User talk:Jitse Niesen

Unless requested otherwise, I will reply on this page, under your post. Sometimes, especially when we haven't met before, I copy my answer to your talk page. -- Jitse Niesen

Archives
up to June 2005 Jul – Sep 2005 Oct – Dec 2005 Jan – Mar 2006 Apr – Jun 2006 Jul – Sep 2006 Oct – Dec 2006 Jan – Mar 2007 Apr – Jun 2007 Jul – Sep 2007 Oct – Dec 2007 Jan – Mar 2008 Apr – Jun 2008 Jul – Sep 2008 Oct – Dec 2008

Microsphere Interpolation

In addition to the master's thesis, there are several conference papers, and PhD dissertation that all make heavy use of the algorithm. [[1]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudzcom (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No assertion or sources for notability (we have but one ref, which I'm guessing which is where the concept arose); doesn't sound particularly non-trivial either. See my concerns in more details at Talk:Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

re: deletion of "Evolutionary Vector". Nope, it wasn't used in Lenski et al (2008), though the concept was and when discussed with he and other specialists in this area, the term has now often come up to explain the observations of real life. I'll do a search for it; if it's not to be found, voila, I can talk to the subject quite knowledgeably myself and perhaps it's about time to get back to actively publishing, eh?

My intent was to broaden the meaning to beyond what I see as a VERY theoretical (and narrowly defined) useage currently reserved for mathematical modelling It falls well beyond my stale and now useless understanding of such stuff (engineering math in 1968 was a long long time ago, and I'm pretty sure they had little use for Evolutionary Vectors; the math even then!).

Since those days of old, I've moved on beyond strict interpretatinos and daily use of math (can one really?) to a far more detailed understanding of ecology, biology, and Evolution. That branch of science is always open to ways to better explain, or summarize, some key new (evolved?) explanations.

The very real and observed differentials in an organism's rate of accumulated changes (through chance transcription errors reproduced and "recorded" in that species' DNA genome map) is a direct result of the facilitation that one benchmark mutation (one that does impart some newfound advantage) imbues on further evolution, as regards both it's direction and the "velocity" of the subsequent changes. Hence, by mathematical definition, it could be represented by a Vector, at least as I recall it from my physics days, now mixed in with my understandings and thoughts on evolution processes and understandings.

Thx to you and Gandalf61 for my enhanced understanding of The wiki-process. It's my own Educational Vector ramping up!

(Thotful1 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Local parameter

Hello there Jitse! Thank you so much for helping me to set up the References part in the article cited above. As this is my first contribution, I was so eager to get it published that I skipped the tutorial, but I am finding that editing in Wiki is like working with LaTeX or HTML. Well, back to work! Have a nice day! Cristhian Garay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriega (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Atiyah: Please take a look

at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah#Working_on_the_article_again. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Square root of two

Thanks for fixing my mistake! I guess I wasn't really thinking too hard when I was editing, even after previewing the edit twice. I guess my logic was that x ^{− 1} = 1 / x and $2^{1/2} = \sqrt{2}$, so therefore 2 ^{− 2} must somehow equal $\sqrt{2}$ for x = 2. Just goes to show why we should be rigorous in defining and solving mathematical equations! — Kortaggio ^{Proclamations} _Declarations 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial derivatives

Hi! This is about our reverting/not reverting in notation about Taylor's theorem. I self-revert because I realized that I (and everyone) write(s)

$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}$

but not

$\frac{\partial^{1, 1} f}{\partial x\partial y}.$

So I don't know what to think! With best wishes --Bdmy (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, so I looked in a few books, but none use this notation. I only saw

$\partial_\alpha f \quad\text{and}\quad D^\alpha f.$

Now I also don't know what to think. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to write

$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\,\partial y}$

rather than

$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}$

But maybe I pay more attention to these small style issues than most people do. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

A reminder that the Manchester meetup is this Saturday. Hope to see you there! Majorly talk 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending [[Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No current activity?

Once again Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity show no new article for several days. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit more time

Hi there, I just read your comment on the "Fahad Shiftra" talk page. In it you mentioned that it could be deleted. I accept that, all I'm asking for is a bit of time to make the changes. It's the first wiki page I've written. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not in a hurry. I appreciate that it takes time to understand how things work here. I saw that you added that one of the papers is published in the May 2005 issue of the Turkish Journal of Physics. Thanks for that, but I cannot find it. I think May 2005 is volume 29, issue 3, but the paper is not mentioned in the table of contents for that issue. Could you please add the volume number, issue number and page numbers for the papers? That would help a lot. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Circle charts.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circle charts.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Interpolation example spline.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Interpolation example spline.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series

I have nominated Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mess with energy drift and numerical integration

Thanks for fixing the mess with links with energy drift and numerical integration. I stumbled across the article when fixing a link for an article I merged and I couldn't resist trying to help an orphan I am afraid. TStein (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

One other thing I added the energy drift to the see also of Numerical ordinary differential equations the way you suggested in your edit summary. I hope that is ok. TStein (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Arabic numerals to Hindu-Arabic numerals move

Hi, I noticed that you also think that the article needs to be moved back to its original title. It seems that there are some people that refuse to accept the evidence. I suspect there is a political or personal agenda behind this opposition. The "discussion" was closed without coming to a consensus. This is a very good example of why I detest this process on Wikipedia. Someone moved this article without gaining consensus to that effect, now we can't rectify the error without a consensus. It's ludicrous. I definitely want to see this error corrected. What is our next step? Mediation? Do you have any experience with this? Could you help? Rapparee71 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things, we should use the most common name by which a thing is known in the English language. "Arabic numerals" is a more common name than "Hindu-Arabic numerals". The priority of the Hindus is recognized in the text of the article (see the link to Indian numerals). JRSpriggs (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is highly arguable that it is more common. That's the whole point. What do you do when "most common" can't be decidedly ascertained? What do you do when "most common" flies in the face of reason? What do you do when "most common" is clearly incorrect? Rapparee71 (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Most Westerners are only aware of a single distinction in numerals — between Arabic numerals and Roman numerals. Changing the name and making it longer would only confuse them. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I don't know where you, JRSpriggs, and these other people that think that "Arabic numerals" is the more correct or more common is coming from, but it's bullocks.Rapparee71 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I never heard it called anything but "Arabic numerals" until I began editing Wikipedia. Please do not use harsh language. Perhaps in India, it is mainly called the other name because of national pride, but I doubt that that is so anywhere in the West. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I've never read or heard anything but Hindu-Arabic numerals. Every math book, history book, anthropology book, and encyclopaedia I've seen over the past 30 years has said "Hindu-Arabic numerasl." This shift to "Arabic" must be recent. I've lived in the United States my whole life and Hindu-Arabic" is the name given. It's not a matter of national pride, it's a matter of being historically correct. The name "Hindu-Arabic" reflects the history of the development of the numerals. "Arabic" neglects a very important portion of that historical development. If anything, NOT including "Hindu" in the name smacks of violating the NPOV policy and furthering an Arabic-centric view.Rapparee71 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I checked my two old printed dictionaries and they both define "Arabic numerals" without any mention in that definition of "Hindu" or "India". Under "Hindu-Arabic" or "Hindu-Arabic numerals", both say "See Arabic numerals". One has a "Number table" which lists two columns with headers "Arabic numerals" and "Roman numerals". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're basing your whole argument on two old dictionaries? Sorry, but more authoritative works prefer "Hindu-Arabic numerals". The article should be moved to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" for correctness sake and a redirect created to point from "Arabic numerals" to "Hindu-Arabic numerals". Rapparee71 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think his point is that your argument was that this "shift [to Arabic numeral] must be recent", as evidenced by our (and your) checks to all the recent dictionaries (although this doesn't really explain OED's entry, which takes its usual historical approach). So he then went and checked two old dictionaries. Your personal experience is obviously flawed. It's a hard thing to accept that something you accepted as natural as the air you breathe isn't so, but it can hardly discount the personal experience of everybody else over the same time period, right? By the way, I did archive searches on a couple major newspapers (New York Times, which lets you go back to 1851, and Washington Post which lets you go back to 1876) and I found the usage has been "Arabic numeral" not "Hindu-Arabic numeral". I guess you don't read those newspapers. --C S (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when are newspapers considered authoritative sources? Oh, and actually I do peruse those Yankee papers from time to time ;-) Rapparee71 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A proposed move that may (or may not) affect your bot

Hello, Jitse Niesen. You have new messages at Talk:List of mathematics articles (A-C).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Linear Programming repeated adding of unpublished papers that seem not to meet the usual criteria for references.

Dear Jitse Nielsen,

I recognize your good works and was happy that you contributed to the linear programming article.

I have never encountered somebody adding (repeatedly) a set of unpublished references, without responding to other editors' views. In this case, the edits occur from a similar IP addresses.

How should one respond?

Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

QUOTATION

Unpublished theses from the 1980s lack the notability required to be mentioned in this Wikipedia article

Anonymous editor(s), operating from similar IP addresses, keeps adding paragraphs to University of Houston doctoral theses from the 1980s. The text previously made misleading claims about the novelty of such methods (given journal publications and books by Scarf, Cline, etc.).

Algebraically, in 1982 Nguyen and in 1985 Bruni represented the LP problem as a fixed-point problem: find $\scriptstyle x \geq 0$ such that $\scriptstyle \mathfrak{P}x = x$ where $\scriptstyle \mathfrak{P}$ is an idempotent symmetric matrix. Nguyen employed the proximity map onto the non-negative cone $\scriptstyle \{x|x \in \mathfrak{R}^{2m}, x \geq 0\}$ to solve the fixed-point problem. In 1992and 2009 Jalaluddin derived a similar representation and proposed an affine regression method of solution.

+ * Bruni, A. J., Nonnegative, Nontrivial Fixed Points of Orthogonal Projections, PhD Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Houston, 1985.

+ * Jalaluddin Abdullah, Optimization by the Fixed-Point Method, Version 2.01. [2]

+ * Nguyen, Tung M., Applications Of Generalized Inverse To Circulant Matrices, Intersection Projections, and Linear Programming, PhD Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Houston, 1985.

Would such editors kindly refer to journal publications that are discussed by Math Reviews or by survey articles, e.g. by Todd? If no such references exist, then the theses are not notable.

Pardon my ignorance if these theses were in fact notable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the paper by unpublished paper by Abdullah, which spends a lot of time paraphrasing known results in nonstandard form (e.g., the Riesz decomposition of a vector lattice) and then has a computational section consisting of c. 3-4 dimensional problems. This "paper" is unfit for publication; citing it so prominantly is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia, particularly when an anonymous user repeatedly adds it without giving a single response to objections. Do any senior editors know how to deal with such editing? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I flagged this content with two tags, [this primary source citation needs verification] and with [unreliable source?], and then noted this article for attention on the related boards. If this is inappropriate, then I'm sorry. I don't think any further action is necessary. (The issue of multiple IP addresses remains, however!) Sorry to bother you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some other editors have responded, btw. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Viswanath's constant

Hi Jitse,

Can you, please, move it back to random Fibonacci sequence? That seems to be the main topic, and it's certainly true of the current version of the article after I rewrote it. Thank you! Arcfrk (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I moved it. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Email

I will send an email to your Wikipedia email address (heads up). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jitse's bot

I left a message on User talk:Jitse's bot a while ago and it's been a while with no response. Just wondering if you were looking into it. I'll try using old revisions of the page for now but it would be nice to have an up to date version.--RDBury (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: it appears that this is the last revision where the list works.--RDBury (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I fixed it yesterday; you now have 361 articles to play with and clean up. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it was fixed. Thanks.--RDBury (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Original research section is having the same problem. Order of operations, Set theory (music), Pi (film), Mathematics as a language, Mathematical joke, Math rock, H-theorem, Epimorphism all have the tag but nothing is showing up in the section. There are other article where OR is part of a multiple issues tag.--RDBury (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. It should be better now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

bot

Jitse, I think your bot may have fallen asleep again. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of T-integration

I notice that you have looked in on this article a bit. Please comment on Talk:T-integration on whether the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. (The apparent lack of any references to this algorithm other than those by the original author, J. M. Smith, seems to argue to the contrary.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of T-integration for deletion

The article T-integration is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot query

Greetings. We at the disambiguation project are trying to work out a way to avoid having intentional disambig links in article space. Such links are currently used in the lists of mathematics articles, which your bot uses to update various other lists. One proposal that has been made is to use lists in project space. Would it be feasible for your bot to work from lists maintained in project space, and if so, how much work would it be to implement such a change? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they would like to link to disambiguation pages indirectly, going through a redirect that has "disambiguation" in the title. This would mean your bot would need to bypass these redirects before making the current activity page. There is a long discussion on the math wikiproject page; there doesn't seem to be consensus to move the lists to project space at the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll closed with a consensus to move the lists of mathematics articles to project space.

The straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles has closed with a consensus to move the lists of mathematics articles to project space. I have implemented this consensus, and Oleg is adjusting Mathbot to work off of the lists in project space. Please adjust your bot accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

For Dutch Wikipedia

Hi, is the translation below acceptable for a new article? (The previous time I used Google translation to put it on the Dutch Encyclopedia, someone was unhappy with me and told me to never do it again.)

Groep van rationele punten op de Einheitskreisaus

De groep van rationele punten op de eenheidscirkel bestaat uit de punten (x | y) met rationele coördinaten, geldig voor de x2 + y2 = 1. De hoogte van deze punten is nauw verbonden met de primaire Pythagoras triples. Overweeg een primitieve rechthoekige driehoek met een geheel getal dat is een priemgetal kant lengtes a, b, c, waarbij c de schuine zijde. Dan is er de eenheid cirkel op de rationele punt (a / c | b / c). Omgekeerd, als (x | y) is een rationeel punt op de eenheidscirkel, dan is er een primitieve rechthoekige driehoek met zijden xc, yc, c.

Groep werking

De verzameling van rationele punten vormen een oneindige Abelse groep G. De neutrale element van het punt (1, 0). De groep operatie of "sum" is (x, y) + (t, u) = (x - uy, Xu + yt). Dit is de Winkeladditon als x = cos (A) en y = sin (A), waarbij A is de hoek van de radius vector (x, y) met de radius vector (1,0) is mathematisch positieve zin. Dus als (x, y) vorm en (t, u) is de hoekige A en B, elk met (1, 0), is de som van (x - uy, Xu + yt), de rationele punt op de eenheidscirkel met de hoek A + B in de zin van de gebruikelijke hoeveelheid.

Structuur van de groep

De structuur van G is een oneindige som van cyclische groepen. Indien C4 is het cyclische subgroep gegenereerd op basis van vier elementen door het punt (0, 1), en Z is een oneindige cyclische subgroep van een punt van de vorm (a / p, b / p) waarbij p ^ 2 = a ^ 2 + b ^ 2, dus dat p is een schoolvoorbeeld van de vorm 4k + 1, (en a, b positieve gehele getallen), dan is G isomorf is met C4 ⊕ Z ​​⊕ Z ⊕ ... etc. Aangezien er een directe som als een direct product, verschillen alleen in eindig veel waarden van Z van nul.

Zwellen

.....

Rich PetersonRich (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

categories......

I just edited generalized quaternion interpolation. It bore the following three category tags but did not appear in the list of mathematics articles:

• Category:Quaternions
• Category:Interpolation
• Category:Rotation in three dimensions

(I added Category:Applied mathematics, so maybe it will now get added to the list.) I don't recall whether it's your bot or Oleg's that handles this. It seems to me that things in those three categories should appear on the list. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it turns out it _was_ in that list, but that list is no longer in either the article space nor the portal space. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Review some MediaWiki math-related code?

Jitse, if you have a moment, could you take a look at this MediaWiki commit and comment with your thoughts? Thanks.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/99741

best, Sumanah (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Volunteer Development Coordinator

Stiff equation

Over the past week I added a significant amount of new material to the article Stiff equation, as this is one of my specialties. These edits are described under Talk:Stiff equation#Stiffness ratio, Characterization of stiffness, and Etymology. I hope this answers your comment 'Needs better discussion of what "stiffness" entails.' — Anita5192 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)