used judiciously, yes. For example

$n_{n}(x):=\prod _{\nu =0}^{n}(x-x_{\nu -1})$

to

$n_{n}(x):=\prod _{i=0}^{n}(x-x_{i-1})$

Dysprosia 13:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are two instances on the page were the term occurs. The first is

$N(x):=\sum _{n=0}^{N}a_{n}n_{n}(x)$

with the Newton basis polynomials defined as

$n_{n}(x):=\prod _{\nu =0}^{n}(x-x_{\nu -1})$

Which is just a long form of the more compact term

$N(x):=\sum _{n=0}^{N}a_{n}\prod _{\nu =0}^{n}(x-x_{\nu -1})$

When looking at the compact term it is clear (at least in my opinion) that the 3 subscripts are dependent on each other so the naming of the subscripts should reflect this.

The second occurence of the term should look like the first so it is easier for the reader to recognize the term we are talking about. If the second term stood on its on your change would be ok. MathMartin 14:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's an unrelated problem though -you shouldn't use N for N(x) and the limit of the sum as well. I'd suggest something like

$N(x):=\sum _{j=0}^{k}a_{j}\prod _{i=0}^{j}(x-x_{i-1})$

which draws out the relationships just as clearly, IMO. Dysprosia 04:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit you convinced my. When the subscripts are used in this order, that is i for the innermost subscript as you did, your notation is better. The only slight problem is, I would like to use n instead of k because it denotes the number of data points. But using n would destroy the order of the indices so I stay with k.MathMartin 09:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney

Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. Incidently, there is a message board Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Dysprosia 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 15:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Examples of contour integration

The whole point of examples of contour integration was to explain how to used the residue theorem to find integrals or sums not necessarily involving complex numbers, that cannot routinely be found by simpler methods. It is conventional that that is what "contour integration" means. You redirected it to a page whose purpose was entirely different and which included no such examples. Admittedly the page is deficient in that it now contains only one example, but it's good example, and no examples -- good or otherwise -- are in the article to which you redirected it. Michael Hardy 22:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the example again. I think you've missed the point. This example is almost too complicated to appear on the page titled residue theorem; it's too complicated to be the first example on that page, but it's just right for this kind of page. The examples for this page are not supposed to explain what the residue theorem says, but rather how to use it for certain kinds of integrals and sums. Michael Hardy 00:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Hiya, just dropping a line to let you know that something went badly wrong with this edit of yours to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - seems the "policy" page got written over the top of the "technical" page. I have reverted it. —Stormie 05:16, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

LQwiki

It looks like we're debating/going to be debating some bylaws soon. (Hopefully nobody from the LQwiki reads this!) Here's what I got so far, in case you have any changes you'd like to make. crazyeddie 05:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bylaws of the LQwiki

Fundamental Law

wiki.linuxquestions.org, also known as the LQwiki, as a corporate entity, consists of the Community of Contributors, who have gathered together for the purpose of collaboratively creating Free documentation for Linux and other related topics.

The LQwiki is an autonomous entity that is in a mutual beneficial relationship with our parent site, linuxquestions.org (the LQ). In exchange for advertising revenue, increased traffic to the parent site, and access to our documentation, the LQ provides hosting and system administration.

The ruling body of the LQwiki is the Council of Moderators, which consists of:

• The Dictator-For-Life. The Dictator-For-Life is the chairman of the Council. He casts the deciding vote in case of a tie, and has a veto over decisions of the Council, which can be overridden.

• The System Administrators. The system administrators report directly to the Dictator-For-Life. They are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the LQwiki's backend. Since their duties as system administrators require that they have the same privileges as moderators, they can not be declared inactive unless first stripped of their positions as administrators. They can be declared absent if they have not posted in the wiki for a period of 45 days, or for failing to vote on a Council measure (see the Rules of Order for details).

• The Moderators. The moderators are currently appointed by the Dictator-For-Life, but it is hoped that they will eventually be elected by and from the Community at large. They are responsible for overseeing the contributors in the creation and editing of content. They can be declared inactive and removed from the Council if the have not posted in the wiki for a period of 90 days. They can be declared absent if they have not posted in the wiki for a period of 30 days, or for failing to vote on a Council measure (see Rules of Order for details).

The Council can amend the bylaws which includes this Fundamental Law as well as the Rules of Order by a 60% vote. Currently, that's 3 out of 5. The Council can issue binding policies, non-binding conventions, or non-actionable resolutions by 50+% vote also 3 out of 5, currently. The Council can override the Dictator-For-Life's veto by a 2/3s vote 4 out of 5 - and the Dictator counts as 1.

The bits in itallics will be removed before the bylaws are enacted.

Rules of Order

Most of the discussion forums and mailing lists on the Internet are used purely for entertainment or information. Of the few venues that exist to make policy decisions, such as developer's mailing lists for open source projects, most are non-binding discussion groups that exist to establish the group's consensus view. In such a group, there is usually a "Benevolent Dictator for Life" that makes the final decision if there is no single consensus, but the grandiose title of the position underlines the fact that such decisions are not binding. Any member of such a group has the right to fork the project.

However, with the rise of wikis, there are now open source projects in existance where the vast majority of contributors lack the expertise to fork the project. Because of this, the decisions of the steering bodies of such projects are binding on the community. With this increased power comes the increased responsibility to take minority viewpoints into account.

In the "Real World" outside of the Internet, also known as "meatspace", there is a long tradition of legislative bodies which are required to take such matters into consideration. To deal with these issues, meatspace bodies have sets of laws concerning how to carry out the day-to-day business of making decisions. These sets of laws are known as Rules of Order.

The most popular Rules of Order are known as Robert's Rules of Order. These Rules of Order were written in 1876, and were based on, with some modifications, the Rules of Order of the United States' House of Representatives. The House's Rules of Order are in turn based on the Rules of Order used by Great Britian's House of Commons. Because of this long tradition, Robert's Rules of Order are flexible and essentially bulletproof, and are used in virtually all meatspace assemblies.

But conditions in cyberspace assemblies are very different from conditions in meatspace assemblies, and the existing Rules of Order must by modified to take these differences into account before they can be used to run cyberspace assemblies.

Differences Between Meatspace and Cyberspace Assemblies

The most obvious difference between meatspace and cyberspace assemblies is that, in meatspace assemblies, debate and discussion is expensive. A meatspace assembly usually has from twenty to over one hundred members. With such a large group, only one person at a time can make themselves understood. Conventional Rules of Order have elaborate procedures for deciding who "has the floor", or the right to speak, and the main function of the chairman is to determine who has this right. By contrast, in a cyberspace assembly, any member can "speak" without interrupting another member. So determining who has the floor is unneccessary.

The second difference, is that, since only one person can speak, a meatspace assembly can only focus on one task at a time. Any other task has to be "backgrounded" (as hacker jargon puts it) and there is a ranking of precedence of different types of motions. The rule of thumb is that the more minor and easily decided a motion, the higher the precedence, so that the body can get it over with and get back to greater issues. By contrast, a cyberspace assembly can handle multiple threads of discussion at once. However, this ability can be overloaded, so it is useful to retain the backgrounding/foregrounding mechanisms of meatspace assemblies.

The third difference is that communication in a meatspace assembly is sychronous, while communication in a cyberspace assembly is asychronous. (Many members of Internet forums only check for new posts infrequently, and even the most dedicated only check once or twice daily.) This has the greatest effect on voting. In meatspace assemblies, voting is a nearly instantanous process, requiring only an acclamation (loudest side wins), a show of hands, or a written ballot. In a cyberspace assembly, if every member's vote must be counted, the body might well be required to wait forever. In a meatspace assembly, it is reasonably easy to perform a roll call, and major legislatures even have mechanisms for "arresting" absent members. In a cyberspace assembly, often the only sign that a member is no longer "present" is that they stop speaking, and it is simply impossible to "arrest" an absent member.

This doesn't mean that voting should not be used in a cyberspace assembly, any more than debate and discussion should not be used in a meatspace assembly. It does mean that there needs to be a well thought out process for voting, and that less formal means of consensus-gathering should be used when available.

Rubberstamp Approvals

Here is an example of an informal method of gaining consensus. In the daily operation of a body that requries Rules of Order, there are many proposals, that, while noncontraversal, are major enough to require the approval of the body. To this end, a member approval of a noncontraversial proposal can do so by obtaining the approval of 1/3 of the active members of the body. Once this approval is obtained, the member must place the measure before the body for one week. If, by the end of the week, nobody has objected to the proposal, the proposal is enacted. If a member objects, and further discussion does not convince the member to withdraw their objection, then the measure most obtain more formal approval before being enacted.

This measure is only a shortcut, any member can always request a more formal method of approval. The body can place restrictions on what types of measures can be approved by this method. For example, amendments to the bylaws of the group are too important to be left up to this method.

Voting

For the purposes of voting, the members of the body are divided into these three groups:

• active
• absent
• inactive

In addition to the methods laid out in this section, the body may have additional criteria for deciding what members should be listed as absent. Absent members, aside from the effects explained in this section, have all the rights and privileges as their active counterparts. Inactive members are thrown out of the body, at least temporarily. The criteria for deciding which members are inactive, or reinstating inactive and absent members to active status, are outside the scope and should be decided by the individual bodies.

Before a vote, the main sponser of the measure being voted on is reponsible for compiling a list of currently active or absent members, which members should be added to the lists of absent or inactive members, which absent or inactive members have been recently reinstated, and submitting these lists to the chairman, who will be responsible for the final determination of status.

Once begun, the vote continues until the needed majority of active members have voted either for or against the measure. If an absent member votes, then they shall be counted as an active member for the purposes of the vote. In other words, if there are 5 active members, and there is a measure being voted on that requires a 50+% majority to pass, then voting stops when there are 3 affirmative votes. The number of absent members doesn't matter. However, if two active members have voted "yes" for the measure, and a previously absent member also votes "yes", then voting continues. This is because the vote is now 3/6, and an additional yes vote is required.

Once there is a clear majority, voting stops. Members who have not yet voted will not be listed as absent.

If, at the end of one week, there is no clear majority either for or against the measure, then the remaining votes are thrown out, and the decision is made on the already cast votes. Members who have not yet voted are then listed as "absent".

It should be noted that this one week period is intended as a maximum, not a minimum, and all members are encouraged to vote on a measure ASAP. If a member is still undecided when the vote begins, then they should vote "abstaining" rather than wait to see what other members decide. An exception to this adivce is the chairman, who may reserve his or her vote as a tie-breaker.

A body may have to option of allowing members to declare themselves "absent" voluntarily if they foresee an extended absence. Such members are protected from being declared inactive during such an absence. This is intended to encourage members to not allow such forseeable absences to delay the proceedings of the body.

Comments

What do you think? crazyeddie 05:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia

It looks okay, except for the following:

• You may want to use benevolent dictator instead of dictator-for-life... sounds better.
• They can be declared absent if they have not posted in the wiki for a period of 45 days, or for failing to vote on a Council measure (see the Rules of Order for details).

I don't like this. It means that admins have to vote or they will lose their priveleges. Voting on measures shouldn't be compulsory. If it were, it may encourage donkey/apathetic voting, for users who don't prefer to vote on things. The absentee issue is also troublesome, what if someone goes on holiday, or needs a break from editng (see Wikipedia:Wikibreak)?

HTH Dysprosia 01:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crazyeddie

No problem with the benevolent dictator - that's just cosmetic.

The absent part is not as scary as it sounds. It's something that should be better explained in the Rules of Order. I've put a Rules of Order v0.1 out in front of the council, but I personally think it's very buggy. The others don't see the problem, or even the need for a Rules of Order at all. Regardless, I do have a Rules of Order v0.2 planned, but I'd like to get the Fundamental Laws passed first.

Anyway, here's the breakdown on what "absent" means. One of the problems of voting on the Net is that not everbody is there at the same time. In a real world assembly, everybody's there, and you can just have a show of hands, or a written ballot. In big legislatures, they even have mechanisms for "arresting" absent members before the vote. Obviously, this can't be done on the Net.

So for these Net Rules of Order (including v0.1), I've given a maximum waiting period of a week to wait for the votes to come in. However, this week is intended as a maximum not a minimum. If a majority of the active members of the body have voted for or against a measure, the vote can be closed early. Absent members aren't counted as part of the active members. They can still vote, but the body won't wait out the full week on just their account.

Absent moderators and admins still have all the rights and privileges as their active counterparts, including the right to vote. Inactive moderators, on the other hand, will be stripped of their rank and booted back down to plain-jane contributor. But that can only happen if they haven't contributed in the last 90 days. If they haven't posted in that long, then they're probably enough out of touch with events in the wiki that they shouldn't be allowed to mod anyway. To date, the only mod who has been out of date that long is Ugen64. He dropped off the map shortly before being made Beuracrat here at the Wikipedia. His Wikipedia duties were probably too much for him.

Note that administrators (namely David Ross - since Jeremy is the Dictator, he can't very well be kicked off the Council!) can't be made inactive, and have a 15-day grace period before they get declared absent. I wanted to strike a balance - cut them more slack because of their duties, but also keep them involved in the day-to-day doings in the actual wiki.

I am taking in the need for vacations into account. I think in version 0.2, I'll put in a bit about members who expect an extended absence can request to be placed in "absent" status, and this will prevent them from being declared inactive. I don't know if this is the best course for the LQwiki - after that long of an absence, it might be good for the returned mod to get reacquantied with the wiki before being reinstated - but I'm trying to make the Rules as generic as possible so any body that meets on the Net can use them. crazyeddie 04:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia

If a majority of the active members of the body have voted for or against a measure, the vote can be closed early.

So this allows the possibility for one to be active and not vote?

If they haven't posted in that long, then they're probably enough out of touch with events in the wiki that they shouldn't be allowed to mod anyway.

Two issues with this: that implies that it is then impossible to get back in touch when it is in fact possible, and that this shouldn't have to apply to admins also.

'I'll put in a bit about members who expect an extended absence can request to be placed in "absent" status,

This seems a bit restrictive. Maybe merely just ask that if they go away for some time they make some notification on their user or talk page somehow. Dysprosia 02:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crazyeddie

Let's keep the discussion on your user page - I go here first thing when I log on. You've convinced me that I need to present both major parts of the bylaws - the Fundamental Law and the Rules of Order - at the same time. I've been meaning to write down Rules of Order v0.2, and here's a good a place as any. I do have responses to make to your last comments, but I'll take care of the Rules of Order first, as that might save some time. crazyeddie 20:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added a first level section header - screws up your formatting here a little, but will make it easier to cut and paste later. Maybe we ought to move this to a sub-page? crazyeddie 20:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like subpages under my user namespace, but we can move it to a subpages of yours if you'd like, or just leave it here...

In any case I'm intending to archive soon, the page is getting a bit long... Dysprosia 01:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit busy for the rest of the week - good news is I have a month's worth of computers in my office. Bad news is a I have a month's worth of computers in my office. Good for the ledger, not good for sanity. Anyway, when I get back I'll see about moving to a sub-page. I'm not really done with the Rules - in fact, I'm more or less just done with the introductory material - but I've covered everything that was in v0.1. I still need to "port" Robert's Rules of Order. Seems a bit much for a 5-member council, but we need to plan for growth. And wouldn't hurt to have guidelines on how it should be done, then look for shortcuts.

I get this feeling that the voting section is about as clear as mud. Since I somehow get the impression that you know just a little bit of math, and because of this, have experience in explaining complex subjects, could you take a look at clearing it up? If you get a chance. And any comments on what I've done so far.

I did some research, and found out that the traditional title is Benevolent Dictator for Life. The article on it also let me put my finger on why I feel these bylaws are necessary - I knew they were, I just couldn't say why. I've explained that why in the intro to the Rules. So thanks for the lead! If/when these bylaws go into effect, "President" might be a more accurate (but less fun) title. But I still feel that the name of the position is mostly cosmetic. My vot is to leave it up to Jeremy to decide the name of his position for now.

Figuring out the why is lucky break, since it'll help me convince Jeremy. Jeremy has been going along with this, but I get the impression that he's just humouring me. We need to get his buy-in for this to work. Aside from him being the big cheese, he's the best one to convince David and Skyline. How about you? Are you convinced this is neccessary? Do you have any problems with the idea in principle? Or are we just haggling over details? crazyeddie 17:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contour integration

I thought your intent was to illustrate the method of evaluating contour integrals by example?

No. My purpose was not to illustrate how to compute these things; if that had been my purpose, the example I put there would have been given a much lower priority; I would have used it only after a series of simpler examples, each intended to isolate some specific aspect of technique. That is one reason why I asked about your experience with this kind of thing; I suspected you hadn't really done much of this and therefore failed to understand the purpose. The purpose was to illustrate by example how the evaluation of integrals along closed contours in the complex plane can be used to find integrals along the real line or sums involving only real numbers. Michael Hardy 00:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Shining

There are a couple of problems with your rewrite of The Shining. The article is about the book, but you wrote a synopsis of the movie. Secondly, it is a synopsis, essentially giving away the entire story of the movie in detail. I believe you should consider restoring the previous revision and moving your synopsis to a subpage of the movie. I doubt that it is appropriate even there, since you give away so much of the movie, I believe it to be a copyvio. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand you spent a lot of work on the synopsis, and it is a good one. I'm not saying that you took someone else's work, I'm saying that a complete synopsis tends to violate copywrite law because it could potentially cause someone to not buy the book/see the movie, thereby depriving the author of profits. Seriously. Cheers -- Cecropia | Talk 14:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you see, copyright infringement is not a bright line (IANAL, but worked on IP matters for years). One of the rules of thumb is whether someone's use of a work potentially diminishes an author's rights, which include the right to profit from his or her work. If this were a history book, it would be fairer game, because you cannot copyright the history itself, just the author's "art," the method of writing and presentation, and any conclusions the author draws from it.

I would not remove it myself because I know how much work you put into it. If it were my own work I would consider rewriting to point out the significance of events in the movie and I would not carry the synopsis to the very end. I might mention some of the controversy about the action of the movie. Where the book is unambiguous that the hotel is ensouled, the movie does make us wonder whether everything is really happening or whether Jack is going insane. The ending certainly seems to argue that it's not all in Jack's (and Danny's) head--a sort of mass hysteria, since Wendy eventually sees things also.

I wrote the above before your most recent note. Do you think it would be useful to do an RfC? -- Cecropia | Talk 15:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You said: The problem is that with omitting certain things loses a lot of information which I think is significant for someone who is trying to understand what is going on "behind the scenes" (so to speak) to answer possibly why and how the things in the film happened, or to explain properly the events that happen later. It might be possible to leave out Wendy's explanation of how Jack used to be an alcoholic but then it doesn't explain the appearance of Lloyd and Grady later when Jack goes to get a drink, for example. The problem shouldn't lie in revealing spoilers - it's adequately warned of such, and I think it's important to describe the movie to the end, for completeness.

If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. It is a wonderful read. Up to a point part of the structure is that of the haunted house story, you know, the one where people have to stay in a spooky house for a certain period of time for some reason, such as they'll inherit an estate. They get the growing feeling that they'd better get out, and just when they realize that they're in real danger, an outside event occurs which makes it impossible to leave, such as the house is on an island and the only bridge is suddenly demolished by a storm. In The Shining the compelling reason to stay in the hotel is that the caretaker job is essential to Jack's and his family's future, and the snowstorm is the outside event.

Major themes in the book include Jack's alcoholism, his bad temper and his desire to redeem himself for his family's sake. So the alcoholism is fairly central to the story. When Jack is closed in for the winter, he has no booze with him whatsoever, but the hotel knows what he needs and supplies it for him. The first time he meets Lloyd, it is fairly apparent that Lloyd is in his mind; but the second time Lloyd is very real, I bring this up because, in the book, motivations are fairly clearly set out. Part of the great genius of the book (IMO, of course) is that upon re-reading, it still makes sense that Jack stays in the hotel even after there are clear indications that there are serious problems, even knowing how the book ends.

Now turning to the movie, it gets more complicated for me, because I'm too familiar with the book. So it becomes more a question of asking what Kubrick is trying to convey about the story rather than what is important in the story itself. Did you feel that the alcoholism was peripheral to the movie's story? Are you satisfied with why Jack is over-wintering in the hotel in the first place? Is it evident that the hotel has a soul, or does it simply seem haunted by the souls of other humans?

A third issue is the miniseries, which was a great disappointment to me. Even though it is much closer to the book than Kubrick's movie, King goes out of his way to make it an "anti-Kubrick" film, even changing his own book apparently to avoid using some scenes that Kubrick used so effectively. And King changes his own ending. But I ramble on. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I haven't read the book, though if I get a chance, I think I shall.

Did you feel that the alcoholism was peripheral to the movie's story?

You could say that the alcoholism was peripheral in that it wasn't focused upon as playing a part in what went on, but that leads on to him hurting Danny, him saying he'll give anything (even his soul) for a drink, and the blackly humorous way in which he talks to Lloyd and describes to him the incident involving just "a few extra foot pounds of energy, per second... per second". It helps vividly in revealing Jack's state of mind.

Are you satisfied with why Jack is over-wintering in the hotel in the first place?

Yes, I suppose I am satisfied with the reason why Jack is in the hotel over the winter.

Is it evident that the hotel has a soul, or does it simply seem haunted by the souls of other humans?

This one's interesting. Kubrick leaves this somewhat open. You get the clue about the "Indian burial ground" before, and Grady says to him while he's stuck in the room that "I and others have come to believe..." suggesting there's a group oriented with a common goal, but then there's the possession aspect with Jack ...this is suppose left to the imagination...

Dysprosia 05:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with why Jack is over-wintering in the hotel in the first place?

Yes, I suppose I am satisfied with the reason why Jack is in the hotel over the winter.

I guess I should have posed the question differently. In the movie, what do you understand is the reason that Jack decides to take the caretaker's job, and does that reason seem compelling for him to stay in the face of possible danger? -- Cecropia | Talk 05:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The movie and Jack seem to think that it's so he can get a full start a writing career and manage the hotel caretaker business at the same time, and that he has his responsibilities to his employers, though possibly this idea is challenged in our minds with Grady telling him in the bathroom that he was always the caretaker, though this could have more metaphorical explanation, perhaps. Dysprosia 06:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you've hit on a central issue: Grady telling him in the bathroom that he was always the caretaker, though this could have more metaphorical explanation, perhaps. The book makes clear that the hotel is sentient, and also that it has the ability to possess people and absorb their souls upon death. What it doesn't make clear (and I find fascinating) is the nature of the souls Jack meets, such as Grady. Is he meeting Grady's actual soul, possessed by the hotel, or is he actually speaking to the hotel itself in the physical form of Grady? That would imply that the individual souls do not survive in any form, but serve as shells for the hotel. A third possibility is that the hotel combines its own soul with the souls of its victims, a sort of Borg group-soul.

The movie doesn't make this clear, but leaves it open so either interpretation can work to some extent, whether Grady is some sort of representative of a group that make up part of the hotel-soul ("I and others" supports this, this is the interpretation that I have), or whether Grady is a representative of the hotel itself. Dysprosia 01:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, at least so far as the movie is concerned. The book can shed light on events insufficiently explained in the movie, but Kubrick definitely had his own interpretations that he wanted to put across. Perhaps that is why King hated Kubrick's version so much. When Grady tells Jack he "has always been the caretaker," I don't take it to mean that Jack is a soul returned to the hotel, but that caretaker is a role that envelops the hotel's latest victim, and Grady's identification of Jack with that role "always" is a sort of tipping point to say, "we have you, you are part of us now, whether you realize it or not."

Just for your interest, I note that King has had a habit of referring to "Indian Burial Grounds" or other such mystical references as background for the horrors of some of his works (Pet Sematary comes to mind) but King did not specify that with the Overlook. That Kubrick did has led at least one commentator to argue that the entire movie is an allegory of the white man's destruction of American Indians.[1] If that was Kubrick's intention, I think that he made the point much too subtly. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "ADD VIDEO ART STUFF", THIS PAGE IS A REFERENCE (ONLY) FROM THE MAIN VIDEO ART PAGE ( AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT HERE!)

Gadsby

Strange -- this morning I saw you had posed a challenge to lipogrammaticize Gadsby on Wikipedia: Wikifun, and after editing I find it isn't there, nor does it show its removal in the history. Library computers and their browser caches acting oddly, perhaps. Anyhow, since it was your posed challenge, I thought you at least might be interested in my attempt... Mindspillage 16:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What does that do? Susvolans 12:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)