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. |
Happy new year to You, I am Dao Thanh Oai --118.70.131.119 (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
David Eppstein,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
On 2 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Congruum, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Fermat's only complete proof shows there is no integer right triangle with square area, pair of integer right triangles sharing two sides, or square gap between three equally spaced squares? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
Harrias talk 12:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On 4 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ioana Dumitriu, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ioana Dumitriu began taking graduate mathematics courses as a college freshman, and became the first female Putnam Fellow the following year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ioana Dumitriu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
Harrias talk 00:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dr. David Eppstein, When You have a time, could you review the Dao's theorem on six circumcenter:
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). [1] [2] [3] [4][5]Thank to You very much, I am Dao Thanh Oai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.86.37 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
On 11 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Linda Preiss Rothschild, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that mathematician Linda Preiss Rothschild settled for graduate study at MIT after Princeton rejected her for being female? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Linda Preiss Rothschild. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The current wiki TSP page shows "the currently best upper bound is beta<=0.92** " . It is an upper bound too high. Computer experiment will result in a short path with beta<=0.8 without too much difficulty. My experimental result is 0.718 , and an old paper shows 0.7120+0.0002, which serve as a better upper bound. See "The Random Link Approximation for the Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem" at
http://sites.cgu.edu/percusa/files/2013/08/tspjdp.pdf
So please update the upper bound on the wiki to a lower value. If computer experiment did not convince you, analyzing the distribution of nearest points algebraically will be an interesting discussion. One clue is: TSP shorest path usually takes the 1st nearest or 2nd nearest points as next point. If the path always takes the 2nd nearest then the resulted legnth is always higher. 2nd nearest results in 0.75 which also serve as an upper bound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingwanjae (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I read that WP:NOR and agree the style of wiki. Statementes should be at least peer-reviewed. The paper in the above is peer-reviewed. It should be harmonic to the wiki policy, althought it is an article 19 years ago. I have been chasing the exact length of TSP long before that year, wish someone can prove or disprove the exact length is sqrt(N/2) in this year by the stimulation of peers.
On 13 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gigliola Staffilani, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that James Colliander, Gigliola Staffilani, and Terence Tao are part of a collaborative group of mathematicians called the I-team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gigliola Staffilani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
The DYK project (nominate) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my edit here; I learn something new every day! A pleasure to stumble across a fellow editor in the OC area. Best, Bananasoldier (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
Wik-Ed Women editing session (1/20, 6-10pm) | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, Please join us at an event this coming Tuesday: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on January 20 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this started! I was in the process of putting together a draft article so I'll add what I have. Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
dear professor Eppstein, thanks for your immediate help. i just noticed a few days ago that i am not on the list of mathematicians with Erdos number 1, and decided to add myself to wikipedia. i used Zoltan Furedi's autobiography as a template, i believe, the form of the references and the content of my autobiography lines are correct, as far as math is concerned. thanks for any further advice which helps complete my submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yency (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment- I have removed the tag placed on the draft article. We don't normally tag draft articles since they are not searchable and not in the active article space. Yency is currently going about this the best way we recommend using the WP:AFC process which allows for experienced editors to review articles before they get moved into the primary article space. Yency should also read through some of Wikipedia's policies which I have linked on his talk page.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on the article creation. I commented on it on its talk page. If you think there is more to it, please let it know. -- Mdd (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war with you over Doctoral advisor, but I need to explain that your justification for changing from ((cite book)) to ((citation)) was incorrect. You wrote, "please don't change from Citation Style 2 to Citation Style 1 without discussion." Both templates use Citation Style 1. See: Template:Citation/core:
((citation/core))
Under ideal circumstances, ((citation)) has basically the same output as the ((cite)) templates, or at least the most common ones. But circumstances are not always ideal. Sometimes, when the title is an article title and not a book title, ((citation)) guesses wrong, assumes the title is a book title and puts it in italics. For this reason, I never use ((citation)) and routinely change it to the appropriate ((cite)) template. As a side benefit, the next editor who wants to improve on the citation knows immediately that it is a book, news item, press release, or whatever, and knows to to search for more info about the item based on what type of item it is.
There is one difference, which is that ((citation))'s separator defaults to comma and ((cite book))'s separator defaults to period; both templates allows the separator parameter to be changed.
In summary, I didn't change citation styles; I merely substituted a more reliable template for the ((citation)) template, which in the best case, gives the same result as ((cite book)) (except for default separator) and in the worst case outputs incorrect information. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello David. I am an avid fan of geometry and math who recently updated the enneahedron page. Regarding this page, why did you remove the photo of diminished trapezohedron and its description from the examples section? I don't see why it is "spammy" as you said in the notes section after its removal. Here they are for ease of reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enneahedron&oldid=644048369
The image is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_trapezohedron#mediaviewer/File:Diminished_square_trapezohedron.png My updates were a good faith effort to add interesting content. This includes the additional images of the enneahedron found here http://traipse.com/nine/ where the centers of each face are equidistant to the spatial center. The shape appears symmetrical (as well as aesthetically pleasing). I apologize for my clunky editing process, I am fairly new to edit-making. However, I took time and thought to offer these additions, please explain whether or why you considered such additions objectionable. I am a genuine enthusiast of math and space geometry, as well as a sequence contributor to OIES--as such. I have no intention of adding anything "spammy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMChema (talk • contribs)
Duly noted. I had changed the description in an attempt to add a link to "3D" for easy reference. Didn't mean to confuse. At any rate, I will add back the image of the Diminished_square_trapezohedron another time. Have a good evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMChema (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edit over there. The article still lacks inline references, but that is a separate problem. It should be made mandatory to use templates for references as well as for inline citations to the greatest extent possible. It makes reuse of references (meaning creating new inline citations) so much simpler. There are plenty of articles having the complete reference given inline whenever a citation is given. It strongly discourages adding new references and citations, and makes the source text harder to navigate. If I can find some support for the idea, I'll make a proposal in the appropriate place. YohanN7 (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I a generalization Napoleontheorem at http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/blog.php?u=192421&b=112442
Please see that: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.86.37 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is about the prime decomposition of a number, a concept that can be considered advanced, that is, above general mathematics, as far the general education on mathematics goes. This is why a complete, clear definition is necessary. In its current form in the "Integer factorization" article, the definition is based on an "appropriate notion of the empty product". The notion of the empty product is an advanced concept in terms of general mathematics, and one is not supposed to be familiar with it. It is also not necessary for stating or proving the theorem. This is why I decided to give the definition in which one is a special case. Which is mathematically neccessary, if one does not introduce a definition for the empty product. I believe this makes the definition more accesible to the general audience. In its current form it is hard to understand, for the average reader. Nxavar (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Dreadstar ☥ 21:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)! | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending! First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach! Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page). And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
The algorithm described in Claw-free_graph#Independent_sets is wrong. Specifically, the following claim is false: "A simple path in this switch graph between two unsaturated vertices corresponds to an augmenting path in the original graph". I drew a simple counterexample here. Can I delete the claim? Tokenzero (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please check: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m640503 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.20.108.135 (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Can you restore the page Sergey Zonenko. We have removed the entire sentence that you want to have links. All information has been confirmed. More than a week you had no claim to the page. Explain what the problem is.Ogeldke (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
DR. David Eppstein, Thank you for your interest in the MRB constant, even if its only for the sake of the Table of Constants. I can agree with you about membership to such a short table of constants having a higher standard that of just an article. I noticed you had some opinion on the MRB constant being notable enough to have an article. I know your so busy that you might say no to my request, but is there anything you can do to help save the MRB constant article? It has been facing some tough criticism on its talk page that I don't think it fully deserves. Have you noticed the late Richard Crandall's paper that briefly discusses the constant at http://web.archive.org/web/20130430193005/http://www.perfscipress.com/papers/UniversalTOC25.pdf ? It has a section for the computation of the MRB constant on pages 28 and 29. I think it would be helpful if anyone could prove his eta formulas in a paper of some sort! There is also a program he wrote that is in (sequence A037077 in the OEIS) that I think uses one of the eta formulas (it is hard to tell!) to accelerate convergence by a factor of 10 over Cohen's Method alone. Thank you whether or not you can do anything else for it. I hope I at least intrigued you a little. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC) If nothing else, would you post your thoughts on why the MRB constant is notable enough to have its own article in the talk page, I think your comments would have some weight on whether the article gets to remain in Wikipedia.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Not to leave you in the dark, but I fully explained Crandalls super-fast program for computing the constant in the post that starts with "Crandall is not using his eta formulas directly!!!!!!!" at the following URL. http://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/446025?p_p_auth=HV4olXHN Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I have added a note to WP:ANI regarding this IP user. I hope that's the appropriate action to take. Thanks for your recent revert. DaveSeidel (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
...(if startling) [1] EEng (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, professor David Eppstein.
I would like your opinion about some possible issues on the article about Vladimir Arnold.
I wanted to find a reference for this passage: "While a student of Andrey Kolmogorov at Moscow State University and still a teenager, Arnold showed in 1957 that any continuous function of several variables can be constructed with a finite number of two-variable functions, thereby partially solving Hilbert's thirteenth problem.", and so I searched for one on Google Books, but I couldn't find any, and that's because all sources I have found there don't mention "partially" – they say he solved it, completely, without this "partially". For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=SpTv44Ia-J0C&pg=PA5 , https://books.google.com/books?id=GHFtMc9NTkYC&pg=PA130 and https://books.google.com/books?id=dx9yxsRUgtAC&pg=PA55 https://books.google.com/books?id=iQPjBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA262 .
So, what can I do? Should I modify the page or should I leave it there without references or mark for "citation needed"?
Unfortunately, If he solved it completely or only partially I'm not able to judge by myself.
Sorry for my bad English.
P.S. Another thing, https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=Vladimir_Arnold&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia#maintenance says that the passage "at the beginning of the school year, when he usually was formulating new problems" may contain a grammatical error. To me it looks right, but I'm not sure about it.
Sincerely, Анна Лаура Коновалова (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear David Eppstein,
I am a bit new to editing Wikipedia pages so please pardon my ignorance. You seem to be reverting my changes on Walter Lewins page concerning the edX versions of his lectures. Is there a specific reason for this?
Thanks, Daniel Dekkers (d.dekkers@cthrough.nl) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dekkers (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You undid my edit to that page, asking "what is the point of using the coloring? You can find an MIS in linear time, easily.". As explained in the reference I put there, the point is that there are parallel algorithms for vertex coloring that work in logarithmic time. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting. I have checked Knuth's website and I could not find the errata about Reingold's \lg suggestion in Vol.1, ACP. Maybe it is just a suggestion, not the very beginning?
If this tracing is a widely recognized error, why Knuth did not list it in the errata?
Thanks.
--IkamusumeFan (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you think this is appropriate, particularly the exhortation, "Try to incorporate a section on the MRB constant in it", given the identity of the editor offering the reward. EEng (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I was leaning toward removing it as well, however, your reasoning for removing it is better than mine. since I don't have Chrome on OSX, can you tell me if you see a difference between this version and this version? basically, I would like to know if the issue you were observing goes away when I used the additional visibility statement. my feeling is this can be replaced by ((hsp)), which probably doesn't have the same issues, but it may be useful to make sure they both work. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have the appropriate machinery at your disposal, can you work out the h-index mentioned here [3]? EEng (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dr. David,
Could you help me review and edit if you think should keep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao%27s_theorem_on_six_circumcenters
--Hophap124 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --117.6.86.31 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
--117.6.86.37 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Dao Thanh Oai is an amateur geometer, but I think he is not trivial why? You can see somes his results:
He has many another results. Publish in 2014 in somes Journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.129.14 (talk • contribs)
Could you tell me that why some one want to delete the Dao's theorem on six circumcenters?? --Hophap124 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
But I see the theorem like as: *
Calculation by Mathematica sofware:
Please see: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/conversations/messages/1539 --Hophap124 (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)ư
Thank to You, but I have not engough english to chat with them. If You think the result is nice, please comment--Hophap124 (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This was only in December 2014, are we recreating it already? [4] Hafspajen (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Wikipedia (3/28) | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending! First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Wikipedia. Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
Hello David Eppstein,
Thank you for your work on the article about George Ness. I am from Germany and working now to update the article about Georg Nees in the Wikipedia Germany. Your work is a great help to make the article better. - --Maxim Pouska (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thank you for your work on the Emmy Noether featured article. it is a google doodle, so many people will see your work. Duckduckstop (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |