This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Martine Abdallah-Pretceille, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article in :fr says she is "professeure à l'Université de Paris VIII (« Vincennes à Saint-Denis »)". I think there is enough to pass A7, but maybe not WP:PROF - consider AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Netscape, Firefox (updated version 4), and Chrome have all frozen when I've used the editing templates in the last week, many times. Therefore, I've stopped worrying about the niceties of m-dashes and n-dashes, and now save changes with even slight edits. My apologies to Michael Hardy about my dashes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 02:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The next few items are motivated by the Monty Hall problem arbitration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I argue that explaining mathematical results for the general public sometimes requires original exposition, glossing topics that are familiar to mathematicians. The current version of Shapley–Folkman lemma is simpler but uses some original simplifications of a research result (of Ekeland).
For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution (xmin, f(xmin) )
to the "convexified problem", where convex hulls are taken of the graphs of the summand functions. Such an optimal solution is the limit of a sequence of points in the convexified problem
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |MR=
and |mr=
specified (
help)For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution
with the minimum value f(xmin). For a separable problem, one could guess that an optimal point (xmin, f(xmin)) might be contained in the sum of the convex hulls of the summands' graphs
but this guess would be wrong. In truth, a more complicated expression
using the closure of a set is needed. [1] (Topologically closed sets are defined in the following subsection.) An application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma represents the given optimal-point as a sum of points in the graphs of the original summands and of a small number of convexified summands. [1] ...
The preceeding results use concepts of closed sets from mathematical analysis (the theory of calculus), [2] which we define. As suggested by the preceding subsection, closed sets are useful for proving that some minimum solution exists. [3]
An example of a non-closed set is the harmonic sequence
which converges to zero. The equation 0=1⁄n is unsolvable in natural numbers, which implies that zero is not a memberof { 1⁄n }. However, because zero is a limit point of the harmonic sequence, the set { 1⁄n } is not closed.
Thus, the closure of the harmonic sequence includes zero, which is its only limit point
In terms of optimization theory, the set of the harmonic sequence lacks a minimum, but its closure has a minimum. This example shows the use of closed sets in optimization theory.
The Minkowski sum of two closed sets need not be closed, so the following inclusion can be strict
the inclusion can be strict even for two convex closed summand-sets. [4] In many problems, then, ensuring that the Minkowski sum of sets be closed requires the closure operation. In the optimization theory of the preceding subsection, the closure operation ensures that the set
is indeed closed.
The second version just glosses Ekeland's analysis, using the closure of a set. Glossing this notion requires a lot of work.
The first version simplifies Ekeland's analysis, using the sequential closure of a set, which is the same thing here, because of the uniqueness of (reasonable) topologies in finite dimension. All mathematicians would recognize that the second version is essentially the same version, but this requires knowledge of undergraduate mathematics (or beginning USA graduate mathematics).
My concern is that Phil Knight's (original and imho even revised) finding in the Monty Hall Problem arbitration would seem to ban the simplification of the first version as WP:Original research. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand you feel strongly about this, but keep in mind that WP:COI is a guideline with no bright line, so "violation" is always going to be a matter of degree in the eye of the beholder. I can easily think of far worst cases, which make anything Gill may have done negligible in comparison, but it's up to ArbCom to decide how to phrase it; they have probably seen a fair share of that e.g. Insisting on a proclamation of absolute non-culpability from them is probably counterproductive at this point. As they used to say "Don't shoot the piano player; he's doing the best he can". Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
for your tireless liaison work at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
Dear Elen,
That's very kind of you and I greatly appreciate the barnstar, especially coming from you.
I was gladdened also by your spelling out that one of the editors could try cooperatively editing for a spell at the simple English Wikipedia, and then simply ask for a reconsideration.
Warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a friendly message.
For some reason we had a falling out on Template_talk:Optimization_algorithms. My recollection of the events is that we had been discussing changes to that navbox for months, off and on. I wanted to either delete the navbox or split it into several specialized navboxes because I thought it was too confusing to lump everything into one. You wanted to keep it the way it was, stating it held the most important items, but encouraged me to make edits to it. I finally did, and you apparently disagreed with the edits and considered them an insult somehow. This is most regrettable and I can assure you that it was not intended. I have studied your contributions to Wikipedia and I can see that you are very knowledgeable in certain fields of optimization and advanced mathematics. I think it is wonderful that you are contributing to Wikipedia and I think you and I do it for the same purpose: to help others attain the knowledge we have.
Now, your behaviour towards me was quite aggressive. You also exposed a real-world identity which you think is me (I will neither confirm nor disconfirm), which is actually a very serious offence on Wikipedia and could get you blocked, see WP:OUTING. Furthermore, you have expressed strong dissent and made derogatory remarks about metaheuristics in several talk pages, which means that you have a WP:COI in editing those articles regardless of your personal relations to researchers, publications, etc., because you apparently wish to demote metaheuristics. I have also seen your post making derogatory remarks about certain universities, which is also not suitable for Wikipedia discussions.
However, I think your presence and edits are generally valuable to Wikipedia and this dispute appears to be the exception. I truly regret that we had this falling out and I am willing to bury the hatchet, so to speak, so we can both continue contributing to Wikipedia without these unpleasant disputes. By the way, I have seen your concerns about Local unimodal sampling and as I note on its talk-page I will address them as soon as I can find the time.
Cheers,
Optimering ( talk) 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Others renewed the discussion of the edits of Optimering at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just creating an archival copy of the nomination for Did You Know?. (The last nomination had its picture somehow corrupted.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk). Self nom at 16:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On 5 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Criss-cross algorithm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, while the criss-cross algorithm visits all eight corners of the Klee–Minty cube when started at a worst corner, it visits only three more corners on average when started at a random corner? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The KM cube received more than 5K visits and the criss cross algorithm received over 4K visits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
For sentimentality, I'll put a copy of this here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The old version had only two groups, "nice" and "ominous":
The ominous cubes were the
Hellraiser cube, the
Cosmic Cube, and (!) the
Klee-Minty cube.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably under the influence of April Fools' Day .... Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Cubes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JaGa talk 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Another optimization-related topic.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Variable splitting, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/fetch.php?id=102&type=pdf.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Martine Abdallah-Pretceille, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article in :fr says she is "professeure à l'Université de Paris VIII (« Vincennes à Saint-Denis »)". I think there is enough to pass A7, but maybe not WP:PROF - consider AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Netscape, Firefox (updated version 4), and Chrome have all frozen when I've used the editing templates in the last week, many times. Therefore, I've stopped worrying about the niceties of m-dashes and n-dashes, and now save changes with even slight edits. My apologies to Michael Hardy about my dashes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 02:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The next few items are motivated by the Monty Hall problem arbitration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I argue that explaining mathematical results for the general public sometimes requires original exposition, glossing topics that are familiar to mathematicians. The current version of Shapley–Folkman lemma is simpler but uses some original simplifications of a research result (of Ekeland).
For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution (xmin, f(xmin) )
to the "convexified problem", where convex hulls are taken of the graphs of the summand functions. Such an optimal solution is the limit of a sequence of points in the convexified problem
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |MR=
and |mr=
specified (
help)For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution
with the minimum value f(xmin). For a separable problem, one could guess that an optimal point (xmin, f(xmin)) might be contained in the sum of the convex hulls of the summands' graphs
but this guess would be wrong. In truth, a more complicated expression
using the closure of a set is needed. [1] (Topologically closed sets are defined in the following subsection.) An application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma represents the given optimal-point as a sum of points in the graphs of the original summands and of a small number of convexified summands. [1] ...
The preceeding results use concepts of closed sets from mathematical analysis (the theory of calculus), [2] which we define. As suggested by the preceding subsection, closed sets are useful for proving that some minimum solution exists. [3]
An example of a non-closed set is the harmonic sequence
which converges to zero. The equation 0=1⁄n is unsolvable in natural numbers, which implies that zero is not a memberof { 1⁄n }. However, because zero is a limit point of the harmonic sequence, the set { 1⁄n } is not closed.
Thus, the closure of the harmonic sequence includes zero, which is its only limit point
In terms of optimization theory, the set of the harmonic sequence lacks a minimum, but its closure has a minimum. This example shows the use of closed sets in optimization theory.
The Minkowski sum of two closed sets need not be closed, so the following inclusion can be strict
the inclusion can be strict even for two convex closed summand-sets. [4] In many problems, then, ensuring that the Minkowski sum of sets be closed requires the closure operation. In the optimization theory of the preceding subsection, the closure operation ensures that the set
is indeed closed.
The second version just glosses Ekeland's analysis, using the closure of a set. Glossing this notion requires a lot of work.
The first version simplifies Ekeland's analysis, using the sequential closure of a set, which is the same thing here, because of the uniqueness of (reasonable) topologies in finite dimension. All mathematicians would recognize that the second version is essentially the same version, but this requires knowledge of undergraduate mathematics (or beginning USA graduate mathematics).
My concern is that Phil Knight's (original and imho even revised) finding in the Monty Hall Problem arbitration would seem to ban the simplification of the first version as WP:Original research. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand you feel strongly about this, but keep in mind that WP:COI is a guideline with no bright line, so "violation" is always going to be a matter of degree in the eye of the beholder. I can easily think of far worst cases, which make anything Gill may have done negligible in comparison, but it's up to ArbCom to decide how to phrase it; they have probably seen a fair share of that e.g. Insisting on a proclamation of absolute non-culpability from them is probably counterproductive at this point. As they used to say "Don't shoot the piano player; he's doing the best he can". Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
for your tireless liaison work at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
Dear Elen,
That's very kind of you and I greatly appreciate the barnstar, especially coming from you.
I was gladdened also by your spelling out that one of the editors could try cooperatively editing for a spell at the simple English Wikipedia, and then simply ask for a reconsideration.
Warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a friendly message.
For some reason we had a falling out on Template_talk:Optimization_algorithms. My recollection of the events is that we had been discussing changes to that navbox for months, off and on. I wanted to either delete the navbox or split it into several specialized navboxes because I thought it was too confusing to lump everything into one. You wanted to keep it the way it was, stating it held the most important items, but encouraged me to make edits to it. I finally did, and you apparently disagreed with the edits and considered them an insult somehow. This is most regrettable and I can assure you that it was not intended. I have studied your contributions to Wikipedia and I can see that you are very knowledgeable in certain fields of optimization and advanced mathematics. I think it is wonderful that you are contributing to Wikipedia and I think you and I do it for the same purpose: to help others attain the knowledge we have.
Now, your behaviour towards me was quite aggressive. You also exposed a real-world identity which you think is me (I will neither confirm nor disconfirm), which is actually a very serious offence on Wikipedia and could get you blocked, see WP:OUTING. Furthermore, you have expressed strong dissent and made derogatory remarks about metaheuristics in several talk pages, which means that you have a WP:COI in editing those articles regardless of your personal relations to researchers, publications, etc., because you apparently wish to demote metaheuristics. I have also seen your post making derogatory remarks about certain universities, which is also not suitable for Wikipedia discussions.
However, I think your presence and edits are generally valuable to Wikipedia and this dispute appears to be the exception. I truly regret that we had this falling out and I am willing to bury the hatchet, so to speak, so we can both continue contributing to Wikipedia without these unpleasant disputes. By the way, I have seen your concerns about Local unimodal sampling and as I note on its talk-page I will address them as soon as I can find the time.
Cheers,
Optimering ( talk) 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Others renewed the discussion of the edits of Optimering at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just creating an archival copy of the nomination for Did You Know?. (The last nomination had its picture somehow corrupted.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk). Self nom at 16:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On 5 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Criss-cross algorithm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, while the criss-cross algorithm visits all eight corners of the Klee–Minty cube when started at a worst corner, it visits only three more corners on average when started at a random corner? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The KM cube received more than 5K visits and the criss cross algorithm received over 4K visits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
For sentimentality, I'll put a copy of this here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The old version had only two groups, "nice" and "ominous":
The ominous cubes were the
Hellraiser cube, the
Cosmic Cube, and (!) the
Klee-Minty cube.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably under the influence of April Fools' Day .... Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Cubes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JaGa talk 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Another optimization-related topic.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Variable splitting, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/fetch.php?id=102&type=pdf.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)