User talk:David Eppstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

L.A. events on October 7 and 16[edit]

Upcoming L.A. events: Wik-Ed Women edit-a-thon (10/7, 6-10pm) and UCR edit-a-thon (10/16, 10am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The Southern California Wikipedia community has two exciting events coming up in the next few weeks: a Wik-Ed Women editing session downtown designed to combat systemic bias, and a Wikipedia Loves Libraries event at UC Riverside!

Wik-Ed Women is a new monthly series of informal Wikipedia editing sessions for Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. This second session will take place on Tuesday, October 7 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

The UC Riverside Wikipedia Loves Libraries event is an edit-a-thon targeting articles related to UC Riverside, SoCal, and beyond. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Thursday, October 16 from 10am to 4pm at UCR's Tomás Rivera Library. Again, RSVPs are requested here.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Jacob Barnett[edit]

Could you please provide any other category instead of category:Students which you removed in this edit? I tried to add category:American physicists first. Then User:Slawekb removed it saying "err... no, that is not the headline of the indystar article. And "physicist" generally does not include physics students". There must be at least one category which defines the occupation of the person. In french article they categorized him as an astrophysicist. Will it be OK for english wikipedia? Best regards, -- (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If we had a category on child prodigies, that would be where to put him, but we don't. I don't know what his current occupation is; we don't seem to have any sources for what he has done after finishing his master's degree. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pizza theorem- Two similar rectangle theorem[edit]

Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see "Similar rectangle theorem" and some applications

Some applications:

Best regards Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Dao's generalization Simson line theorem[edit]

Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see Dao's generalization Simson line theorem

Best regards Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my generalization Newton's line theorem[edit]

Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see

Best regards Dao Thanh Oai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talkcontribs) 03:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fractal routing, or[edit]

The seal of Solomon in three dimensions - A fractal pattern for massive parallel architecture programs is currently up for deletion, perhaps not surprising. Is this something to do with routing, or anything to do with mathematics, or is it just one guy's opinions and ideas? I suspect it fails WP:GNG but I'm entirely unfamiliar with the (possible) topic area so I don't really know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe keep Dao's six point circle with some reasons as follows[edit]

First reason:

Please see 1; that time the Dao's six point circle be delete with main reason: The result only appear in Cut the knot Dao's Six Point Circle and Kimberling center, X(5569)= Center of the Dao six point circle and Dao's six point circle didn't appear on a journal. But now Dao's six point circle also appear in a journal, this result is special case of theorem 3.1, in the article of this theorem.

Secon reason:

Dr. David Eppstein also said that: The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but...... 1. Please note that you can see in [Kiberling center part 4], have 1097 triangle centers but only have 10 center of circle which name after person(name after notability). Detail:

X(5453) = CENTER OF HATZIPOLAKIS CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5569) = CENTER OF THE DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE (with three independent proofs)

X(5607) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5608) = CENTER OF 2nd POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5944) = CENTER OF HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now until now)

X(5955) = CENTER OF INNER HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5956) = CENTER OF OUTER HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5974) = CENTER OF THE HUNG-FEUERBACH CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(6045) = CENTER OF MOSES-HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(6048) = CENTER OF MOSES HULL CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

But in 10 circles name after person above, only have Dao six point circle have synthetic proof (three independent proofs for this circle), 9 circle have no proof until now.

Third reason: van Lamoen circle also is special case of theorem theorem 3.1. van Lamoen circle appear in wiki

--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

David, no admin seems to have been willing to speedy it for several days, so I Listed it at afd for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion Concave hull[edit]


You may interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull‎. I think that you have more competences on this subject that the other editors of these pages, including myself.

Sincerely D.Lazard (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

About Dao's theorem[edit]

  • Dear Dr. David Eppstein, please let me know as soon as possible what do you think with last form of Dao's theorem? keep or delete, if you think should delete I agree delete, if you think should keep I am agree keep too. Thank to You very much


Apologies for the mis-sorted AfD. What delsort page would be appropriate for general topics in academia/research? Swpbtalk 17:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For that one? Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science maybe. I don't know of one for academic research in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's perfect. Swpbtalk 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr David Eppstein is decided (keep or delete Dao's theorem)[edit]

Dear Dr.David Eppstein, Please read my comment:

  • delete. A bit late to this but whether it's the earlier version of the page before forking or the current dab-like page this doesn't belong, as a blatant attempt at self-promotion, using WP to promote your research long before its picked up by reliable sources.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Values of JohnBlackburne's comment above? I think he no read all comment above at here. I think he don't has knowledgeable of classical geometry, he did not check these theorem, did not read the articles, so may he let "delete" or "keep" is not values. I think he should remember Forum geometricorum is a journal which has indexed in Mathscinet, and Crux Mathematicorum is the best solution of solving Journal in the world(the journal is member of Canadian Mathematical Society). On the other hand now, never publish a theorem of classical geometry in Acta Numerica, Annals of Mathematics or a high another journal of mathematic...... And these theorem are generalization of famous theorem of classical geometry with reasons above why delete? on the other hand WP:PROMO are not reasons to delete an article. And I didn't know wiki don't want I post so I post, If I know wiki didn't want I post so I never post, and never said to you that I am Dao Thanh Oai. I research geometry to relax because I am electrical system engineer, I have no received money from geometry(In three years research). Original of my idea post at here because I want to share. Now these result publish in some best journal of classical geometry, and these theorems are generalization of famous theorem of classical geometry why delete? And I didn't name these theorem after my name. I name these theorem from title of these paper ? why delete. I waiting Dr David Eppstein comment again, Dr David Eppstein is decided. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Triangulation (disambiguation) revert-why the revert?[edit]

Dear David Eppstein

re (Undid revision 629746429 by DadaNeem (talk) there should be only one page beginning with "Triangulation (disambiguation)")

Please explain-I am adding to the existing Triangulation (disambiguation) in a way I believe is constructive as I have done 1000s of times in the past. Maybe one of us is missing something?--DadaNeem (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You added two links to special pages that list all Wikipedia topics whose title starts with "Triangulation (disambiguation)". How many Wikipedia topics do you think there are that start with that precise string? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake-I intend to correct it to:

== See also ==

Does that make sense? --DadaNeem (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that works a lot better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, David Eppstein. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

AI RfC[edit]

Got a feedback request service notice for this [1] -- I've not time but thought you might be interested. EEng (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SoCal edit-a-thons on October 21 and 25[edit]

Upcoming SoCal edit-a-thons: UC Riverside (10/21, 10am-3pm) and Unforgetting L.A. (10/25, 9am-5pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The Southern California Wikipedia community has two more events scheduled for the month of October: a water-related edit-a-thon at UC Riverside, and an Unforgetting L.A. event at the Los Angeles Archives Bazaar in conjunction with L.A. as Subject!

As part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries and to celebrate Open Access Week, UC Riverside is participating alongside other Western Waters Digital Library members in an edit-a-thon focusing on water issues. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Tuesday, October 21 from 10am to 3pm at UCR's Orbach Science Library (map). RSVPs are requested here.

The Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon and training workshop will take place at the 9th annual Los Angeles Archives Bazaar, and is hosted by online magazine East of Borneo in partnership with L.A. as Subject. Join us on Saturday, October 25 from 9am to 5pm at the USC Doheny Memorial Library (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Harcourt's theorem[edit]

I did not see any criteria at [2] match this Harcourt's theorem notability. Did it really impact to next researches? Just two sources, show me how it is notable when it appeared on paper only. Alphama (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently even after being pointed to it in earlier messages you still haven't read WP:GNG. It has multiple sources (two is multiple), both reliably published, both covering the subject in nontrivial depth. (There is at least one more source "Harcourt's theorem via Salmon's lemma" but I haven't been able to track down a copy nor to determine whether it is also reliably published.) Anyway, this is extremely unimportant. Why are you wasting your and my time with it? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

University of California, Santa Barbara people -> alumni[edit]

I saw that you had moved this page and it's now a redirect. I was thinking of doing that prior to the prod, however since the page was split into two separate ones, how do you/did you determine which page was the one that "kept" the history? As you can see, the "people" page was split into an "alumni" page (which I'm currently updating) as well as a "faculty" page, both of which have that same history from the people page. Any rhyme or reason as to why the "alumni" page is the "winner"? – GauchoDude (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Had to pick one; which one was fairly arbitrary. The main reason for doing it that way was so that all the old page history wouldn't get lost (or made invisible) by deleting the old page name. It's the same reason that if you want to retitle a page, you're supposed to use the move command, not just copy and paste the info into a new title and delete the old one. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture - deletion[edit]

Dear David,

You have removed the contribution I made to the page 'Collatz conjecture' on the grounds that you have considered these to be self-promotion. I would like to express my disappointment. I can certainly understand your concerns about these results not having been published or confirmed by someone else (but anyone interested can check these results to see they are correct I am sure) but I would have hoped that you would agree that it is certainly an interesting observation (which can be analytically proved in fact) that Collatz sequences starting with numbers of the form 2^n-1 and 2^nq-1 (n odd) always start generate n-1 odd numbers before an even number is encountered. For example the largest known prime number 257,885,161 − 1 generates 57,885,160 odd numbers before generating an even number (which is simply striking as a fact although not ground breaking). I just wanted to say that I had spent a lot of time obtaining these results/preparing these contributions and had only added them to share them with the community.

I would have been happy to address your concerns rather than my contributions being deleted on the grounds that they have been considered self-promotion; and I am sure you would have been disappointed too if you were in my place and be discouraged to make contributions in the future.

Kind regards,

Baris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bariskanber (talkcontribs) 19:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I already addressed part of this at User talk:intgr#Largest prime number/Collatz conjecture -- intgr [talk] 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me unblock[edit]

Dear Dr David,

I am Dao Thanh Oai,

I am sorry because my english.

When I chat about delete of Dao's theorem.

I must using google translate to understand.

Google translate Notabinity (or Notabinity) mean from English to Vietnames is Danh Nhân,

Danh nhân mean: Name of me, person, people, ....

So some peoples said I promotion. But because I don't understand of policy of WP.

And don't understand what some peole said. Because google translate fail.

Please help me unblock. Because I very difficult when using my computer to read EnWiki.

Thank to You very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I promise I never adit, never write anything in enWP. Help me unblock to I read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You can still read English Wikipedia even when you are blocked. So there is no need for an unblock that I can think of?
Please try editing the Vietnamese Wikipedia at --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Neuroepistemology Page[edit]

Hello David,

I was in the middle of editing the page "Neuroepistemology". I did not appreciate you retracting my new section heading because it was blank. Obviously, I was not going to leave the section empty. I am letting you know that I will be working on the page over a couple of weeks. Please try not to remove my work, as I am in the PROCESS of writing. I will not be adding a new section all at once.

Best regards, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanngins (talkcontribs) 18:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. But do pay attention to the past history of that article, especially the way that it was stubbed back in January 2013 from being a giant mess of original research as well as the deletion discussion caused by that mess, and try to avoid repeating those mistakes. You might also want to look at the Wikipedia manual of style: your new section heading violates it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Claw-free permutation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • link = Ronald L. Rivest | title = Proceedings of FOCS | pages = 441–448 | date = 1984 }}</ref> (and later in a more complete journal paper,<ref>{{cite journal | first1 = Shafi | last1 =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)