User talk:Gmac4247

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gmac4247!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Bing-on-area-of-a-circle.png

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bing-on-area-of-a-circle.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Bing-on-area-of-a-circle.png

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bing-on-area-of-a-circle.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, where I have put my latest reply on this. Maybe the other account's talk page.
My second thoughts on this:
I've spent quite a lot time analyzing the traditional approach behind the equations of the aforementioned geometry topics.
I've also spent time to work out my approach on each subject. I regard my approaches valid, that's why I uploaded them.
If anyone can prove my approaches wrong, -which I doubt- the images could still be used to illustrate the failed approach, by editing the description, like:
"Gmac4247 thought of this like that, but it's wrong, because of this and that."
This could save future generations plenty of time.
I understand, that File:Bing-Chat-on-the-volume-of-a-cone-1.png falls in the text category, but that text shows quite well, what I mean.
I looked up dozens of resources, -including Wikipedia- to find out, where the traditional formula -base*height/3 comes from logically.
Base*height/something looks absolutely logical, but why 3? All I got was an explanation-titled hypothesis about an infinite set of infinitissimly thin disks, which doesn't really explain, why it's 3.
The area of the horizontal cross section of the cone at the half of its height is exactly one fourth of the base area. This makes the ratio between the area of the cross section at the half of the height and the area of the empty space compared to a circumscribed cylinder 1:3.
That can't be generalized for the whole volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmac4247 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The volume of the cone can be expressed exactly, as base*height*√2/4.
(1/3)/(√2/4)~0.943
A difference, that's quite small, to measure exactly.
But the logic behind √2/4 is solid and sound. That's, what the images illustrate.
It's open for anyone to disprove in the descriptions. But saying 1/3, based on an irrational claim, or historical reference is not a disproval.

Gmac4247 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue:
The new feature of the upload wizard, that includes the name of the AI image generator in the "author" field separates the two instances with a colon, that turns the second instance into a link text.
I included the name of the AI image generator in the description instead. Gmac4247 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]