This page 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. |
On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Barr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Barr. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Mark Barr), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 12:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Professor David Eppstein. I would like to have your help. It is on an article within your area of interest here on Wikipedia (women scientists). I would like to improve the article about Marcia Barbosa. The reason for this is because I am one of her students in a course at UFRGS, and her classes are very good, and she is a very nice person. But, given all of this, I may have a problem of conflict of interest and not be an editor as neutral as Wikipedia requires (unconsciously). Would you like to help me? (please? xD). By the way, I admire very much your work here on Wikipedia. Cheers, all the best, MathKeduor7 ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For your work on Mark Barr. Bearian ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC) |
About Special:Diff/773542597, I am fairly confident that that is not what the formula does. I am not a mathematician, but it is my understanding that "this is a formula for calculating x of y" should usually be followed by an equation where on the left side is a mathematical restatement of the thing to be calculated, "y(x)", and on the right side is a mathematical expression for computing the thing, involving the variable x. Here, you claim that it sums the first n terms, but while the left hand side contains a summation symbol, neither the left nor right sides contain the letter n (not even "sigma", "equals", or "divided by"). How, then, can it be a formula to calculate based on n? ⁓ Hello 71 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I noticed you removed Sudoku from the list of List of NP-complete problems (games and puzzles). Isn't it correct that a Sudoku is a type of latin square, and a latin square is NP-complete (see note 10 at Latin square). Also, the following puzzles are also listed as NP-complete: Fillomino, nonograms, kakuro, and Nurikabe (puzzle) and they are of bounded size. Finally, the articles about Sudoku and Mathematics of Sudoku say it is NP-complete with an academic reference. Based on these articles and the related references shouldn't Sudoku be in the list?— LithiumFlash ( talk) 14:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why you are claiming that my FUN paper is not part of "the academic material on the subject". But anyway, thank you for your comment "I also appreciate you leaving the reference attached" as it led me to check that reference more carefully. What it actually shows is that, given a solved n × n Sudoku puzzle, it is NP-complete to test whether there is a second solution. As you might guess if you thought about it, this doesn't actually say much about the complexity of finding a solution of an unsolved puzzle. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
D.E., I'll leave the rest to you. I gotta finish Lewis. E Eng 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw your changes using {{ rma}} and {{ ran}}. What a great way to make an academic's "Selected publications" available as references without duplicating them. I've been fixing references since 2012, but there is always something new! StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number
."
Nicole Sharp (
talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Re
The problem of assigning a sign to each variable in such a way that no two variables end up as positive in the same clause as each other, making...
-- why not
The problem of assigning a sign to each variable in such a way that no two variables end up as positive in the same clause, making...
-- ? Is there some subtle function to as each other? E Eng 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
...for User:ElKevbo. This has been going on a while. E Eng 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If he hasn't by the time you're skulking about in the morning, could you take care of this [1]? E Eng 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If it's not important, why you keep mentioning it? Actually, this is more than just not important, this is ridiculous, saying that mathematical proof could possibly need a source to back up its credibility, regardless of where it is presented, in Encyclopedia, or in the Evening News. Your article maybe mentions at least nine proofs, but presents two, at best. What's their significance? Among those mentioned ones is proof by induction too, for which Stein observes that it is "uninformative". Yeah, well, this is why this one stands out. I wanted to present just how uninformative it is, to clarify that point. Something like this: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61541/are-proofs-by-induction-inferior-to-other-proofs
On 19 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harry R. Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the website "Six Degrees to Harry Lewis" (Lewis pictured) was a precursor to Facebook? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry R. Lewis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Harry R. Lewis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This is about the portrait of Leonardo Fibonacci that you insist on removing. There are hundreds of images of ancient figures that are romanticized and probably inaccurate, this doesn't mean the image cannot be placed in the article with the right caption. This is what I did with the edit of Fibonacci. An example is Christopher Columbus, no known contemporary images of him exist, only posthumous depictions, which are used today to represent him nonetheless, even in wikipedia. In the edit to Fibonacci, the image was not placed as the portrait, it was placed throughout the article just like the statue. Your edit in my opinion is groundless. Walnut77 ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Bret Stephens. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at Bret Stephens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Danwroy ( talk) 01:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I added it because it is a part of a permanent collection in a university library that is based around a notable author. Are the 128 other libraries the same way or just available for checkout? SL93 ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
On 9 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald G. Saari, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mathematician Donald G. Saari advocates deciding elections by the Borda count instead of plurality voting, because it leads less often to paradoxical outcomes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald G. Saari. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Donald G. Saari), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Prickly [2] is awful close to prick [3]. I suggest that in future you use Arbcom-approved terms such as cunt and asshole. E Eng 18:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Nice job at Donald G. Saari! Great article. Thank you for your contributions at DYK. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 23:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
On 10 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anne Penfold Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anne Penfold Street, one of Australia's leading mathematicians, earned bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry before switching to mathematics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Penfold Street. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Anne Penfold Street), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 04:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Snowflake 4 you! | |
Thanks for responding to my post in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics, finding a useful citation, and teaching me more about a style of notation in Mathematics that I was not previously aware about! =) I Appreciate it! Popcrate ( talk) 23:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
What are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwoegi ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
All right, what kind of documentation would you accept for the "Kibo number" in the "Variations" section of Erdős_number? Given that it is/was almost entirely a usenet phenomenon, and that FAQ was regularly posted to relevant newsgroups over a long period of time? There's also http://wiki.c2.com/?KiboNumber, and of course the WP article on Parry himself which was being linked to in that edit. There are numerous references to people's "Kibo number" in old usenet posts. BunsenH ( talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi David. You added a dubious tag [4] to Hollow Moon a while back. I'm passing through briefly, and thought I'd try again to get the article up to GA, and your tag is standing in the way of that.
You were questioning whether it's accurate to call it a conspiracy theory. The first thing to note is that Hollow Moon (as a "reality", rather than in fiction) is now exclusively promoted by people like David Icke ("Icke has made his name since the 1990s as a professional conspiracy theorist"). Your reason for the tag was:This term is used only for theories that secret groups of people have done things — who is supposed to have hollowed the moon? I suspect the answer is the intergalactic confederation who are monitoring our thoughts from the spaceship that you call the moon, silly, but I must admit I don't care to spend too much time wading through his pronouncements to establish that :) . It's generally described as a conspiracy theory in the press, although I accept that just because sources say something, doesn't make it actually true.
Is there a preferred wording that you'd have, or is the fact that the secret group that are meant to have done it are aliens rather than an earth government/clique acceptable? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI: "avowed uncertainty" is a paradox, not an oxymoron. Certain uncertainty would be an oxymoron. Avowed =/= certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.127.198 ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about my recent edits on Ryan Ross I was not thinking straight, you were right, I will stop with those edits. Thanks. Bowling is life ( talk) 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll start working on finding a source for all the genres. Bowling is life ( talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I found sources for most of the genres for Ryan Ross, the only genre I could not find a source for is alternative rock. Bowling is life ( talk) 1:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Concerning this revert: actually, these artist used the golden ratio to construct their compositions, as opposed to seemingly random constructions, of the type designed by Picasso and Braque. That is precisely the reason they chose the name Section d'Or. It was this ratio that gave to the works a 'classical' or 'traditional' foundation. Thus Cubism was, for them, a continuation of a long tradition, rather than an abrupt break from the past. They used the number more so than Salvador Dalí or Le Corbusier, both of which are amply mentioned in the article. Perhaps that was not explained well in my post. Cheers. Coldcreation ( talk) 10:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear David, thanks for your constructive revert! I can understand graph embedding might have different meanings, i.e. spatial vs semantic (hence, the off-topic and undue). I also can understand the idiosyncratic, as this is actually one of my first efforts here in Wikipedia. However, I cannot understand the dubious, since there is now a consistent literature on the topic (also known as Knowledge representation learning) from conferences such as AAAI, IJCAI, ACL, and ICML. So, given your excellent expertise in this field, may I know where and how I should insert this novel topic in Wikipedia? - Mommi84 ( talk) 16:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/July 2017 Wiknic . RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Helping people making personal attacks? And I should be happy that you didn't template me? "Can you imagine the bullying she suffered during her formative years? " is continuing the theme of mocking her name, which you are supporting here. Please undo your revert of my BLP violation removal instead of encouraging EEng to violate our policies with his childish behaviour. If you can't recognise BLP violations and attacks, just leave this alone in the future. Fram ( talk) 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fram. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hello, hope you are well... Your posts and math topics are very interesting! I have been studying a certain type of probability for a while now relating to random subsets of random sets.
This question might not make sense, but do you know what I mean by "red dwarf" I'm searching for a few answers and my journey into the magical world of Math has lead me to asking you this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk • contribs)
Unfortunately no it was not, I was specifically looking for someone who may have focused a lot of time on cycles of random subsets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk) 20:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Although it could be? I just had a look at the references you linked too...
Many thanks for your reply BTW... Whilst I am no-where near your level of mathematical knowledge I just wanted to say that I admire your work and am finding it very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk) 20:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing regarding Striling's approximation, because you reverted my recent changes.
I can understand that you don't like random people removing references. But the truth is that I myself added this reference earlier, because this was the best I found, but this book had its focus on something else. Later I realized that the book probably also got the result from Robbins', although it does not specify it. I thought it is better to go back to the original reference.
And it is true that I changed the bound to a less precise one, but I think it is also more intuitive, and since the better bound is also on the page below I think it is the most beneficial way of presenting it to the audience of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:1C9 ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, I just did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:f::1c9 ( talk • contribs)
"due to Subuey's bad habit of going back to stale comments and re-editing them." You have defended active members removing months old information. My "bad habits" are none of your concern. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Since, you frequently participate in deletion disc. etc. concerning academic personalities, can you kindly review Richard G. Salomon (academic).Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 06:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
On 11 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Babette Hughes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a play by Babette Hughes was performed in 1938 by six blind actresses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Babette Hughes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Babette Hughes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you've been thoroughly infected by the ran/rma virus [5]. But someday, you know, you and I will be the defendants in some Wikipurity show-trial about it. E Eng 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
How would you suggest that the Chromatic number be writteen in the sidebar? It's 3 except for , which is covered in the mathworld source. Original came from the Hungarian wiki which I used as a basis for this article, so that was a good catch, thank you. Porphyro ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello David Eppstein. You have just accused me of making a "copy-and-paste revert" when in fact all I did was undo your earlier redirection and your unexplained preference of the obviously erroneous spelling of this person's name. I did not copy and paste a single character. Hence my question: why is undoing an edit is considered "a copy and paste move" but this is not? Parishan ( talk) 04:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- NeilN talk to me 23:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
...casual dress. Uhm...I don't think my ping worked, so I brought the ping to you. Atsme 📞 📧 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your edit comment in Depth-first search:
> I think including a *correct* non-recursive version is important. If you have a source for a correct+simple O(|V|)-space version, feel free to use it.
The version I deleted was not correct, since it doesn't respect the space complexity in the infobox at the top of the article. I agree it would be nice to have a correct iterative version, but that requires a reference which I don't have at the moment.
Regardless of there being a correct version, the version which is there now is not correct, so it should be deleted.
If you're not convinced that the current iterative code is wrong, ponder for a moment: would a O(2^N) version of, say quicksort be acceptable in an article about quicksort, presented as if it's an actual quicksort algorithm? Rbarreira ( talk) 18:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Structured_kNN is in the NPR que, and from what I can tell, it looks like OR as it is pretty much unsourced, so I don't quite know what to do with it. It is clearly far too technical for the average reader. . Atsme 📞 📧 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
They're not off, they're using the Census estimate populations for 2016 because the area numbers are for 2016. While this isn't an inherent problem for Irvine (as it hasn't annexed or lost any territory since 2010), it's a real problem for, say, Jurupa Valley, CA which didn't even exist in 2010, so the choices are either inconsistency across US place pages or using the 2016 numbers everywhere. It also won't match my planned updates of the "location within county and state" svg maps as those maps will be based on 2016 Census geography too. DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, while voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuronDotNet I was surprized to find that there is no article " Graph matching". So I started a minimal stub. Unfortunately to write a more decent article is way above my head. Can you please lend a hand here? Either add something by yourself or invite other wikipedians you may know to be experts on the subject?
While we are at this, due to this another meaning of the term "matching" in graph theory, I would suggest to consider renaming " matching (graph theory)" to a more specific disambiguator, such as matching (edge set). Similarly Category:Matching begs for renaming even more. What do you think? Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi David,
According to request of professor draft for Decision stream was created and employees of several laboratories who successfully use this technologies in their investigations added appropriate citations in Wikipedia. It looks quite unusually that guys here demonstrate aggressive actions against scientific community, this bright idea, and provides strange comments even into the draft.
Are you professional in this field?
What's the reason for this activity?
Cold you please give reference to the Wikipedia rules that supports such behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.231.205 ( talk • contribs)
WP:REFSPAM - Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.231.205 ( talk • contribs)
Several employees of different labs carefully added accurate text fragments into appropriate places in related articles. Is it possible to suspend this strange war started by Joel B. Lewis?
46.39.231.205 ( talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This page 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. |
On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Barr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Barr. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Mark Barr), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 12:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Professor David Eppstein. I would like to have your help. It is on an article within your area of interest here on Wikipedia (women scientists). I would like to improve the article about Marcia Barbosa. The reason for this is because I am one of her students in a course at UFRGS, and her classes are very good, and she is a very nice person. But, given all of this, I may have a problem of conflict of interest and not be an editor as neutral as Wikipedia requires (unconsciously). Would you like to help me? (please? xD). By the way, I admire very much your work here on Wikipedia. Cheers, all the best, MathKeduor7 ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For your work on Mark Barr. Bearian ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC) |
About Special:Diff/773542597, I am fairly confident that that is not what the formula does. I am not a mathematician, but it is my understanding that "this is a formula for calculating x of y" should usually be followed by an equation where on the left side is a mathematical restatement of the thing to be calculated, "y(x)", and on the right side is a mathematical expression for computing the thing, involving the variable x. Here, you claim that it sums the first n terms, but while the left hand side contains a summation symbol, neither the left nor right sides contain the letter n (not even "sigma", "equals", or "divided by"). How, then, can it be a formula to calculate based on n? ⁓ Hello 71 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I noticed you removed Sudoku from the list of List of NP-complete problems (games and puzzles). Isn't it correct that a Sudoku is a type of latin square, and a latin square is NP-complete (see note 10 at Latin square). Also, the following puzzles are also listed as NP-complete: Fillomino, nonograms, kakuro, and Nurikabe (puzzle) and they are of bounded size. Finally, the articles about Sudoku and Mathematics of Sudoku say it is NP-complete with an academic reference. Based on these articles and the related references shouldn't Sudoku be in the list?— LithiumFlash ( talk) 14:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why you are claiming that my FUN paper is not part of "the academic material on the subject". But anyway, thank you for your comment "I also appreciate you leaving the reference attached" as it led me to check that reference more carefully. What it actually shows is that, given a solved n × n Sudoku puzzle, it is NP-complete to test whether there is a second solution. As you might guess if you thought about it, this doesn't actually say much about the complexity of finding a solution of an unsolved puzzle. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
D.E., I'll leave the rest to you. I gotta finish Lewis. E Eng 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw your changes using {{ rma}} and {{ ran}}. What a great way to make an academic's "Selected publications" available as references without duplicating them. I've been fixing references since 2012, but there is always something new! StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number
."
Nicole Sharp (
talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Re
The problem of assigning a sign to each variable in such a way that no two variables end up as positive in the same clause as each other, making...
-- why not
The problem of assigning a sign to each variable in such a way that no two variables end up as positive in the same clause, making...
-- ? Is there some subtle function to as each other? E Eng 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
...for User:ElKevbo. This has been going on a while. E Eng 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If he hasn't by the time you're skulking about in the morning, could you take care of this [1]? E Eng 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If it's not important, why you keep mentioning it? Actually, this is more than just not important, this is ridiculous, saying that mathematical proof could possibly need a source to back up its credibility, regardless of where it is presented, in Encyclopedia, or in the Evening News. Your article maybe mentions at least nine proofs, but presents two, at best. What's their significance? Among those mentioned ones is proof by induction too, for which Stein observes that it is "uninformative". Yeah, well, this is why this one stands out. I wanted to present just how uninformative it is, to clarify that point. Something like this: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61541/are-proofs-by-induction-inferior-to-other-proofs
On 19 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harry R. Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the website "Six Degrees to Harry Lewis" (Lewis pictured) was a precursor to Facebook? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry R. Lewis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Harry R. Lewis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This is about the portrait of Leonardo Fibonacci that you insist on removing. There are hundreds of images of ancient figures that are romanticized and probably inaccurate, this doesn't mean the image cannot be placed in the article with the right caption. This is what I did with the edit of Fibonacci. An example is Christopher Columbus, no known contemporary images of him exist, only posthumous depictions, which are used today to represent him nonetheless, even in wikipedia. In the edit to Fibonacci, the image was not placed as the portrait, it was placed throughout the article just like the statue. Your edit in my opinion is groundless. Walnut77 ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Bret Stephens. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at Bret Stephens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Danwroy ( talk) 01:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I added it because it is a part of a permanent collection in a university library that is based around a notable author. Are the 128 other libraries the same way or just available for checkout? SL93 ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
On 9 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald G. Saari, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mathematician Donald G. Saari advocates deciding elections by the Borda count instead of plurality voting, because it leads less often to paradoxical outcomes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald G. Saari. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Donald G. Saari), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Prickly [2] is awful close to prick [3]. I suggest that in future you use Arbcom-approved terms such as cunt and asshole. E Eng 18:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Nice job at Donald G. Saari! Great article. Thank you for your contributions at DYK. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 23:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
On 10 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anne Penfold Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anne Penfold Street, one of Australia's leading mathematicians, earned bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry before switching to mathematics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Penfold Street. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Anne Penfold Street), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 04:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Snowflake 4 you! | |
Thanks for responding to my post in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics, finding a useful citation, and teaching me more about a style of notation in Mathematics that I was not previously aware about! =) I Appreciate it! Popcrate ( talk) 23:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
What are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwoegi ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
All right, what kind of documentation would you accept for the "Kibo number" in the "Variations" section of Erdős_number? Given that it is/was almost entirely a usenet phenomenon, and that FAQ was regularly posted to relevant newsgroups over a long period of time? There's also http://wiki.c2.com/?KiboNumber, and of course the WP article on Parry himself which was being linked to in that edit. There are numerous references to people's "Kibo number" in old usenet posts. BunsenH ( talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi David. You added a dubious tag [4] to Hollow Moon a while back. I'm passing through briefly, and thought I'd try again to get the article up to GA, and your tag is standing in the way of that.
You were questioning whether it's accurate to call it a conspiracy theory. The first thing to note is that Hollow Moon (as a "reality", rather than in fiction) is now exclusively promoted by people like David Icke ("Icke has made his name since the 1990s as a professional conspiracy theorist"). Your reason for the tag was:This term is used only for theories that secret groups of people have done things — who is supposed to have hollowed the moon? I suspect the answer is the intergalactic confederation who are monitoring our thoughts from the spaceship that you call the moon, silly, but I must admit I don't care to spend too much time wading through his pronouncements to establish that :) . It's generally described as a conspiracy theory in the press, although I accept that just because sources say something, doesn't make it actually true.
Is there a preferred wording that you'd have, or is the fact that the secret group that are meant to have done it are aliens rather than an earth government/clique acceptable? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI: "avowed uncertainty" is a paradox, not an oxymoron. Certain uncertainty would be an oxymoron. Avowed =/= certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.127.198 ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about my recent edits on Ryan Ross I was not thinking straight, you were right, I will stop with those edits. Thanks. Bowling is life ( talk) 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll start working on finding a source for all the genres. Bowling is life ( talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I found sources for most of the genres for Ryan Ross, the only genre I could not find a source for is alternative rock. Bowling is life ( talk) 1:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Concerning this revert: actually, these artist used the golden ratio to construct their compositions, as opposed to seemingly random constructions, of the type designed by Picasso and Braque. That is precisely the reason they chose the name Section d'Or. It was this ratio that gave to the works a 'classical' or 'traditional' foundation. Thus Cubism was, for them, a continuation of a long tradition, rather than an abrupt break from the past. They used the number more so than Salvador Dalí or Le Corbusier, both of which are amply mentioned in the article. Perhaps that was not explained well in my post. Cheers. Coldcreation ( talk) 10:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear David, thanks for your constructive revert! I can understand graph embedding might have different meanings, i.e. spatial vs semantic (hence, the off-topic and undue). I also can understand the idiosyncratic, as this is actually one of my first efforts here in Wikipedia. However, I cannot understand the dubious, since there is now a consistent literature on the topic (also known as Knowledge representation learning) from conferences such as AAAI, IJCAI, ACL, and ICML. So, given your excellent expertise in this field, may I know where and how I should insert this novel topic in Wikipedia? - Mommi84 ( talk) 16:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/July 2017 Wiknic . RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Helping people making personal attacks? And I should be happy that you didn't template me? "Can you imagine the bullying she suffered during her formative years? " is continuing the theme of mocking her name, which you are supporting here. Please undo your revert of my BLP violation removal instead of encouraging EEng to violate our policies with his childish behaviour. If you can't recognise BLP violations and attacks, just leave this alone in the future. Fram ( talk) 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fram. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hello, hope you are well... Your posts and math topics are very interesting! I have been studying a certain type of probability for a while now relating to random subsets of random sets.
This question might not make sense, but do you know what I mean by "red dwarf" I'm searching for a few answers and my journey into the magical world of Math has lead me to asking you this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk • contribs)
Unfortunately no it was not, I was specifically looking for someone who may have focused a lot of time on cycles of random subsets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk) 20:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Although it could be? I just had a look at the references you linked too...
Many thanks for your reply BTW... Whilst I am no-where near your level of mathematical knowledge I just wanted to say that I admire your work and am finding it very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.104.135 ( talk) 20:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing regarding Striling's approximation, because you reverted my recent changes.
I can understand that you don't like random people removing references. But the truth is that I myself added this reference earlier, because this was the best I found, but this book had its focus on something else. Later I realized that the book probably also got the result from Robbins', although it does not specify it. I thought it is better to go back to the original reference.
And it is true that I changed the bound to a less precise one, but I think it is also more intuitive, and since the better bound is also on the page below I think it is the most beneficial way of presenting it to the audience of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:1C9 ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, I just did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:f::1c9 ( talk • contribs)
"due to Subuey's bad habit of going back to stale comments and re-editing them." You have defended active members removing months old information. My "bad habits" are none of your concern. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Since, you frequently participate in deletion disc. etc. concerning academic personalities, can you kindly review Richard G. Salomon (academic).Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 06:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
On 11 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Babette Hughes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a play by Babette Hughes was performed in 1938 by six blind actresses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Babette Hughes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Babette Hughes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you've been thoroughly infected by the ran/rma virus [5]. But someday, you know, you and I will be the defendants in some Wikipurity show-trial about it. E Eng 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
How would you suggest that the Chromatic number be writteen in the sidebar? It's 3 except for , which is covered in the mathworld source. Original came from the Hungarian wiki which I used as a basis for this article, so that was a good catch, thank you. Porphyro ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello David Eppstein. You have just accused me of making a "copy-and-paste revert" when in fact all I did was undo your earlier redirection and your unexplained preference of the obviously erroneous spelling of this person's name. I did not copy and paste a single character. Hence my question: why is undoing an edit is considered "a copy and paste move" but this is not? Parishan ( talk) 04:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- NeilN talk to me 23:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
...casual dress. Uhm...I don't think my ping worked, so I brought the ping to you. Atsme 📞 📧 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your edit comment in Depth-first search:
> I think including a *correct* non-recursive version is important. If you have a source for a correct+simple O(|V|)-space version, feel free to use it.
The version I deleted was not correct, since it doesn't respect the space complexity in the infobox at the top of the article. I agree it would be nice to have a correct iterative version, but that requires a reference which I don't have at the moment.
Regardless of there being a correct version, the version which is there now is not correct, so it should be deleted.
If you're not convinced that the current iterative code is wrong, ponder for a moment: would a O(2^N) version of, say quicksort be acceptable in an article about quicksort, presented as if it's an actual quicksort algorithm? Rbarreira ( talk) 18:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Structured_kNN is in the NPR que, and from what I can tell, it looks like OR as it is pretty much unsourced, so I don't quite know what to do with it. It is clearly far too technical for the average reader. . Atsme 📞 📧 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
They're not off, they're using the Census estimate populations for 2016 because the area numbers are for 2016. While this isn't an inherent problem for Irvine (as it hasn't annexed or lost any territory since 2010), it's a real problem for, say, Jurupa Valley, CA which didn't even exist in 2010, so the choices are either inconsistency across US place pages or using the 2016 numbers everywhere. It also won't match my planned updates of the "location within county and state" svg maps as those maps will be based on 2016 Census geography too. DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, while voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuronDotNet I was surprized to find that there is no article " Graph matching". So I started a minimal stub. Unfortunately to write a more decent article is way above my head. Can you please lend a hand here? Either add something by yourself or invite other wikipedians you may know to be experts on the subject?
While we are at this, due to this another meaning of the term "matching" in graph theory, I would suggest to consider renaming " matching (graph theory)" to a more specific disambiguator, such as matching (edge set). Similarly Category:Matching begs for renaming even more. What do you think? Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi David,
According to request of professor draft for Decision stream was created and employees of several laboratories who successfully use this technologies in their investigations added appropriate citations in Wikipedia. It looks quite unusually that guys here demonstrate aggressive actions against scientific community, this bright idea, and provides strange comments even into the draft.
Are you professional in this field?
What's the reason for this activity?
Cold you please give reference to the Wikipedia rules that supports such behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.231.205 ( talk • contribs)
WP:REFSPAM - Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.231.205 ( talk • contribs)
Several employees of different labs carefully added accurate text fragments into appropriate places in related articles. Is it possible to suspend this strange war started by Joel B. Lewis?
46.39.231.205 ( talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)