Jump to content

User talk:David Eppstein/2024b

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are Mobius strip and Borromean rings geometrical or topological objects?

I'm trying to find an alternative solution after having different opinions. What I mentioned about these different opinions is that you mentioned the solution of breaking into "Geometry" (and another user added "Geometry and topology"). My different solution is by adding "Mathematical object" because subcategorizing by the fields could lead to the potential of unmatchable fields in mathematics articles (see the discussion of me and Bilorv lately), and we do have articles of curves, polygons, polyhedrons, and other objects such as Mobius strip and Borromean rings. However, the phrase "Mathematical object" may be ambiguous based on the fields as well, as our article says. So I prefer to find the alternative name of the subsection "Geometrical object", hopefully listing those objects. However, I am worried that the Mobius strip and Borromean rings may not be included and they are relevant to the topological topics. To put it plainly, are they both geometrical or topological objects, as they are unspecifically mentioned as mathematical objects? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If they have to be only one, it is topological. But there is a lot of geometry in both articles. Also, the distinction between mathematical objects, mathematical theories, mathematical theorems, and mathematical problems is less clear than you may think; many of our articles cover both. For instance, is Euclid–Euler theorem about a theorem, or is it about even perfect numbers, as mathematical objects? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I would probably say that Euclid–Euler theorem describes a theorem, explaining that a perfect even number has a form of prime number , where is a prime number; so maybe they could be included as concepts and topics, or theorems specifically. The mathematical object, as I mentioned earlier, is ambiguous because of the phrase usage in different areas of mathematics. That's why I prefer to split up into "Mathematical concepts and topics" (including theorem, lemma, conjecture, and others) and "Geometrical and topological objects"??? (including points, lines, curves, polygons, tesselations, polyhedrons, honeycombs, and polytopes).
Maybe we could take more examples from our GA list. Squaring the circle, from my perspective, is talking about the problems in geometry that challenge the construction of a square with an area of a given circle; so this could be included in concepts and topics. Prince Rupert's cube mostly focuses on its object itself and less on its generalization including the problem of the Rupert property that exists in all polyhedra. Maybe you could share your perspective on these articles by their categorization? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the article were moved to the title even perfect number (displacing the current redirect), would it suddenly become an article about an object rather than an article about a theorem?
Prince Rupert's cube is less about a specific object and more about the counterintuitive fact that one can pass objects through holes in themselves.
Also, your proposed classification makes no room for objects that are not geometrical and topological, such as for instance prime number, to pick an obvious example. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
So, in conclusion, are you saying that we should break them into more categories by its field, as in "Geometry and topology"? If that's the case, then I have no other arguments against this. However, if we break them into "Geometry and topology", should we also have to break all of the concepts and topics into different areas by fields, as in "Algebra", "Arithmetic and number theory", "Graph theory", and others? That is what I'm illustrating about this scenario. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
No matter what categories we choose, we're going to need an "everything else" subcategory. See for instance the subdivision of sports into some specific sports and everything else, and the subdivision of music into albums, songs, classical compositions, and everything else. So what's wrong with geometry+topology / everything else? Why does it demand that we further subdivide? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh. I see. I was trying to think about providing subcategories in the future. I think I will give a support to break into "Geometry and topology". Sorry. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect graphs

Hello David, I've responded to your GA comments, and I aim to read the rest of the article this next week. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, with many apologies for the delay, I want to congratulate you to this fine article! (I wish I could have continued reviewing the last third or so with the same level of attention that I started with; this was not quite possible due to non-wiki reasons.) Keep it up! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

America, a suburb of newyork

It is quite depressing to realise that only 99.99% of contributors and 99.963% of readers believe that we (including the encyclopedia) exist on planet Earth, Solar System, etc. I take the chance that almost everyone is aware of this. However it is even more astonishing to find that those who can read, and many who can write, the English language do not intimately know the names of every state of the United States of America - and that if you refer to, say, North Carolina you are not referring to a mix of a track released by the recording artist Shaggy sometime before the creation of Amazon (afterwhich some river is Southern USA is named). I find it incredible that very few Americans (those living between Mexico/Canada and Canada/Russia) know where Ghent is, or why it is a significant aspect in their history. It is for that reason that I put the name of the nation after the State, as I do counties in England, regions of Scotland, and states of Australia, India and Pakistan (I have to check in other nations...). I do not assume that every reader, or a significant percentage of them, actually would know which nation Maryland, Avon, Udder Pradesh, and Tasmania belong to. I add in that detail, which in no way diminishes the encyclopedia. That said, your subsequent edits cleared up the nationality issue nicely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What I know about Ghent is "that city with the nice canalside cellar restaurant that we stopped at once on our way back from Bruges". But I suspect that's not the significant aspect of history you were referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Treaty of Ghent. However, if there is a good source* for your meal and notability can be established, then it could be worked into the article about the city. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) *not sauce!
Well, I know more about Ghent than Dayton, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Polyhedra and three other reverted talk pages

I thought that Pappus's centroid theorem, Dandelin sphere, and Napkin ring problem are part of the polyhedron. The Pappus's centroid theorem is about theorems involves the solid of revolution with the measurement properties such as surface area and volume, which might be included in calculus. On the other hand, Dandelin sphere talks about two spheres tangent to a plane inside of a cone, and Napkin ring problem is about finding the volume of a band of a sphere with given height of a hole.

I have no idea what was the reason they were reverted. Some clarification needed if I impertubably would like to know your answer, avoiding this misunderstanding. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A polyhedron is a thing with flat sides. Surfaces of revolution, spheres, and the spheres with holes of the napkin ring do not have flat sides. They are solid geometry, but not polyhedra. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Yea 2603:6010:7200:C100:812C:CE41:9320:A4D (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Regular convex 4-polytopes annotation

Please see my previously written reply here "Good idea!" which explains why I did this, to address @Beland's issue (an error on my part which I acknowledged), why my note is referenced, not WP:NOR or junk, and how I took care to ensure what I did does not break any of the articles which transclude this template. If you agree my fix is correct, please undo your undo, as I do not wish to be at all argumentative, and I cannot do that myself without appearing to engage in an edit war. Thank you @David Eppstein. Dc.samizdat (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No. It is junk. It is a discursive essay on an ordering scheme that you appear to have made up. We should not be putting paragraphs of text into templates that are included in multiple articles at all. Articles should have their own text, not copies of boilerplate text from who knows where. And we should not be adding paragraphs of unsourced text to anything. The fact that your addition necessitates adding new sections of explanatory notes separate from the reference sections to multiple other articles is also problematic, but much less problematic than adding paragraphs of text to articles through templates and writing content not based on published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Please reconsider. I didn't make up the ordering scheme of the regular 4-polytopes by number of vertices, the SO(4) symmetry group of nature which generates these polytopes did. The text of my note is not "boilerplate from who knows where" but sourced by dozens of citations from Coxeter 1973 who orders his entire book, and his presentation of the regular 4-polytopes in particular, in this order, their natural order of increasing complexity. My discursive essay is to note that crucial geometric fact which Coxeter documented so fully, which is of fundamental importance to understanding the sequence of this series of increasingly complex Wikipedia articles. I moved my note into the template article which is the compendium of Coxeter's most important tables from Regular Polytopes, the essential table which every article on Euclidean geometry or the regular polytopes must have, collapsed but ready to hand, if it is to be understood. @Beland correctly pointed out that the text of my note should not be duplicated in multiple articles; I fully agree and moreover believe it is rightly an annotation to the table, not to every article that needs the table. That is what template transclusion is for. I respectfully submit that your rule that "we should not be putting paragraphs of text into templates that are included in multiple articles" is correct and reasonable, but too absolutely stated; it is a good rule, but every rule has its exception. I would add "except where the template article is the proper home for this information among many related Wikipedia articles, which need to be annotated by this information to be well understood, but should not duplicate the annotation". Dc.samizdat (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Dc.samizdat tldr. stop adding long off topic notes to articles. stop adding unsourced content. stop making excuses for these problems. it is disruptive and it makes the encyclopedia worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth–Moon problem

The article Earth–Moon problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earth–Moon problem for comments about the article, and Talk:Earth–Moon problem/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

IP attacking a user?

[1] Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

...and undoing everything by that user, even when "everything" includes obvious vandalism-reversion. Blocked 3 days for personal attacks and harassment. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ordered Bell number

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ordered Bell number you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Combinatory logic - undecidability editing confusion

I'm puzzled about recent edits on the combinatory logic page in relation to the omission of CL's undecidability proof. Isn't removing the previous proof akin to denying the Church-Turing thesis? The thesis implies the equivalence of formalisms that capture "effective calculability/computability" with a formalism's respective undecidability typically then entailing a corresponding proof of the unsolvability of its version of the Halting problem - exactly what was originally provided (not by myself FWIW). That decidability is more commonly sheeted back to Turing machines seems to me to be more a quirk of history.

Consider the thought experiment whereby CL became the first computational model with all subsequent formalisms/languages then proven to be CL-complete (an interesting possibility given its earlier emergence). Would we really now dismiss all the familiar proofs of the unsolvability of the Halting problem as  "nonsensical" or "essentially a trivial statement that has nothing to do with actual undecidability"?

Showing undecidability with just a self-referential, general diagonalization argument (or even potentially something more exotic) also seems perfectly rigorous as discussed here

IMO it seems a bit of a shame to remove the original, more direct proof given how insightful it was in terms of:

1) being much more concrete (no encoding is needed! unlike the implicit coding of TM's in the traditional proofs)

2) giving a more immediate sense of its Godelian nature with the final flipping of perspectives.

I agree it's worthwhile to note CL's "intensionality" and that undecidability doesn't follow when the property under consideration is not the halting problem (while pointing out that CL's Turing-completeness is not then violated because of encoding). Ronald Monson (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Gauss

Hello,

on 6 March, you took this article from the GA-nomination list, and put some "citation needed" tags in the article. These tags are now replaced by references, and some were added in addition, so their complete number has raised from then 216 to 278 now. Would you please take a look on the present state of the article, whether the quotations are sufficient? Thank you. Dioskorides (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but much better. In "Analysis", two paragraphs end in unsourced sentences. Some notes (especially note [u]) still need a reference for their content. I didn't check carefully that any of the sources actually support the content they appear to support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I think all statements are referenced now. Thank you for your intervention, I think the following work has improved the article. So, I will try a GA nomination once more. --Dioskorides (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Example of a Partition

I see one of the examples you have for reverting my example of a partition is that it is unsourced. However, the examples in the article are unsourced too. Why would it be important? PicoMath (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Not to speak for David, but: the more important reasons for reverting are (1) that your addition was very poorly written, and (2) that there is already a section (immediately below the "Examples" section) specifically about the phenomenon of set partitions induced by equivalence relations. --JBL (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see why. Thanks! PicoMath (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Constant-recursive sequence

Ummm... do you think the article Constant-recursive sequence is already quickfailed? I have taken the review, but after I read it, there are many problems, some of which I have to write down. I have never quickfailed the article before, so maybe you could add more comments for the second opinion? I think I will write them down right now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

With entire sections with no source, I think you could quickfail it per WP:QF#1 (very far from criterion 2) or #3 (needs cleanup banners). For that matter, why is it a separate article from Linear recurrence with constant coefficients? Aren't they on more or less the same topic? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Well. The nominator already improved by the comments, but it has already quickfailed. Do you think I should undo the failing nomination and continue to review, or wait for a few days to improve the article until they meet six criteria and then nominate it again? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It's really up to you, how close you think it is in all the other criteria, and how much effort you're willing to put into it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ummm... okay. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lambda calculus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nondeterminism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Descartes' theorem

On 23 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Descartes' theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the discovery of Descartes' theorem in geometry came from a too-difficult mathematics problem posed to a princess? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Descartes' theorem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Descartes' theorem), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 15,382 views (640.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Ordered Bell number

The article Ordered Bell number you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ordered Bell number and Talk:Ordered Bell number/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Basic Courtesy

Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment. If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, striking out the duplicates from people who spam deletion discussions with multiple keep comments is exactly the standard protocol here. Also your comment failed to add any information to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The fact is my comments contain factual information which you refused to read. Just because you disagree, you shouldn't stigmatize or label my comment as spam. You need to respect the fair arguments on Wikipedia and the right to free speech. Your behaviour is disrespectful and abusive. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Says someone who disregarded another editor's comment with the zinger "But you are not from Oxford". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
At least, I didn't delete his comment. I fully respect him unlike your discourtesy. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for some admin clarification

Hello, you're on the list of recently active admins and I wanted to ask you something directly, since I fear the normal channels could accidentally harass someone. I'm currently dealing with an edit war situation and I suspect that the IP edit warring is actually just a different user who made similar edits, but logged out. That said, the logged in version actually doesn't have a history of edit warring on the article in question. So, it looks and sounds like there may be a duck, but I think actually trying to do a checkuser or something may run afoul of the evidentiary requirements considering the logged in user apparently has done nothing wrong? It absolutely makes a difference for WP:3RR, which is why I'm asking for admin input, but I don't want to blindside someone totally innocent with a sock investigation when they apparently did nothing wrong... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look and placed an anonymous-editing-only block based on previous attempts to prevent the user from edit warring. I understand what Warrenmck is implying and have taken all action I currently believe is needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. To answer Warrenmck's question: if you think someone is a sockpuppet of someone else, the venue to take it to is WP:SPI. It's ok to make SPI cases involving IP addresses as well as logged-in users, but they have to be based on strong behavioral evidence only, because the checkusers aren't going to make public (even by the blocks they perform) any other information connecting IP addresses to editors, and I think won't even run any address checks in such cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I think that still leaves me a bit confused, because if there's a sockpuppet issue then it's someone being careful to avoid sock behaviour on their main account and rather jumping to an IP to do so, meaning "strong behavioural evidence" may be too high a bar and I really don't want to accidentally harass someone, but boy does the situation sure stink of socks. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Sir, i would like to stress the point, that two users namely "User:Ruslik0" and David Eppstein are not eligible experts FOR a given article they PUSHED for deletion on April 30. "User:Ruslik0" is anonymous, bot-like, native Russian speaker. "User:Ruslik0" activity in wiki articles on "Jupiter rings etc" is NOT personalised. User "David Eppstein" is Professional in Computer Science, not in Physics, namely Quantum Optics, Condenced Matter, Nonlinear dynamics. Sorry i insist on PROFESSIONAL expertise rather than OPINIONS FEST. Okulov99 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

eligibility for wiki article deletion

To: Prof.David Eppstein, 

Sir, it would be probably of the vital interest to the MOST of Wikipedia users to know your personal opinion on ELIGIBILITY to deletion of the wiki-article of the two NON - expert persons.

Indeed, the person #1 is Prof.David Eppstein, who is expert in computational geometry and algorithms. But Prof.David Eppstein is NOT the expert in the quantum optics and nonlinear dynamics. In fact your participation in deletion of article deleted on April 30 devaluates all your previous 200 000 expert decisions on filtering wiki content.

The person #2 is ANONYMOUS user "User:Ruslik0" who is NOT expert in ANY of research areas in Physics and Astronomy though he claims himself as the author of "subtantial contribibutions" the several wiki-articles on planetology alike "Jupiter, Neptune etc rings". There are NO evidence that this ANONYMOUS "User:Ruslik0" has any peer-reviewed article in the any research area.

Really the statement that a some person is "not notable" could be launched in wiki by any alike "User:Ruslik0" who is NOT expert in an ANY research area. In contrast to US there are a lot of people worldwide (not only in Russia) who are just a "tea pot" professionals, who are just a dreamers, who are just sitting in the lab, reading popular journals and who are involved sometimes in some TRULY NonNotable publications. Such persons are hardly disdinguishable from evil-minded bots located in SPB and Mos-Ru domains. The activity of "User:Ruslik0" is truly blackmailing activity.

Sir Prof.David Eppstein, you understand as an experienced professional that large amount of publications is NOT the criterion for notability of results obtained by well visible person. Actually anybody who sees info on your 200 000 decisions on wiki resources may say: "Wow, this persons is 63 years old, thus he made more 10 responbible decisions daily throughout all his life. Does he has a time for profound research in Computer Science ?".

For the above mentioned reasons i would like ask you gently to submit for the PROPER PROFESSIONAL expertise the article you recommended for deleton on April 30, 2024. Okulov99 (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

________________________________

The only professional in Physics wiki User who participated in discussion was Ldm1954 Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) By position and activities Ldm1954 is Professor in Physics. But Ldm1954 does not see any notability in "Michelson interferometer with phase-conjugation" and subsequent realizations with optical vortices and Bose-Einstein condensates. It's a pity.Sorry. i apologies for inconviniences inflicted by my works to Professor Ldm1954. The other Users were unprofessionals: User: Bearian (school teacher with undefined past ) Delete. I don't see how any of his research was anything other than secondary. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) i am so sorry, i have Teaching experience in Physics, but Bearian Does NOT have experience in Physics Teaching. User X (User:Xoak who denies "dogmatism" and who "had been a member of Women in Red" ): Delete Does not meet WP:NPROF as yet. X (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Okulov99 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Okulov99 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea which discussion you are talking about, but eligibility to edit Wikipedia and participate in deletion discussions is not limited to experts and does not depend on credentials. Anyone can participate. Their participation will be taken seriously to the extent that it follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The identity of participants may be pseudonymous or anonymous, and Wikipedia has strong protections for the privacy of people who do not wish to reveal their real-world identity. Because of this, in discussions involving deletion or article creation, the notability of the subject must be based on things that can be verified by non-expert editors.
As for my age and "does he has a time for profound research": incorrect, and I think my publication record speaks for itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Apparently this is in regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Okulov. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
i am so sorry for pointing your exact age. Kindly please accept my sincere apologies. But in essence the current upper limit for age is 100, may be some what longer. How do you evaluate the quality of 200 000 recorded decisions made during this 100 years because trivial arithmetic deletion gives the number of 2000 decisions per year, is not it ? And how many deletions of biographies were among this 2000 decisions ? What about notability of a multiple persons with h-index greater that 100 and a one modest person who has h-index=12 ??? https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-W.-Higgs/50750305 95.24.172.101 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
What you should be sorry for is failing to correctly calculate my age, and instead stating a random number that is not my actual age. As for your numerology, sorry, I don't see the point in even attempting to answer. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for constructive discussion. Wikipedia is about 20 years old and 200 000 decisions on wiki management means 10 000 decisions per year. Impressive productivity. 95.24.154.48 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

AGF

Just for the record, since some of the responses to the informal RFC at talk:diameter have been "rather less than helpful", may I make clear that I consider your position to be an entirely reasonable one? I believe that we agree that the input methods should be documented; I think we only differ about where that information should be given and how comprehensively it should be covered. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! As for where, Jacobolus's suggestion of Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing seems like a better choice than a mathematics article on diameter, to me. If moved there, I guess the question would become one of following the conventions already established at that article rather than debating ab initio which coding methods are WP:DUE. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed yet another way of encoding the diameter symbol in the context of a 2D engineering drawing (I guess one could describe Unicode a as a 1D system. It is certainly designed for writing text in simple lines, subject to [sometimes extreme] modification by stacked diacritics. It doesn't work at all well in Mathematical texts and indeed is positively deprecated in that context.) I have used "AutoCAD" rather loosely to mean this kind of 2D encoding. I have no idea it is encoded and tbh I suspect that not a lot of people do. And we haven't even begun to cover musical notation! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Perfect graph

The article Perfect graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Perfect graph for comments about the article, and Talk:Perfect graph/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jakob.scholbach -- Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! This one may be a bit too lacking in real-world-relevant hooks to nominate for DYK, but I expect to post about it on my social media in a day or two (more than just a brief announcement hence the delay). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jakob.scholbach: if you're still curious about your question of whether random graphs are perfect, see my blog post https://11011110.github.io/blog/2024/05/08/random-perfection.html for some more detailed answers. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! It speaks to your dedication to the topic, and it's nice for me to know that my review, as shallow as it was, has contributed an epsilon to something useful beyond wikipedia as well. Keep it up! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Is OEIS a reliable source?

I have claimed review in the article 69 (number). It seems that most of the sources are using OEIS. In that case, do they have the same status as MathWorld, implying that it is not reliable, although I have searched the similar discussion before? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I think OEIS has exactly the kind of standards needed to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source: all changes go through two levels of peer review / editorial control, with a very selective editorial board, before being made public. Also, in practice, I think it is much less error-prone than MathWorld. So yes, I think it is reliable.
What OEIS is not so good for is determining whether a number sequence is notable, because they accept anything reasonable. And it is debatable how informative they are about which properties are WP:DUE for mention on articles about individual numbers (I have tended to think: only properties that they tag as "nice" and for which the individual number appears very early in the sequence, but there are other quite divergent opinions here.) But for quality control of the content they include about each sequence, I think they are very good. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Noted. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Rule of... toe

Fair enough, thanks for the info. FTR, I used that phrase because I must be in that minority of people that have never heard that it could be offensive, and have been careful to maintain it because others found it an important aspect of the RfC close. – Joe (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

[2]

Don't be a dick. It is not the first time you have been unnecessarily snarky at another person in edit summary or elsewhere. Izno (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I guess my edit summary did not clearly communicate my intent, which was: I truly do not see the purpose of your edit. It seems totally counterproductive to me, introducing formatting variations for no reason, and incidentally removing possibly-valuable reader-visible information (what kind of thesis it is). I also do not see any value in the fact that we have 20 different cite X templates and have to figure out which one to use each time we make a citation when we could always just use the citation template and let the template figure out what kind of thing it is. But perhaps my failure to see any purpose or value is merely a lack of understanding rather than an actual lack of purpose or value. If the point was cOiNs (sorry, but I can never remember the correct capitalization) can you convince me that cOiNs actually has usefulness to a significant number of users? If the point was to classify things so that the citations are classified, then you should know that that goes against my direct intent in why I use the citation templates rather than cite X+mode=cs2 (that is, I prefer uniformity in formatting over having to choose a type for each one), and therefore violates CITEVAR. If the point was something else, can you maybe clarify what that point might have been? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The change actually wasn't motivated by coins here (I think it's COinS? I care as much for the spelling as you do), though I would guess there was a change in the coins also based on the type of the citation that the one is producing versus the other (as current, it's providing book metadata when it's not one, I just can't be assed to check the other). The motivation was instead something I'm sure you think is trivial also: Templates emit a small class in the HTML that some gadgets use to display pretty pictures for the kind of reference the citation is or can be used in other ways in similar sense.
that that goes against my direct intent in why I use the citation templates rather than cite X+mode=cs2 (that is, I prefer uniformity in formatting over having to choose a type for each one), and therefore violates CITEVAR This is a pretty twisted reading of CITEVAR, which is about how it ends up displaying and not what your "intent" was or the specific templates used or how those templates are formatted (as discussed in an RFC where I would be surprised if you had not participated). Especially when |mode= was added to ensure CS2 displayed on the page.
I also do not see any value in the fact that we have 20 different cite X templates and have to figure out which one to use I don't think our list of templates is particularly onerous. I would also like to have a single template, but, well, default styles are a bitch. I'd have made the same change if {{citation}} could do what I wanted, but it's not obvious to me that it can (the stupid attempt was |thesis=thesis title and that got me the unrecognized error).
incidentally removing possibly-valuable reader-visible information (what kind of thesis it is) I did consider retaining the |type=, but I don't find distinguishing the kind of thesis valuable in the slightest. That it's a thesis indicates it's a pretty weak (but sometimes acceptable) source on Wikipedia. This is a point of reasonable disagreement that would have been no issue to me if the edit summary had discussed that aspect only. Izno (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
To respond to a small part of this: if one is interested in evaluating the reliability of sources, the type of thesis is in fact valuable. Bachelor's theses < master's theses < PhD theses < habilitation theses and you may have different thresholds than me for which of those you consider reliable, which might be ok but you have to check them carefully, and which should just be avoided. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arrangement of lines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jesterthefirth -- Jesterthefirth (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Alas, bandsock. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ordered Bell number

The article Ordered Bell number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ordered Bell number for comments about the article, and Talk:Ordered Bell number/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "notability"

Hi, inspired from the discussion regarding de:Benjamin Schlein, I wanted to give a general opinion on the policies of EN Wikipedia. Those vague and optimistic rules regarding notability of mathematicians is a huge drawback of the EN Wikipedia. There were many Soviet mathematicians who are influential but that never will fullfill those Wikipedia criteria of notability (especially non-Russians like Lithuanians, Latvians, Georgians etc.), simply by the fact that they were oppressed and didn't get the recognizability as for instance Russians or people that moved to Moscow etc. during the Soviet times. Another reason for being not "notable" is, that many books or papers of great mathematicians were published originally in Russian. Some have English translations and some have not. But even those with Englisch translations are often also not "notable" (in the sense of what is "notable" on Wikipedia).--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

None of the Wikipedia notability policies depend on the language of publication of an academic nor of works about them. On the other hand, if someone comes from a suppressed group and was unable to gain traction as an academic because of that suppression, it's unfortunate but introducing double standards to Wikipedia is not the way to correct that; see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
But the policies depend - according to Ldm1954 - on things like the "h-index" and other metrics, that do not represent the importance of the scientific discovery. Regarding your second sentence: I am not sure sure, if you even take my comment seriously. My point is that what is "notable" according to Wikipedia is not necessarily important in mathematics and vice versa.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Very few of Wikipedia's notability guidelines reflect importance directly in any way. They reflect the amount of recognition the subject has received for their work, a different thing. It is impossible to avoid subjectivity altogether, but trying to judge what is important and what is not, in mathematics, is a very personal thing, something it would be impossible to obtain consensus on even if we could expect deletion discussion participants to be knowledgeable about that topic (we cannot and they are not). Judging recognition is much more possible, and much less contentious, even for non-experts.
To put it more bluntly: I feel that I am very bad at judging the importance of my own works, at the time I write them. Some things that I think at the time are just a throwaway remark turn out to become the start of a huge amount of research by me and others. Some things that I get very excited about fail to interest others and eventually vanish into oblivion. If I cannot do that for material that I am extremely familiar with, how can you reasonably expect anything but complete randomness when non-experts try to assess the importance of technical matters? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
1) Then please show me the exact rules:"what makes a mathematician notable for Wikipedia". 2) I understand you, but that happens a lot, that scientists discover something and 50 or 100 years later the community realizes it's important. What do you make with those thoughts/publications, that you think, that nobody is interested? Don't throw it away, maybe you just show it to the wrong people. Obviously it's a different story, when it's wrong. But otherwise, maybe you did not show it to the right people?--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The rules are linked in the very first link of Draft talk:Benjamin Schlein: see WP:NPROF. The detailed interpretation of those rules is not something that can be written explicitly, but depends on long observation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(PS the actual context seems to be Draft talk:Benjamin Schlein where Tensorproduct has been going on and on and on about how important Schlein's work supposedly is while completely failing to respond to requests that he demonstrate this importance through recognition by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't make this a wrong context and distort my intention for Wikipedia! Again, I don't care about the article for Schlein. I can for sure search for more articles about the importance of Schlein's work, but I don't care. He was just one of several articles I created for mathematicians but that were rejected like for example Yukio Matsumoto. --Tensorproduct (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein I am super disappointed of your last comment. It's not true and it looks like you make fun of me. The same thing happend to a friend of mine called Boris Tsirelson. Don't make assumptions about things, you don't know.--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
....and now the article for Benjamin Schlein was accepted, because he is an important mathematician and as Kusma said [3], the "notability tag and discussion are pretty absurd" which was for me clear from the beginning. But thanks for saying: "Tensorproduct has been going on and on and on about how important Schlein's work supposedly".--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Tensorproduct: That is a complete falsification and misrepresentation of what I said. Already in my first comment in Talk:Benjamin Schlein#Notability last April I already stated that I think he is notable through multiple WP:PROF criteria. You have missed my actual point, which was that the specific claims of importance of certain specific publications of Schlein, present in the draft at that time, needed to have sources by other people confirming their importance. You may notice that the details of those publications and their results are not any more in the accepted version of the article, because you did not supply those required sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Where is the falsification? Did I say something contradictory to what you said? My statement was purely regarding your comment which I quoted correctly, which obviously made my concern seem ridiculous. I felt that was not a very nice commentary and it hurt me. Especially when considering that the User:Ldm1954 has not even written 1 mathematics article and - as someone who deals mostly with chemistry - probably has not the appropriate knowledge about mathematics and can not talk about the importance of mathematicians.--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You strongly suggested that I tried to block the creation of an article on Schein because (supposedly) I doubted his notability. That is false. The evidence shows that I have always supported the existence of the article, and merely insisted that any content in the article be properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not true, I never said that you wanted to block the creation of the article. Where did I say that? On the contrary, that's why I wrote it on your talk page, because I thought you would understand it and help me. Then your comment seemed to me, that my complaints are being ridiculed.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Author-links?

Hi. How have you been finding all the places a subject is mentioned on WP? Is there an easier method, maybe something with wikidata, that doesn't involve horrible regex search queries like 

insource: singh reproductive insource:/((v)?(last|author|editor)(s)?[1-9| ]*=[ ]?Singh[ ]?\|[ ]?first[0-9| ]*=[ ]?S[ D\.]*(usheela)?[ \.]*\|)|(Singh[,]? S[ D\.]*(usheela)?[ ,\|])|([^a-zA-Z\.]S[ D\.]*(usheela)? Singh(\W|[ ]|\.))/

? If not, does AWB have a better regex "editor" environment than the WP search bar?

Thanks JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just been using the WP search page (not the search bar, which will too easily shortcut you to the article itself), and putting different forms of the name as a quoted string: "Susheela Singh", "Singh Susheela", "S Singh", "Singh S", "Susheela D. Singh", "S. D. Singh", "Singh SD", etc., each one as a separate search, sometimes with additional words to guide the search. It isn't sensitive to case or punctuation. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I was doing that, but somewhere around "Elizabeth M. Robinson" in my STEM list I decided I was duplicating my efforts too much in filtering out the same hundreds of false positives between "Robinson EM" and "Robinson E", not to mention the issue of neither search picking up things like "last1=Robinson|first1=E", so I decided to regex it. Thanks for the quick response! JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

{{TOC LONMP}}

Hi. I added sections for asteroids that aren't easily alphabetized, but they display weird. Not sure how to fix. — kwami (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Icosian game

On 24 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Icosian game, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the icosian game was advertised as a "highly amusing game for the drawing room", it was too easy to play and not a commercial success? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Icosian game. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Icosian game), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,590 views (691.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking RevDel

See here. Thanks :) Gottagotospace (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Any recommendation to fix Johnson solid

I am not interested in making GA status for article Johnson solid currently, but I would probably think to rewrite the whole article about it. The article contains many useless tables, in my opinion, alongside the unnecessary categorizations; I have no clue how to deal with this, unfortunately, but I guess you can help. This happened to me when one of the reviewers here asked what is the point of creating its list before nominating to FL. Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My approach would be to take to it with a machete or maybe a chainsaw, and then after cutting it down to the parts that can be of good quality, build back up the now-missing parts. But it would be a lot of effort and there's some risk that the editor or editors who left it in its present state would make it difficult to change. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it was already happening when I was trying to add something but getting reverted. I do realize it right now! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Harvtxt error

I gave up handling these harvtxt error's in Rhombicuboctahedron, and this happened when I tried to change sfn and it did not affect the result at all. Can you help me in this case? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

TfD for Template:ARR RRR worksheet

I moved your nomination of {{ARR RRR worksheet}} to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Template:ARR RRR worksheet. I forgot to notify you at the moment I did it, so here it is. Nickps (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for saving me the bureaucracy! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Translations

Hello David, I think that you translated into english the page on Françoise Chatelin recently (I created it in French...). Is it the case ? If yes, I will add the banner "translated etc" (with the corresponding version) on the talk page. All the best, Cgolds (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look at all like a translation of the French article! (talk page stalker) --JBL (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It is very uncommon for me to directly use translations; I think the only recent example is Special:Diff/1228943941, which I properly marked as a translation. In general, and in the specific case of Chatelin, what I do is to write the article from scratch, based on the published sources that I can find, in some cases using other-language Wikipedia articles either to find those sources or to find claims for which sources might be available through searching. I don't remember specifics, but it is possible that I found the Saad and CERFACS sources through the fr article; however, even in those cases, I would have formatted a new citation to those references rather than copying the reference from fr. And I'm not sure I even looked at the French article on her until today; it doesn't look particularly familiar to me. I do remember how I found her name: it was through looking at people with recent deaths in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Mathematicians, where she would have likely been listed since 2020 (when her Wikidata item was first created), unrelated to your recent creation of the French article. So please, do not tag the article as a translation. That is not what I did. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

How to draw polyhedron

Remember you mention the https://prideout.net/blog/svg_wireframes/#examples is a site drawing polyhedron by generating using codes in WP:WPM? The problem is where can I expect to put or test the code implementation? I thought it might be in Python, but it gives otherwise. Alternatively, are there any site or platforms to draw polyhedron without using code at all? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I put it in a folder and then did everything within that folder. My usual problem with sites to draw things is how to extract the result as a vector graphic file when you're done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Ummm... I'm not a computer scientist nor a programmer, so I don't get it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I run it from the command line after changing my directory to the directory where I put the code. One thing I like about generating images programmatically in this way rather than interactively is its repeatability: I can make changes to the sequence of steps I use to generate something without having to go back and perform all those same steps manually. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh... Okay. But where can I find a Python for drawing object specifically? I only have the platform of 64-bit Python. :( Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no special version of Python involved. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Very confusing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless it begins a sentence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17-animal_inheritance_puzzle&oldid=prev&diff=1229975144 Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not a sentence. You might notice the lack of a verb and the lack of a period at the end. See also the second bullet point of MOS:CAPTION. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert of an "example"

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half-integer&oldid=prev&diff=1230289097

The "edit comment" says [quote] :

(Undo addition. The point is valid but referring to an example elsewhere in Wikipedia violates WP:CIRCULAR.)

but I am not convinced that my (two-part) edit was really a violation of [the spirit of] WP:CIRCULAR.

I am not an expert on "WP:CIRCULAR" but I went there and ... it seemed to be concerned mostly about a case where something being added to an article on Wikipedia was improperly relying upon some other material, which came (directly or indirectly) from some other Wikipedia article.

IMHO I was not relying upon the Wikipedia article about Spin quantum number to serve as a "reliable source" which says that a certain thing is true.

I thought it was more of a situation in which, I was "mentioning" [a certain sentence in] the Wikipedia article about Spin quantum number, in order to illustrate how certain mathematical terms should (or should not) be used.

NB, it might have been kinda tempting -- for me -- to just go and 'revert the revert' ... perhaps in the hope that doing so would somehow (would it? I do not know) put the burden on 'you' to explain before proceeding.

But I am not in any hurry, and ... I realize that there may be more to it (maybe WAY more) than what I know about, now. (/slash ... what I "understand", now.)

Since one of us (well, myself at least) (maybe both of us?) might learn something here, (maybe right here on this "Talk:" page?) if we discuss this, therefore ... we might be able to reach some agreeable consensus, or otherwise "figure out" some "plan" that is a good idea ... in some sense.

Thanks for your patience, since ... sometimes when I get started writing an email message, or something like "this", ... I tend to just get going, and I might wind up going on and on, and on ... until it gets kinda long [-winded].

Thanks for listening. Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Your addition stated a claim about how certain mathematical terminology is used. All such claims need to be based on published reliable sources, which cannot be other pages on Wikipedia. Because your addition was based only on the usage of the same terminology on another Wikipedia article, it violated that principle. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question

First of all I want to thank you for I am now getting the point of the discussion title; I LOLed. I want you to know that you are probably making the difference in that thread and the one at RSN.

But here is the question, for you with your administrator hat on. I actually think that editor should be indeffed, but am on dangerous ground and don't want it to seem like personal dislike. And a topic ban would solve the problem I am currently trying to solve by at least moving it to another topic area. And good luck to that topic area, I say. So just to be sure: admins are not constrained by what has been proposed, correct? Or should I separately propose an indef for the good of the project? I am thinking no.Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point a better strategy may be to stay quiet for now and let the process happen, looks likely to be a topic ban not a block, be patient, and only if there is trouble again in a few weeks come back again. This time it had a shaky start, and the previous time came out with a worse result; if/when there is a next time, aim to keep it short and to the point and back up everything you have to say with a link to the edit that demonstrates the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
wasn't allowed to talk the previous time. But thank you for confirming. I agree that I should shut up now. Elinruby (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Madhava Leibniz

Hi, would it be relevant to contribute to Leibniz formula for π with this question I posted on math.stackexchange [4]? Thank you! Olivierlambertmusique (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your message earlier and now your question is gone. In any case, all contributions to that article or any other article need to be based on published reliable sources. Stackexchange is not allowed as a source (with rare exceptions); see WP:USERGENERATED. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Not as a possible contribution, but then simply as a question, do you know where to find articles mentionning the Arc to Chord ratio as an infinite sum, as described on this reddit question ? I am not a mathematician and could not find any. Thank you. 2A01:E34:EC66:BE40:B549:532:DD45:D68F (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
You mean the power series for the secant? You could try Google Scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, these are trivial products of series for Pi/sin(Pi.x), multiplied by x, which, when x is in the form 1/n with n>=2, can be regarded as describing the arc to chord ratios for the angles 2Pi/n. They are alternating series with a ++-- pattern. First special case n=2 is twice the Madhava Leibniz series. A few other usual series involving Pi are additionnal special cases for higher integer values of n, where we have exact trigonometric values of sin(Pi/n). They are useful in the perspective of graphical interpretation or geometrical construction of Madhava-Leibniz series, as describing the first special case of these. 2A01:E34:EC66:BE40:B549:532:DD45:D68F (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Icosian game

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Icosian game you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Finished reviewing, only minor comments. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I should be able to get to this within a few days. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Modified "primorial" method, called   nabla-deltorial

A modification of the "primorial" method was created, called nabla-deltorial, symbolically designated as ∇Δ(pₙ), and although the initial measurements of the "primorial" were ambitiously aimed at breaking (among other things) also cipher codes, it is still far from that. However, factoring large numbers with divisors of "intermediate" size, i.e. not too high - is supposed to go "surprisingly" smoothly.


The "paper" is available here: https://www.1universe.gpe.pl/prime/deltorial.html

I will soon start writing an entry about it on Wikipedia, its name will be nabla-deltorial ∇Δ      - I recommend it to your attention, and greetings to the titans of work...

BaSzRafael (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee you that if that website is your source, the article will be deleted on the spot. You need to publish you work in peer-reviewed journals, or have your work otherwise reviewed by the mathematics community. Only when that work becomes mainstream will it be suitable for Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primorial sieve for the previous time the same editor tried this. BaSzRafael: Wikipedia is not the site to publicize your half-baked experiments. Get a blog. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2024

Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia.
    Check the guidelines before you start.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein/2024b&oldid=1239183367"