# Write a system of equations in 11 unknownst

Referrer URL if available: A Court in Germany ordered that access to certain items in the Project Gutenberg collection are blocked from Germany. Project Gutenberg believes the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, but until the issue is resolved during appeal, it will comply.

Terminology of fuel cell "Fuel cell" Many of the above changes where reverted with the most recent one putting back the "The". Before we get tired and start forgeting which versions we've put I figure I should post this for discussion. Currently, I've place the sub-heading, since this appears to be another possible solution, to: Meyer used another term in a non-standard sense, but a section consisting only of a single subsection seems wrong.

Also, Term "fuel cell" seems incorrect without the article. The section title guideline seems to read that we don't include unnecessary articles. Perhaps Definition of "fuel cell" would be the best choice.

I think either one is good! However, if you look at the FYI table I just provided I think you are correct to say that the second option is best because it does not mimic edit 2 which was reverted by yourself. Edit history to the article regarding sub-heading: Fuel Cell or Defenition of "Fuel Cell" appear to be more appropriate as possible titles for this section.

I only say this because, while it's clear to most people that this is not a fuel cell in the traditional sense of the word, there was a thread a while back where someone insisted on bringing in lots of references to actual fuel cells in support of Meyer's claims.

I second the motion I55ere talk I actually think "The term 'fuel cell'" is best. We're not bound by the suggestions of the automated peer-review bot, and this title is concise while at the same time hinting that Meyer's use of the term was non-standard.

If we set the guideline aside for a moment which only says to avoid the use of "the" and compare the current title to the alternatives suggested thusfar, IMHO "The term 'fuel cell'" is the best. If we must change it, I'd suggest "Meyer's use of the term 'fuel cell'", though it lacks the concision of the current title.

I'm tired of reading 2 paragraphs of rambling to figure out that he said 'Yes' or 'No'. After all this debate, it's clear that the original wording was the best. The WP guidelines don't really cover the special case of someone using a term incorrectly, or at least in a nonstandard way.

I say change it back and batten down for the inevitable storm. I disagree per WP: Someone once told me, you should explain all reasonings preferably in IRAC.

It helps the end reader to better judge and understand the relationship of the principles behind the precedent or the rules. It makes it easier to understand the logic and to weigh or see if it agrees with the conclusion.

Anyways, I remember a previous discussion regarding this section I believe I had asked for some reference for the idea that the "fuel cell" is not conform to the "standard" definition. In short, this may be a popular point of view for readers Adding this POV to the sub-heading is a no no.

As an assumptive example, to balance this out we would need to say "Standard and non-standard definition of "fuel cell". Also, ask yourself, what is standard?

## Diagnostic information:

In our current situation, further discussion and reference should be in the body of the text and not in the heading. Unless there is a section dedicated to exactly that ASF says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

NPOV 's, I believe this applies to the subheading because it is stated "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. Therefore, I do not support the use of "non-standard". Furthermore, this same reasoning may apply with the status quo to which I obviously disagree.

Yilloslime's aformentionned statement is correct. Keeping the status quo will indeed hint " Oli Filth talk contribs The argument for rules that apply in this case are WP: NPOVI concede, may be weak.In mathematics, a system of linear equations (or linear system) is a collection of two or more linear equations involving the same set of variables.

For example, + − = − + = − − + − = is a system of three equations in the three variables x, y, z.A solution to a linear system is an assignment of values to the variables such that all the equations are simultaneously satisfied. Today weÕre going to talk about solving systems of linear equations.

These are 1 back into the other two equations, bbaxaxaxax bbaxaxaxax 2 21 11 1 12 2 13 3 22 2 23 3 3 31 11 1 13 3 33 3 = We can write this system of equations as: bax ax ax baxax ax. Solving a system consisting of a single linear equation is easy.

However if we are dealing with two or more equations, it is desirable to have a systematic method of determining if. I'm working on a problem where I seem to have run into a system of non-linear equations. I have ten equations and ten unknowns.

In the equations below, all of the $\phi_{ij}$'s are known, but all. Systems of equations with elimination: x-4y= & -x+3y=11 Systems of equations with elimination: potato chips Systems of equations with elimination (and manipulation).

D. White 11 1 11 described; given any integral. solution to the system, a balanced- array can be obtained directly from it. Hence, by obtaining all integral solutions to the system, cane can obtain all oalanced arrays with two symbols and the set of parameters described above.

examples counterexamples - 5 linear equations in 5 unknowns - Mathematics Stack Exchange