User talk:Joel B. Lewis
- 1 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 2 Re:Polynomial recurrence
- 3 Disambiguation link notification for June 28
- 4 Diophantine approximation
- 5 Binomial Coefficient
- 6 vector space and scalar multiplication
- 7 Thanks
- 8 WT: WikiProject Mathematics #Square (algebra)
- 9 Union - image
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for October 19
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for November 4
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for March 9
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for May 19
- 14 COI and sock/meatpuppetry
- 15 Reversion Question
- 16 Re: Vector Space
- 17 Permutation
- 18 Taylor series
- 19 November 2013
- 20 Hi there wikiperson
- 21 Tone?
- 22 RE: Taylor Series
- 23 Tajik Text
- 24 JBL from AoPS?
- 25 Nigeria
- 26 Reverted edit on compact space.
- 27 Reference Errors on 31 October
- 28 Straw Poll
- 29 re: WP:INTDABLINK
- 30 de Moivre's formula is (as of your revision) grossly incorrect
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
|353||1.0||Associative property (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Add sources|
|99||3.0||Differential geometry of surfaces (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|11||1.0||Graphorrhea (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|2,508||1.0||Integer (talk)||0.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Add sources|
|35||2.0||The Independent Institute (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|48||1.0||Conical surface (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|69||3.0||Murder of Nixzmary Brown (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||2.0||Cleanup|
|82||1.0||The Great Indian Novel (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|4||2.0||Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church (talk)||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|138||2.0||Ratio test (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Expand|
|24||1.0||Random permutation statistics (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|9||1.0||Legendre's formula (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Merge|
|107||1.0||Row space (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Merge|
|708||2.0||Stack (abstract data type) (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Merge|
|100||1.0||Gunfire locator (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Wikify|
|2,176||3.0||The Elder Scrolls Online (talk)||0.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Wikify|
|44||1.0||Centered triangular number (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Wikify|
|3||1.0||N band (talk)||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|2||1.0||Garnir relations (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|2||1.0||Anthony Prospect (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|14||1.0||Value semantics (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|15||1.0||Andrew Granville (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|64||1.0||Fourth power (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Stub|
|25||1.0||Fermat polygonal number theorem (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|14||1.0||Integer matrix (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|16||1.0||Mathematics of Computation (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this field and as I wrote I'm far to be sure about its notability/unnotability, but "Polynomial recurrence" counts 568 entries in Google books: 1... probably are all false positive, maybe not... an AfD discussion between users more expert than me could be useful to estabilish the relevancy of these sources and the notability of this concept. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Skew and direct sums of permutations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matrices (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The definition of the binomial coefficient in terms of what it means numerically should precede discussion of binomial theorem. Reader quite possibly may only want to know what it means and have no interest in binomial theorem or Pascal Triangle.
The article at present is either deliberately designed to confuse readers or it is so poorly written that it confuses the reader as much as if it had been deliberate. Saying that the definition of the binomial coefficient, , where the notation, , called n factorial is defined by with , is of less importance than Pascal's triangle and such is a very ignorant and stupid statement. Why would anybody with good sense put material on Pascal's triangle before the definition the binomial coefficient? RHB100 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
vector space and scalar multiplication
I repeat my request that you please stick to constructive edits while editing Wikipedia, stop writing about stuff you do not understand and above all please stop your wikihounding. IPWAI (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Many aspects of wiki-fights are bizarre, but the existence of people who rabidly support intentionally misspelling things like this when automatic redirects are so easy is new to me and particularly strange. Good luck in your efforts! --JBL (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was new to me too. But it perhaps isn't that strange if one considers the "foreign" aspect, noting that few want to intentionally misspell the Brontë sisters. I stick in a couple of RMs of this sort every week and have run out of misspelled Czechs and Hungarians, so left with Vietnamese. First time I've done one for mathematicians, interesting sub-area of BLPs. Thanks again In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Incnis Mrsi, you only just started the thread there. This isn't a dispute (yet). Furthermore this was announced back in 2011 and no-one objected as far as I can tell. Maschen (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Union - image
- Hi Adam majewski, I see a number of mathematical comments about the given fractal on its page; can you point me to the ones you believe explain what it has to do with the concept of union (set theory)? The reason that I removed the image is the following: it's trivially true that everything is a union of the things that make it up; it seemed to me that the Julia set image illustrates this principle and nothing more, and as a result it was hard for me to see who would understand more about the concept because of the inclusion of the picture. However, as I said I am potentially open to being convinced that actually it brings something relevant to the article that isn't better explained with a simpler diagram or a sentence. Best, --JBL (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This image is made as a union of preimages of critical orbit. No other method of drawing Julia sets uses this property. --Adam majewski (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fact about the image, and about Julia sets. It has the word "union" in it, but what does it tell me about the meaning or importance of the idea of a union? --JBL (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Permutation pattern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Partial permutation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rank (linear algebra), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frobenius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second partial derivative test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
COI and sock/meatpuppetry
Thanks for your edits at OMICS Publishing Group. Having been away from Wikipedia for a very long time, I've been getting up to speed on the editing patterns and made a few new comments at SPI that might be of interest to you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! --JBL (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- In English, sentences should end in appropriate punctuation. This is true even if the last "words" in the sentence are in the form of a mathematical equation. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Vector Space
I'm glad to discuss and encourage you to revert any part my edit that you find misleading or awkward. I admittedly do not understand mathematical language to the degree that is likely necessary for editing such pages; I only wanted to improve the style of the writing by paring away unnecessary words and replacing passive voice with active voice wherever I could. E.g., "For X there is a Y such that Z" could be more concisely written as "A Y such that Z exists for X" and "It is X that Y" could more concisely be rewritten so that X follows Y. Thanks for your patience!
--If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Duxwing,
- Sorry for the very long response time. The sentence "a Y such that Z exists for X" is much harder to decipher than the other version and because of the nontraditional order of quantifiers; in some cases it may have different meaning as a mathematical statement. (It is also not noticably more concise.) For example, the sentence "An element −v ∈ V for every v ∈ V exists" is impossible to parse because of the strange quantifier placement. I suggest that if you are not familiar enough with higher mathematics to understand the importance of precision in quantifier choice and order then you should tread very carefully when editing technical phrases. (Some of the other edits you made were unobjectionable or improvements, but they were all mixed in together and I didn't want to risk leaving an incorrect technical phrase.)
- Separately, the phrase "such X exists that Y" is extremely discordant; I'm surprised that any native speaker of English would use it in any context.
- All the best, JBL (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I read the immediately following sentences many times, and I cannot tell what are the slightly different meanings, or how they are related. How many different meanings are there? The lede leaves the impression that some confusion exists over the definition of permutation.
I think the lede should start by explaining to the lay person what a permutation is, then explain how other meanings might come up, and how they differ.
- As far as I can tell, there are only two, not several, meanings given: the informal, and the group theory definition. I simplified the first sentence to reflect that situation. Please take a look. Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Wikfr, sorry for taking so long to respond. I think your new version of the lead reads well, thank you. (FWIW, I think that if I were being maximally pedantic I could distinguish more than 2 different meanings of the word "permutation" in mathematics, but I don't think that I would improve the article by trying to make such a point.) All the best, --JBL (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Let be a smooth function, . Then we define the function , , where . Then the following formula can be proven using induction and the chain rule:
, where .
Noting that and , we can conclude that the taylor series of in is
, where the difference is between and in the denominator.
- EDIT: You were indeed correct. I missed to count the double occurances of the derivatives in the formula of . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmensch (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Differential poset may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:
- poset. This construction also preserves the lattice property. It is not known for any ''r'' > 1 whether there are any ''r''-differential lattices other than those than arise by taking products
- |booktitle = Invariant theory and tableaux (Minneapolis, MN), 1988)
Hi there wikiperson
I thought I would seek out people who recently had contact with me to ask them for assistence. You joined the talk page on Anthony Holland Composer.
I wanted to make a page about novocure A company unrelated to anthony holland but the do manufacture a device that is FDA approve to treat brain cancer and published phase 2 lung cancer results and they are doing the same thing as holland is doing or researching and experimenting into doing via an alternative emission route. I feel the reference creation of a page about novocure will provide validation that this is emerging scine not fringe scince nor conspiracy nor quackery. To say nothing about the notablity of a new modality that makes established treatment methods much more effective when they are not contraindacted as this device was made with those people in mind. This is a new and emerging field of medical science and is currently in practice . I think that should be well known.
How about it with a please on top :)
Do you think you could review a stub for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Novocure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
I honestly don't know if you deliberately intended to offend in your talk page replies regarding the Euler's identity page, but the tone certainly comes across to me as being unnecessarily sarcastic. Fyi, I have worked on that page due to genuine lay interest in the subject and (our shared) commitment to Wikipedia. It's never nice to see one's genuine queries trashed in that way. Regards, 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for taking the time to make a respectful reply on the article talk page. :) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ha ha, we both independently wrote the same thing about the pitfalls of internet communication.
I'd like to explain where I was coming in trying to improve the page... I genuinely love this stuff because of its intrinsic fascination. And it was also my introduction to the concept of mathematical beauty as a schoolboy - something deeply memorable. Both subjectively and objectively, I do "feel" that the page really deserves careful editorial treatment. Hence, my efforts to raise these formal points, which I can well understand may seem pedantic. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ha ha, we both independently wrote the same thing about the pitfalls of internet communication.
RE: Taylor Series
In regards to your question regarding whether or not the Tajik text is the same as the other examples, it most certainly is.
Have a good day.
JBL from AoPS?
Hi, it occurs to me from other comments on this talk page, showing your editing interests, that we may "know" each other from the Art of Problem Solving forums years ago. And I think I have heard that you and I have a mutual acquaintance, an undergraduate student at the university where you have been teaching recently, if I'm not mistaken about who you are. I use a different screen name here from anywhere else, but maybe we should talk to each other about improving articles about mathematics on Wikipedia. I'm mostly working on articles about psychology, where I just saw one of your edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's me. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail. (I am not able to figure out from your message who you are, but I think my real-life contact info is not hard to come by.) By the way, I re-reverted your edit: the notions of category and measure in mathematics have nothing to do with the notions of categorization and measurement in the article, one of the links is a redlink whose intended target is totally unclear, and I am very skeptical that anyone reading the article would benefit from a link to articles as broad as space and Cartesian coordinate system. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Before concluding that the changes i made are weird please visit the sources and read up a little on the recent events happening in the country (economically), maybe seeing an African country with a trillion dollar economy flashed a red flag in your mind but do well to visit the sources provided. Nigeria rebased its economy earlier this year and thus became the largest economy in Africa along with the world bank changing their base year meant that Nigeria has a trillion dollar economy (PPP) or a 522 billion economy (Nominal). So please do well to leave the numbers up, we are in the hobby of updating information and since this is the most up to date information it is best to be whats presented. Hagato (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Reverted edit on compact space.
Reference Errors on 31 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
- Thank you. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:INTDABLINK requires that a link intentionally pointing to a disambiguation page go through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, in order to prevent the link from showing up as an error needing to be fixed. Nothing is ever supposed to point directly to a disambiguation page from article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
de Moivre's formula is (as of your revision) grossly incorrect
I was wondering why you have reversed my corrections to the erroneous de Moivre's theorem page. Your summary of "not improvement" is vastly insufficient (and also false). My corrections were perfectly valid whereas the previous (and now current) version of the page are wrong in their majority. For proof that de Moivre's theorem is true for all ℚ at the very least (though no actual proof is given) please see pg 36 of book with ISBN number: 978-0-435519-21-6. Un-fortuitously I am unaware of any books that provide a proof beyond an integer power but I have already provided a proof and if you find that insufficient I can provide you with other internet sources that cite it. I can understand and forgive a non-mathematical page containing errors as non-mathematical phenomena are not clear cut nor are they ever entirely obvious and often it is plausible to find support for all sets of contradicting information. However this is not the case with mathematics which is the only subject that can have all of its information conclusively proved or disproved. As such maths should never be quoted incorrectly in any Wikipedia article as it is extremely black and white, i.e; things are either purely correct or incorrect and as it stands my corrections were correct whereas the current page reversion is not. I am amazed at how this page is able to pertain information of such mass, gross inaccuracy especially given the simplicity of de Moivre's theorem and the prerequisites needed to understand it. It is after all something that all students of complex numbers by extension of studying further mathematics learn at the age of 16 in England, UK. Though I appreciate that even a graduate of a masters in mathematics may be mis-informed on this subject given that they have never studied complex numbers but as such they should not consider themselves versed enough to be able to misinform others by way or publishing erroneous statements in this article. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC))
- This is explained quite clearly in the article itself as well as in the discussion on the talk page currently numbered 1 and 6. I suggest you read those discussions and post your comment there. (I am currently on vacation and am not able to respond at length.) Best, JBL (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have previously read the corresponding section in the article and found it to be false hence my heavy edition and renaming of it.
- I have also previously read the corresponding sections in the talk pages and found that there were many whom agreed with me but also opposing factions including yourself whom disagree despite being provided with nigh perfect proofs and sound logical explanations in their multitude. My proof and explanation alone via my edit of the main page should have been sufficient to convince you of its validity -providing the assumption of your competence on the area in question-.
- I wished not to add to the discussion on the talk page as I believed you would be less likely to respond to my question, I apologise for taking up your holiday time and understand if you may not be able to reply in full for some time though I would like to know when you plan to respond to me in full which I assume would be after the conclusion of your holiday unless it is a long one where you might find time during to reply to me. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC))