![]() | 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. |
As you have participated keenly in former contests, David, allow me to remind you that our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve women's biographies on Wikipedia. Lot's of opportunities to create or improve biographies of women mathematicians and/or scientists.--Ipigott (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi David, you undid my changes in the page Degeneracy (graph theory). I added a link to the page interdependent networks (here is a link to the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Degeneracy_%28graph_theory%29&type=revision&diff=918508128&oldid=918491276) but you wrote "Undid revision 916360623 by YAEL GROSSNASS Not mentioned in linked article, no obvious reason for link" The thing is that it is mentioned in the article in the paragraph "kCore percolation". i ask the you put the link back. thanx, Yael
David, given recent bot editing, do you think that Wikipedia's copyright policy should state explicitly that linking to unauthorised copies of copyrighted works is forbidden? I have no skill in such matters, but perhaps you might wish to propose it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Nice new article on Anita Feferman! A fascinating, notable woman who I'm glad to have learned about. Babajobu (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
David, you have reverted my change for Boyer–Moore majority vote algorithm page with comment that in provided sequence ([1,0,2,1]) there is no majority element. I think that 1 is majority element (counts of 1 eq 2, 0 => 1, 2 => 1). Could you please explain why it is not majority element from your point of view? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Putrya (talk • contribs)
Do you think that Šarūnas Raudys's h-index of 23 [1] is high enough to meet WP:PROF? I would say probably not but it seems borderline and of course I don't know nearly as much about (notability in) the field of computer science as you do. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi David Eppstein!
I recently tried to improve the article Maximum subarray problem, hoping this will end the "max(0,...)" vs. "max(x,...)" debates edits, and also satisfy the "more footnotes" request.
However, I definitely messed up the citation style mix even more, and I intend to fix that in the near future. Since you were involved in the article right from the beginning and are its main contributor, I feel I should follow your citation style preferences. I guess, they are ((harvtxt))
, aren't they? I'm not yet too familiar with this style.
If you could provide me a representative article using your preferred style, I'd try to adapt Maximum subarray problem to it. I'd like to keep the page-reference information in some form (needn't be ((rp))
, of course); would that be ok?
Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It was a surprise to me that someone nominated the page at this point. It is clear that there were some minor issues that absolutely had to be addressed first (the section that needs expansion, the errors in citations) and some broader issues that needed more work (sources for the second half of the article -- though that's a bit of a tough issue, since many of the statements are second nature to a professional, and hence hard to source). Still, it is very helpful to have feedback.
Two issues: What do you mean precisely by "one specific and contentious interpretation of the meaning of the tablet"? The :tablet does contain a list of what is conventionally called Pythagorean triples, and they are labelled as such. As :for applications, the field is indeed wide open, but we mention at least two opposing views. We could also include a :more recent response to Robson - is that what you imply is missing? As for why "half of the subfields are grouped into "Main subdivisions" and half into "Recent approaches and :subfields"" - it is more or less clear that some subfields are much newer and well defined than others (the name :"additive combinatorics" is less than 20 years old, though the field has been around since the 1960s, or in some :sense for longer). Does the division seems too arbitrary or unnecessary? If so, we can talk about removing it, but I :am sure I am not the only one who wonders where exactly the problem lies. Also: wouldn't nominating the article for a B-class review be a logical first step, once the issues above are addressed? Garald (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, You write about Euler sequence but the sequence continues on the next line and it has another set of 000 so it total there are 3 of them. Kigelim (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/101.178.163.219 Warned prior. Please take action as you see fit. EEng 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
On 21 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dona Strauss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mathematician Dona Strauss left South Africa over apartheid, lost a faculty job at Dartmouth for joining an anti-war protest, and helped found European Women in Mathematics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dona Strauss. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, it's just a script. If you have issues then please raise with @Ohconfucius:. Also please restore the DMY tag. GiantSnowman 17:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I wrote an article on Henry Crapo. It's my first time moving an article directly to mainspace, and I messed up and first moved the talk page to an article. Perhaps you'd be willing to look and make sure that I cleaned up correctly? (Reaching out partly because I think the article will be of some interest for you.) Thanks so much! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been intermittently working on Gleason's theorem, which I originally found in a state that I could barely understand even knowing what it was supposed to be about, and now I'm wondering: is the block-quoted statement in the lede too technical for that early in the article? That part is mostly a leftover from years ago, which I smoothed out a bit. On this topic, I think the "write one level down" means pitching to a physics or mathematics undergraduate; the amount of popularized writing on this topic is basically nil. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you can help me understand more about the copyright practices you recently asked other users to adopt. I noticed that a few articles created by you link CiteSeerX via Google Scholar, for instance Heidi K. Thornquist links [2] via [3]. Can you elaborate on what you see as the copyright implications of such links? Thanks, Nemo 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my edit on Bonnie Dorr. If we follow the path you suggest, then we would also need to delete Category:Computational linguistics researchers from Eduard Hovy, Aravind Joshi, Ronald Kaplan, Lauri Karttunen and Jun'ichi Tsujii. I'm always a bit confused about the hierarchical categories because if you look specifically, for instance, for computational linguists, you are likely to land on the names under Category:Computational linguistics researchers. You don't necessarily see or bother about Category:Fellows of the Association for Computational Linguistics. But I suppose we should be consistent - which means deleting the names above too. Right? I am surprised, btw, that many other notable participants are not included in the category, perhaps also for hierarchical reasons, e.g. Yorick Wilks, Makoto Nagao.--Ipigott (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Anne C. Morel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Regarding your infobox edit:
Thanks! Sorry for the basic questions. It's fun to see the article shaping up! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rupert Loup (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to remove Pierre de Fermat from List of amateur mathematicians? --Toploftical (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
One user answered at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2694/what-is-the-importance-of-the-collatz-conjecture and got 288 votes. Since many people seem to agree on its connections to number theory, wouldn't that be sufficient, at least for the prime factorization claim? There are obviously no absolute connections until a proof of the conjecture arrives. 37KZ (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
you've removed twice my little complements of material from the golden rhombus Wikipedia english article, because they were unsourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_rhombus&action=history
But these little complements of material are just my "own" easy calculations, which anyone having passed scientific A levels can easily check, all the more so that i write several calculation steps...!
§:-P §:'(
2A01:CB00:8697:8100:E19D:41A2:70F9:586D (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've simplified the area paragraph by hiding the calculation verifications in the code (i didn't know that possibility...). But i still don't know how to invoke the reference to Weisstein's general rhombus page, in an article also referencing Weisstein's golden rhombus page... €:-P RavBol (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
On 13 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anne C. Morel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anne C. Morel was the first woman to become a full professor of mathematics at the University of Washington? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne C. Morel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi guy,
I appreciate the way you edited and protected the page Peder Mortensen from deletion.
I wanna extend my extreme gratitude for these contributions
Regards,
SHISHIR DUA (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I see you're rewriting the article cited. Howdy-doody. You didn't like my rewrite, so you, dear Sir, have inherited the job. And I'm glad to have you do it. Thanks, and keep on it! Sbalfour (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
You deleted my contribution for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2 because it was not "supported by reliable sources". Then I put it back providing a reference to a standard text book of Number Theory. But the contribution was deleted again because "still unsourced". Would you be so kind to explain what is wrong here? Jack Rusell (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2.
Section "Proof by infinite descent" should be deleted for the reason I gave on the talk page. Section "Constructive proof" needs a thorough revision: Obviously it is aimed to prove the statement by some kind of intuitionistic logic, but I did not understand how the truth of the statement follows from the presented calculations. I doubt that anyone else does, unless familiar with intuitionistic logic. Sections "Geometric proof" and "Proof by Diophantine equations" use completely different mathematical approaches (also different to "Proof by induction") which are interesting on their own and should be kept. Jack Rusell (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not revert my edits. I was extremely careful and followed all of the rules for self published sources. Which of them do you think my edits failed on. The statements you reverted to clearly do not follow wikipedia guidelines. You reverted to a statement that says Yuval was "a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research in Redmond, Washington." This statement is totally unsourced. How do we know that Yuval used to work as a principal researcher but no longer does? No source is given. The way we know this is that his web page says that he used to work there and now no longer says that. I don't see any way to justify the past tense without seeing that his website no longer lists employment at MSR. If we are allowed to conclude this from his website then we can just as easily conclude that he was the manager of the theory group and no longer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.98.50 (talk • contribs)
Some of the edits make sense. But I complained about the removal of the statement that Yuval used to be the manager of the theory group at MSR. I did this in accordance with the policy on self published sources (I hardly consider claiming a title on a company page to be a self published source.) And this was replaced by an unreferenced claim. Being a manager of a group at Microsoft research (even for a few years) is clearly relevant information and should be included in this article. The only thing that will be gained by eliminating my "original research" is making the article read very poorly. I added more references to show that his position as theory group manager and affiliation with the University of Washington ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs)
I've been conversing with a rather single-purpose editor at Talk:Alessandro Strumia who has gotten a bit confrontational, and I wouldn't mind a third opinion on whether I'm going about it in the right way. The article topic is, one might say, controversial after all. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi David I'm coming because of this reversed edit (sorry for the bad formatting this might cause, I should learn more wikipedia, but I try to "be bold" and add stuff to articles that I think it's helpful for others). Thank you also for following my Edit Summary and reading that, and you confirming that "algebraically they are the same but geometrically they look quite different". I don't want to be a annoyance, so I won't revert your edit at all, however I urge you to see if indeed they look quite different. Each rectangle has 2 diagonals, identical in lenght. The way I see both figures, is that the british flag and the Orthodiagonal quadrilateral are using the opposite set of 4 diagonals. I thought this was very related and very close relationship to not be mentioned. Another bad stuff I did: I think my edit probably messed up that paragraph, maybe it wasn't inserted with care to not ruin the consistency of the sentences, also putting at the beggining of the paragraph has high risk of changing the paragraph intentions. So, If you want to provide me feedback you are welcome, I won't annoy more about this, I'm new and probably I should have informed this in another channel, I also apologize for that. Eventually I'll try to read how Wikipedia edition works. Santropedro (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about adding Nancy Texeira to the academics sort. I really have no idea how that happened! I must need new glasses.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Wilmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mhym (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
If there are no new discoveries (since 2018) it can be stated "as of November 2019"!? AndrejJ (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the contributions and block log of the IP who made this edit you will find it familiar. --JBL (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
![]()
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
On 26 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aaron Hawkins (engineer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aaron Hawkins uses nail polish to guide laser light into optofluidic devices to detect antibiotic resistance? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
--valereee (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! In LGM-30 Minuteman, you had added Template:Unreliable source? to the citations that I had discovered were self-published by vanity publishers.
I was digging around this morning, and discovered Template:Self-published source and added it to the self-published citations, ((Self-published source|reason=WP:RSSELF|date=November 2019))
. I did not remove the Template:Unreliable source? you had added.
When you can, please review the changes I made in Special:Diff/928491500. If you concur, great! If not, then use your discretion and make the appropriate changes. Thanks! KD5TVI (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I just saw that you removed my contribution from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2 again because "two weeks with no attempt to fix the broken math formatting and no attempt to justify why it differs from the other proof". Regarding the "the broken math formatting" I prefered not vaste my time on beautifying the math for meeting your esthetic standards until I am sure that you will not push the remove button again. The question why my proof differs from the other proof is hard to answer. But I can state what is different in both proofs and why the difference matters. I did this already two weeks ago on the talk page of the article (in response to your question and a comment made by "XOR'easter" as well), so I made an attempt (at least). Jack Rusell (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
On 5 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chikako Mese, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before becoming a professional mathematician, Chikako Mese was a record-breaking high school softball player? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chikako Mese. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
On 6 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Chapple (surveyor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Chapple discovered Euler's theorem and Poncelet's porism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Chapple (surveyor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
On 12 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hoffman's packing puzzle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is possible to pack 27 equal cuboids (pictured) into a cube? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hoffman's packing puzzle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Eppstein! I would just like to let you know that Europeans colonized America even before Columbus when Vikings settled in North America in what is now known as Canada. They referred to the locals as "skraelings." So European Americans do indeed exist and they are represented as it is politically correct. Thank you very much for your understanding. I hope that I can use correct terminology here on this article (Irvine) if that is ok. If not, please state why in my talk page message 68.167.155.102 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not plot white supremacism against minorities. See African Americans and European Americans
Hi @David Eppstein: Can you please give me an opionion on whether this lady Kasia Rejzner is notable. GS. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
| |
Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC) |
Hello Sir, you posted a message on my talk page to tell me that I was engaged in an edit war against Deacon Vorbis. Could you please give me some advice to resolve the conflict in which I am involved ? The page concerned is the following one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_problem . I added a paragraph about Euler's second proof and it was deleted by Deacon Vorbis : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basel_problem&oldid=931845920. Deacon Vorbis did not answer to my last message on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basel_problem for two weeks. He said that the proof that I added was not directly due to Euler but he did not mention any reference to prove this statement. I did not say on the article that the proof was directly due to Euler. I on the page of the article I said that Euler published it and I mentioned two references that prove this statement. Deacon Vorbis also said that the proof that I wrote was not Euler's proof. If one reads correctly the references that I mention they will notice easily that the proof that I wrote is due to Euler. Finally Deacon Vorbis said there were lots of formating issues. I can't fix them since I am not sure what issues he was talking about. I wish he helped me to fix them instead of deleting my paragraph. I am not talking directly to Deacon Vorbis since he refuses to discuss with me about those details on the talk page. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Contribute.Math (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
![]()
![]()
|
user:197.251.178.126 just made a threat of violence against me on her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDavid Eppsteinたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Eppstein,
I fail to understand the ground behind not considering the following section in the Graph Coloring wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_coloring).
I received your note. I was not really into an edit-war. It's just that after consuming comments like "heavily promotional" or "overlong description", I had to review the section and make necessary language modifications to make the text aligned with the rest of the page. So it was a language edit while the content was virtually the same. The added new section takes the opportunity to discuss 'sequential coloring' through the 'trailing path' algorithm. The approach is novel, special and unmistakably leads to a significant advancement in the subject. It should, therefore, be part of a 'first reading' article about graph coloring.
I would further like to add that the 'trailing path' algorithm was published in Soft Computing (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00500-019-04278-8), a decades-long, well-praised journal in the field (current IF: 2.78), covered by most major available citation indexes. So, I am not really sure nor am I convinced about the rational basis of editorial comments like "underwhelming heuristic published in a bad journal"! Rather, it would be of much help to have more constructive elaborative and precise criticism giving a scope to identify and rectify flaws (if applicable).
Sequential coloring: The trailing path algorithm
There have been many attempts to solve the Graph coloring Problem through a couple of centuries now (from Francis Guthrie, 1852) wherein many combinatorial optimization algorithms have been invoked. However, no algorithm was found to procure an exact solution of the chromatic number comprehensively for any and all graphs within the polynomial (P) time domain. Recently a novel heuristic, namely the ‘trailing path’ [30] could reset this state of the art. The 'trailing path' algorithm has shown to return an approximate solution of the chromatic number within P time with a better accuracy than existing algorithms, working unanimously irrespective of the graph-size and topology, working particularly well for the most difficult k-regular graphs (k>2). In its design, ‘trailing path’ effectively turns out to be a subtle combination of the search patterns of two existing heuristics (DSATUR [31] and largest first (LF) [32]) with contrasting approaches; and operates along a trailing path of consecutively connected nodes. LF colors nodes in the descending order of their degrees while DSATUR opts to color nodes in the descending order of their color saturation (i.e., the number of colors that can NOT be used to color a node - as has been found at a certain step of coloring). It naturally follows that both approaches effectively implement discontinuous coloring schemes (i.e., there is no guarantee that two nodes colored one after the other would remain connected in the original graph). The 'trailing path' approach meticulously amalgamates the two aforementioned search patterns of LF and DSATUR and furthermore operates through a trailing path of consecutively connected nodes (i.e., a sequential coloring scheme) in contrast to the earlier approaches. It thereby also effectively maps to the problem of finding spanning tree(s) of the graph during the entire course of coloring - where essentially lies both the novelty and the apt of this approach. Adaptation of sequential coloring is an interesting new addition to the state of the art in Graph Coloring and has the potential to serve other partitioning / compartmentalization problems in combinatorics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo8130 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Nemo8130 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sankar Basu
Assistant Professor, Asutosh College (Under Calcutta University, Kolkata, India)
PhD: Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
Post Docs: FfAME, FL, USA; Linkoping University, Sweden; University of Calcutta, India; University of Delhi, India; Clemson University, USA; ULB, Brussels, Belgium
Core Area: Computational Biophysics and Bioinformatics
1. >> "It's a newly published paper, in a bad journal"
- Your excellency, here is this bad journal's website: https://www.springer.com/journal/500 and its editporial board page: https://www.springer.com/journal/500/editors. We would appriciate if you could kindly care to justify your comment with some facts and figures, or else, such loose comments really sound childish!
2. >> "with no citations and hence no reliable sourcing for its impact"
- Your excellency, the online-first version of the paper was published in the web, little more than two months back. The off-line regular article is scheduled to be printed and included in the journal's first issue of January 2020. So I am not sure whether the number of citations at this stage could be a correct and just yardstick to assess its merit.
3. >> "overblown history about how nobody has ever solved it before "
- The 'graph coloring' wiki-page discusses about different strategies adopted to develop Combinatorial Optimization algorithms wherein a key approach ('sequential coloring') is found missing. To aid this void, we intended to compare between discontinuous (LF, DSATUR) and continuous coloring schemes ('trailing path') and suggested intuitively as to why continuous coloring schemes have been found to be performing better (for this one has to read the paper). Kindly note with care, the sentence: "It thereby also effectively maps to the problem of finding spanning tree(s) of the graph during the entire course of coloring". This is key point in Graph Coloring and even if his excellency denies I regret I would beg to differ. There were no promotional intentions otherwise.
3. >> "It does not yet stand out from the other 45000 or so papers on graph coloring listed by Google Scholar" - We shall be grateful if his excellency could kindly bring to our site, one paper among the "45000 or so papers on graph coloring listed by Google Scholar" that procures an exact solution of chromatic number unanimously for all graphs. We shall be grateful to unlearn and relearn.
4. >> "It does not solve the graph coloring problem exactly" - Let me quote from the above text drafted for the section.
"Recently a novel heuristic, namely the ‘trailing path’ [30] could reset this state of the art. The 'trailing path' algorithm have shown to return an approximate solution of the chromatic number within P time with a better accuracy than existing algorithms, working unanimously irrespective of the graph-size and topology, working particularly well for the most difficult k-regular graphs (k>2)."
My understanding of the English language does not reflect any claim to output an exact solution, rather, it says 'an approximate solution with better accuracy'. I don't think the two are the same.
5. >> "not to keep arguing" We had the idea that Wikipedia was a global educational forum that appreciates scholastic excellence. We were not aware of this practice of new editorial 'monopoly' here.
Nemo8130 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
>> you're now clearly claiming that your paper gives an "exact solution of chromatic number unanimously for all graphs"? In polynomial time?
No sir. That is something that you are making out of the text. It appears that you are too much obsessed to falsify our claim without actually realizing what the claim is! I would humbly request you to kindly take care to read the text. If I may know your email id, I can send you the pdf of the paper (also available here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00500-019-04278-8 - if you have access to download).
Let me again quote from the text and try to clarify:
1. "The trailing path algorithm has shown to return an approximate solution of the chromatic number within P time with a better accuracy than existing algorithms, working unanimously irrespective of the graph-size and topology, working particularly well for the most difficult k-regular graphs (k>2)."
And, furthermore,
2. To address your point on "45000 or so papers on graph coloring from Google Scholar", I said that we do not yet know of a method that procures and exact solution of the chromatic number unanimously for all graphs (within P time, of course)''Italic text.
So the point we are trying to make in this drafted section (and also in the paper) is that 'trailing path' performs better than the state-of-the-art before and we further try to highlight the importance of opting for 'sequential coloring'/* for this improved performance.
/* the term is mentioned just once in the Graph Coloring wiki page under 'greedy algorithms'
Nemo8130 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear David: Fred Galvin warnd me of a misleading sentence in the text: for j<k finite the proof that any k-chromatic graph contains a j-chromatic does not needd E-dB, simply take a good coloring with k colors and take the union of j classes. Sorry, this was my fault as you followed a remark in my 2011 paper. Happy New Year, Peter Komjath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.105.254 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)