![]() | 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. |
One wants to be very cautious about attributing the origin of notions of utility functions and of marginal utility to the work of Cramer or of Bernoulli on the St Petersburg Paradox. On the one hand, some read Aristoteles as having a concept of marginal utility; on the other hand, many later thinkers arrived at such notions independently of any concern with this particular paradox. — SlamDiego ←T 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, quite a while back, I was in repeated conflict with an editor at that article who wanted to replace every reference to diminishing marginal utility with a reference to risk aversion. Perhaps you already see the problem there in full, but part of it is that Cramer and Bernoulli specifically conceptualized things in terms of diminishing marginal utility, and part of it is that, while diminishing marginal utility can be expected to imply risk aversion, it is really only equivalent to risk aversion on the assumption of something like the strong independence axiom (id est, that expected utility is linear in the probabilities). (Some technically define “risk aversion” to be equivalent to diminishing marginal utility, but this turns what was a description into a mere name, dangerously separated from ordinary language.) — SlamDiego ←T 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
At Studentized residual, you wrote:
That seems horribly misleading, because it seems likely to leave the reader under the impression that comparability across data sets, resulting from dimensionlessness, is the point.
That is wrong.
In typical linear regression problems, even when all of the errors have the same variance, the variances of residuals vary greatly. That is the main point! Think of a very simple regression problem: just a scatterplot in the plane, to which you fit a line. If an x-value is extreme, then the corresponding residual is highly sensitive to the estimated slope, and thus has a large variance; by contrast, for a nearly average x-value, the residual is relatively insensitive to the estimated slope. Errors, in contrast to residuals, on the other hand, in no way depend on the estimated slope. Thus when errors have the same variance, residuals don't. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'v written some comments about your edits on the Talk:Frame of a vector space page. -- KYN ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you significantly misrepresented the cited source on ringing and windowing. Please take another look, and if you need help interpreting it, ask. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ringing (signal), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ringing. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. 209.51.196.26 ( talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to commend you for your substantial contributions to articles in the telecommunications and signal processing area. I would also like to invite you to Wikiproject Telecommunicaitons WP:TEL. Mange01 ( talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Nils, I removed again the bit about Babylonians' sums and differences being Fourier transforms – it's too much of a stretch to say such a thing without an explicit source; the wikipedia page you linked was itself unsourced, and removed it from there, too. I'm worried too about the Lagrange resolvents; I can't find anything in the books you cited that connect the resolvents with an order-3 DFT. Can you tell me what pages to check? Dicklyon ( talk) 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you moved some articles to new names which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". In particular, I noticed that you moved Lambert quadrilateral to Ibn al-Haytham–Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral to Khayyam–Saccheri quadrilateral. JRSpriggs ( talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nils, your recent edits suggest that PTP and DCF are somehow linked, but I can find no evidence for that. Do you have some sources that indicate some connection between them? The fact that most cameras implement both might be worth mentioning, if we have a source that says so, but as far as I know it doesn't go beyond that. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You could look also at the Knot Atlas, http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/Brunnian_link etc., which could probably also benefit from attention... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Great addition. Just as the latest G8 was kicking off in Italy. There was a slight issues with the number of pics which I explained on the articles talk page. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting you as you have contributed to Paraboloid, and I hope you don't mind me asking you a purely hypothetical question about maths and the wooden hyperbolic paraboloid roof on the Church Army Chapel, Blackheath. We know the roof is a wooden structure as it was thus described by Terry Peck of Capital Roofing, who re-surfaced it last year. It was important to know this as, if I remember rightly, they were often made of carbon fibre and had a tendency to blow off the roof if a gale occurred during transport to site or fixing. Also, carbon fibre roofs don't support spires. So the idea of a wooden version makes sense. But how was it done?
My question is - is it possible to construct a hyperbolic paraboloid using straight lines (e.g. wooden beams) only? Forgive me - I have no mathematical knowledge - but the drawings on the Paraboloid page have lines delineating curves only, so any straight-line element within the shape can't be seen in the illustrations.
I am also interested to know whether - if the roof could have been constructed entirely with straight beams - the roof would be rigid enough to support a fairly lightweight but tall aluminium spire? I suspect that most of the required strength and rigidity would be for keeping the spire steady in a gale, and not quite so much for supporting weight.
I am also wondering if such a structure would be rigid by the same principle as the Mathematical Bridge. I don't understand the rigidity-principle of the bridge myself, but I do appreciate that if there is a named principle which could also be applied to a wooden hyperbolic paraboloid roof structure, then even a dumbo like me would have simple language by which to demonstrate that the roof could theoretically be rigid enough to stabilise the spire.
Please forgive me for all these questions - I appreciate that you may not be interested in the question, and I quite understand if you don't feel like answering. My problem is that the plans are missing and I am not an architect, so I have to look for other means of understanding the building. I shall be attempting to visit it next week, so any advice on what too look for or photograph would be gratefully received.
Cheers.-- Storye book ( talk) 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just added Link group to the list of knot theory topics. If you know of others that should be there and are not, could you add those too? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not come across this terminology before: is there a reference? Unless I am misunderstanding the definition, oriented cobordism is strong, not weak as claimed. ranicki ( talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nbarth, back in January you retargeted Generalized cohomology theory from homology theory to Cohomology#Extraordinary cohomology theories, but that section has since disappeared. I would be inclined to just retarget it to Cohomology, but I am not familiar with the field, and I thought that you might have a better target in mind (possibly even something from List of cohomology theories). -- ToE T 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We have a similar situation with:
-- ToE T 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Back in February, you created the template
targeting material you had just added. Unfortunately, an editor removed this material four days, later leaving this note: Talk:Jeffreys prior#Equivalence to logarithmic prior. What should we do here? -- ToE T 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
On the following page: Weighted-average life
you have a formula for computing the WAL without knowing the amortization schedule. Do you have a source for that formula you can share with me? I see it has been some time since you updated that page, but I'd appreciate any help you can provide.
Thanks.
Hi there. If you have time please check the merge discussion you started at Talk:Long boom with a view to merging Golden age of capitalism with long boom. Im hoping we can close the discussion with a view that the Golden age article will be kept with its current title, i dont mind whats decided about the other articles. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You introduced the section "polar coordinates" in the article about the planimeter. I do not understand this section. Maybe you can give a more explicit explanation. Nijdam ( talk) 11:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 ( talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I just spent some time getting rid of some of the "inline" TeX in Automorphisms of the symmetric and alternating groups. Some of this was in section headings. When you put TeX in a section heading, it is invisible in the table of contents. That means you had a section heading appearing in the T.O.C. as follows:
That's it: it ended with "of". When it's not in a section heading, you get things like in which the "2" appears lower than the surrounding letters and the characters are between two and four times the size of the surrounding letters, whereas 23 matches the surrounding letters perfectly. You need TeX to write things like
You don't need TeX to write 6!/120 = 1. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Aa <math>2^3</math> Bb 2<sup>3</sup> Cc <math style="font-size: 100%">2^3</math> Dd Aa <math>S_n</math> Bb ''S''<sup>''n''</sup> Cc <math style="font-size: 100%">S_n</math> Dd
Probably couldn't hurt to start a subproject. These issues have been talked about since 2003. When TeX first became available on Wikipedia, "inline" TeX was formatted so that the bottom of the line of text aligned with the bottom of the TeX display, and that looked ridiculous in most cases. It was soon changed to centering, and that also looks ridiculous in some cases. I'm not sure there's been any progress since then. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, your recent edits have introduced a systematic error: PGL is not the automorphism group of the incidence structure associated to projective geometry. It is similar but not isomorphic. The automorphism group of the projective plane is called the collineation group and is larger than the projective general linear group. Similar statements hold in higher dimensions. JackSchmidt ( talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, thanks for splitting off the covering groups material.
The section Covering groups of the alternating and symmetric groups#Construction of double covers currently trails off with "As there are two pin groups, there are two distinct 2-fold covers of the symmetric group, but only one of these". From the lead, it looks like one wants to say "For the symmetric group, there are actually two different covers (corresponding to the two different Pin groups), but only one of these is of interest in classifying projective representations." but I'm not sure the comment about "interest" is accurate. Could a citation be added for this discounting of one of the covers? JackSchmidt ( talk) 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nbarth, after noticing one of your recent articles at NewPage patrol, I've set the Wikipedia:Autoreviewer flag on for your account. So in future any articles you create will bypass the new page patrol process, as they will be automatically marked as patrolled. Take care and happy editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
What did you have in mind with this edit? The sentence preceding the dash is false, and what comes after the dash seems to assume that infinitely divisible distributions cannot be decomposable; whereas in fact all infinitely divisible distributions are decomposable. Nor would it have made sense if you had said "need not be indecomposable", since in fact such distributions are NEVER indecomposable, immediately from the definition. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of the hazard of Wikipedia: This is a hyphenated name of one person (I've moved it back). Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall having seen one or two like that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, I saw your new article, and am impressed. I pointed out on the talk page that your internal link to commute contains no mathematical case of the word, but I think I'm the only one who's visited the talk page. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Efficient Recitation with Overlearning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs)
21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
A criticism has been raised of an edit of yours on the talk page of the article J-invariant. You may like to read the criticism, and perhaps respond to it, even though it is now some years since you made the edit in question. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed in Equality (mathematics) and Isomorphism that you used the "day" parameter in citations. Please be informed that it is deprecated. The reason is that if you know a year, month and day, it obviously makes more sense to use the date parameter. Debresser ( talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read your recent addition to Money creation. I don't think it fits there. Have you considered adding it to monetary policy and/or business cycles instead? thanks, LK ( talk) 05:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
One wants to be very cautious about attributing the origin of notions of utility functions and of marginal utility to the work of Cramer or of Bernoulli on the St Petersburg Paradox. On the one hand, some read Aristoteles as having a concept of marginal utility; on the other hand, many later thinkers arrived at such notions independently of any concern with this particular paradox. — SlamDiego ←T 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, quite a while back, I was in repeated conflict with an editor at that article who wanted to replace every reference to diminishing marginal utility with a reference to risk aversion. Perhaps you already see the problem there in full, but part of it is that Cramer and Bernoulli specifically conceptualized things in terms of diminishing marginal utility, and part of it is that, while diminishing marginal utility can be expected to imply risk aversion, it is really only equivalent to risk aversion on the assumption of something like the strong independence axiom (id est, that expected utility is linear in the probabilities). (Some technically define “risk aversion” to be equivalent to diminishing marginal utility, but this turns what was a description into a mere name, dangerously separated from ordinary language.) — SlamDiego ←T 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
At Studentized residual, you wrote:
That seems horribly misleading, because it seems likely to leave the reader under the impression that comparability across data sets, resulting from dimensionlessness, is the point.
That is wrong.
In typical linear regression problems, even when all of the errors have the same variance, the variances of residuals vary greatly. That is the main point! Think of a very simple regression problem: just a scatterplot in the plane, to which you fit a line. If an x-value is extreme, then the corresponding residual is highly sensitive to the estimated slope, and thus has a large variance; by contrast, for a nearly average x-value, the residual is relatively insensitive to the estimated slope. Errors, in contrast to residuals, on the other hand, in no way depend on the estimated slope. Thus when errors have the same variance, residuals don't. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'v written some comments about your edits on the Talk:Frame of a vector space page. -- KYN ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you significantly misrepresented the cited source on ringing and windowing. Please take another look, and if you need help interpreting it, ask. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ringing (signal), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ringing. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. 209.51.196.26 ( talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to commend you for your substantial contributions to articles in the telecommunications and signal processing area. I would also like to invite you to Wikiproject Telecommunicaitons WP:TEL. Mange01 ( talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Nils, I removed again the bit about Babylonians' sums and differences being Fourier transforms – it's too much of a stretch to say such a thing without an explicit source; the wikipedia page you linked was itself unsourced, and removed it from there, too. I'm worried too about the Lagrange resolvents; I can't find anything in the books you cited that connect the resolvents with an order-3 DFT. Can you tell me what pages to check? Dicklyon ( talk) 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you moved some articles to new names which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". In particular, I noticed that you moved Lambert quadrilateral to Ibn al-Haytham–Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral to Khayyam–Saccheri quadrilateral. JRSpriggs ( talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nils, your recent edits suggest that PTP and DCF are somehow linked, but I can find no evidence for that. Do you have some sources that indicate some connection between them? The fact that most cameras implement both might be worth mentioning, if we have a source that says so, but as far as I know it doesn't go beyond that. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You could look also at the Knot Atlas, http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/Brunnian_link etc., which could probably also benefit from attention... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Great addition. Just as the latest G8 was kicking off in Italy. There was a slight issues with the number of pics which I explained on the articles talk page. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting you as you have contributed to Paraboloid, and I hope you don't mind me asking you a purely hypothetical question about maths and the wooden hyperbolic paraboloid roof on the Church Army Chapel, Blackheath. We know the roof is a wooden structure as it was thus described by Terry Peck of Capital Roofing, who re-surfaced it last year. It was important to know this as, if I remember rightly, they were often made of carbon fibre and had a tendency to blow off the roof if a gale occurred during transport to site or fixing. Also, carbon fibre roofs don't support spires. So the idea of a wooden version makes sense. But how was it done?
My question is - is it possible to construct a hyperbolic paraboloid using straight lines (e.g. wooden beams) only? Forgive me - I have no mathematical knowledge - but the drawings on the Paraboloid page have lines delineating curves only, so any straight-line element within the shape can't be seen in the illustrations.
I am also interested to know whether - if the roof could have been constructed entirely with straight beams - the roof would be rigid enough to support a fairly lightweight but tall aluminium spire? I suspect that most of the required strength and rigidity would be for keeping the spire steady in a gale, and not quite so much for supporting weight.
I am also wondering if such a structure would be rigid by the same principle as the Mathematical Bridge. I don't understand the rigidity-principle of the bridge myself, but I do appreciate that if there is a named principle which could also be applied to a wooden hyperbolic paraboloid roof structure, then even a dumbo like me would have simple language by which to demonstrate that the roof could theoretically be rigid enough to stabilise the spire.
Please forgive me for all these questions - I appreciate that you may not be interested in the question, and I quite understand if you don't feel like answering. My problem is that the plans are missing and I am not an architect, so I have to look for other means of understanding the building. I shall be attempting to visit it next week, so any advice on what too look for or photograph would be gratefully received.
Cheers.-- Storye book ( talk) 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just added Link group to the list of knot theory topics. If you know of others that should be there and are not, could you add those too? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not come across this terminology before: is there a reference? Unless I am misunderstanding the definition, oriented cobordism is strong, not weak as claimed. ranicki ( talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nbarth, back in January you retargeted Generalized cohomology theory from homology theory to Cohomology#Extraordinary cohomology theories, but that section has since disappeared. I would be inclined to just retarget it to Cohomology, but I am not familiar with the field, and I thought that you might have a better target in mind (possibly even something from List of cohomology theories). -- ToE T 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We have a similar situation with:
-- ToE T 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Back in February, you created the template
targeting material you had just added. Unfortunately, an editor removed this material four days, later leaving this note: Talk:Jeffreys prior#Equivalence to logarithmic prior. What should we do here? -- ToE T 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
On the following page: Weighted-average life
you have a formula for computing the WAL without knowing the amortization schedule. Do you have a source for that formula you can share with me? I see it has been some time since you updated that page, but I'd appreciate any help you can provide.
Thanks.
Hi there. If you have time please check the merge discussion you started at Talk:Long boom with a view to merging Golden age of capitalism with long boom. Im hoping we can close the discussion with a view that the Golden age article will be kept with its current title, i dont mind whats decided about the other articles. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You introduced the section "polar coordinates" in the article about the planimeter. I do not understand this section. Maybe you can give a more explicit explanation. Nijdam ( talk) 11:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 ( talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I just spent some time getting rid of some of the "inline" TeX in Automorphisms of the symmetric and alternating groups. Some of this was in section headings. When you put TeX in a section heading, it is invisible in the table of contents. That means you had a section heading appearing in the T.O.C. as follows:
That's it: it ended with "of". When it's not in a section heading, you get things like in which the "2" appears lower than the surrounding letters and the characters are between two and four times the size of the surrounding letters, whereas 23 matches the surrounding letters perfectly. You need TeX to write things like
You don't need TeX to write 6!/120 = 1. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Aa <math>2^3</math> Bb 2<sup>3</sup> Cc <math style="font-size: 100%">2^3</math> Dd Aa <math>S_n</math> Bb ''S''<sup>''n''</sup> Cc <math style="font-size: 100%">S_n</math> Dd
Probably couldn't hurt to start a subproject. These issues have been talked about since 2003. When TeX first became available on Wikipedia, "inline" TeX was formatted so that the bottom of the line of text aligned with the bottom of the TeX display, and that looked ridiculous in most cases. It was soon changed to centering, and that also looks ridiculous in some cases. I'm not sure there's been any progress since then. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, your recent edits have introduced a systematic error: PGL is not the automorphism group of the incidence structure associated to projective geometry. It is similar but not isomorphic. The automorphism group of the projective plane is called the collineation group and is larger than the projective general linear group. Similar statements hold in higher dimensions. JackSchmidt ( talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, thanks for splitting off the covering groups material.
The section Covering groups of the alternating and symmetric groups#Construction of double covers currently trails off with "As there are two pin groups, there are two distinct 2-fold covers of the symmetric group, but only one of these". From the lead, it looks like one wants to say "For the symmetric group, there are actually two different covers (corresponding to the two different Pin groups), but only one of these is of interest in classifying projective representations." but I'm not sure the comment about "interest" is accurate. Could a citation be added for this discounting of one of the covers? JackSchmidt ( talk) 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nbarth, after noticing one of your recent articles at NewPage patrol, I've set the Wikipedia:Autoreviewer flag on for your account. So in future any articles you create will bypass the new page patrol process, as they will be automatically marked as patrolled. Take care and happy editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
What did you have in mind with this edit? The sentence preceding the dash is false, and what comes after the dash seems to assume that infinitely divisible distributions cannot be decomposable; whereas in fact all infinitely divisible distributions are decomposable. Nor would it have made sense if you had said "need not be indecomposable", since in fact such distributions are NEVER indecomposable, immediately from the definition. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of the hazard of Wikipedia: This is a hyphenated name of one person (I've moved it back). Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall having seen one or two like that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, I saw your new article, and am impressed. I pointed out on the talk page that your internal link to commute contains no mathematical case of the word, but I think I'm the only one who's visited the talk page. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Efficient Recitation with Overlearning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs)
21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
A criticism has been raised of an edit of yours on the talk page of the article J-invariant. You may like to read the criticism, and perhaps respond to it, even though it is now some years since you made the edit in question. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed in Equality (mathematics) and Isomorphism that you used the "day" parameter in citations. Please be informed that it is deprecated. The reason is that if you know a year, month and day, it obviously makes more sense to use the date parameter. Debresser ( talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read your recent addition to Money creation. I don't think it fits there. Have you considered adding it to monetary policy and/or business cycles instead? thanks, LK ( talk) 05:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)