User talk:Jmdyck

While the new content is perhaps suitable, I would argue that the presentation of the Universal Constructor page is not as clean after your addition thereto, as it was prior to your addition. The problem is that the extension to the work of Devore and Codd do not, strictly speaking, belong at the top of the page respecting the Universal Constructor. A better approach is to provide a link to this information, at the bottom of the article, within the See Also section, and to include specifics of other work within the Implementation, Practicality, and Demonstration sections.

As it happens, the trend in research has been to state count minimisation, transition rule simplification, and the like, ever since von Neumann's work was first conducted. It should not be a surprise to you, then, that in addition to the work of Devore, Langton also simplified Codd cellular automata, as did Sayama, Byl, and others. William R. Buckley 21:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to some kind of restructuring, moving the specific page about von Neumann lower in hierarchy, and building a separate page about general universal constructors. Each example of universal constructor, von Neumann, Codd, Nobili-Pesavento, and (strangely enough) myself, could then link back to the general case (the new page). However, you should keep in mind that the notion of universal construction did originate with von Neumann. For everybody else (those of us who came later), all examples are just that, examples. Von Neumann invented the concept. William R. Buckley 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to find PEIS

Hi Jmdyck, Tenryuu here. We corresponded a while back over at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Canada over the PEIS issues on the article. Could you walk me through how you found the distribution of PEIS in the article? You stated that you copied the content over to your sandbox. What did you do afterwards? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tenryuu:.

Grab the source of the page (either by downloading or copying from an edit window), and save it to a local file.
Then for each part of interest (e.g., graphs):
1. Find those parts in the page text and save them off to another file.
2. Go into Edit mode in your sandbox, clear the current text if any, and paste in the text of that other file.
3. Click "Show Preview".
4. Look at the bottom of the page for "Parser profiling data" (you might have click it to open it up).
5. In the table, look for "Post-expand include size". There will be 2 numbers, in the form "X/Y bytes". Y will always be 2,097,152. X is the PEIS.

If you partition the original page text so that each bit of the original is in exactly one of the "parts", the sum of the PEIS of the parts should be pretty close to the PEIS of the original, so you can calculate how much each part is contributing to the total.

Jmdyck (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jmdyck, thanks so much for responding! I'll do that then.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]