User talk:Limit-theorem

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


Hello, Limit-theorem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Your change to the intro of Stochastic volatility is spot on. Keep going, I'm sure you can help with the rest of the article. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Tarantola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Please read WP:BRD and WP:EW. I'd like to politely ask you to undo your reinsertion of that content and instead open a talk thread which addresses the reasons for my change. That way the disagreement can be resolved. EW will not resolve it. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Càdlàg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

  • For a semi-open interval, brackets "(" and "]" do not necessarily match. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit in ISIS[edit]

(a) Please could you correct your "califate" misspelling; (b) no other source calls it this and the group does not call itself this either; (c) please convert your footnote from a bare URL to the customary Wikipedia format using the cite-web or cite-news template (see [1] at 3.1). --P123ct1 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


how is the characteristic generator defined in your opionen? Br Shuozi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It has very specific properties, best presentation in a paper by Sam Kotz ... I will integrate it when I have time.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about \Pr or \mathbb{P} in stats articles[edit]

Hi, a friend was looking through some statistics articles on Wikipedia and noticed that probability is denoted by \Pr in some cases and \mathbb{P} in others. I noticed that you had changed those symbols in the Markov's inequality article in this edit. I wanted to ask how you decide which symbol is appropriate in which case.

I looked at the WikiProject Mathematics Manual of Style, which reads "An article may use either boldface type or blackboard bold for objects traditionally printed in boldface. As with all such choices, the article should be consistent. Editors should not change articles from one choice of typeface to another except for consistency." But that doesn't answer the question as fully as I'd like, so I figured I'd ask you. How do you decide which one to use?

Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate it! wia (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your request. The tendency in mathematics (Springer) over the past decade, thanks to to LaTeX is to write \mathbb{E} for expectation, \mathbb{P} for probability, and \mathbb{1} for indicator functions. It makes the probability easier to spot and is much, much more elegant. See here: [2]. The problem is that when you go on google scholar most great probability texts precede LaTeX. So I would opt for \mathbb{P} for probability throughout. Limit-theorem (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance on this issue. LaTeX really is a game-changer; I'm getting more proficient with it myself too! wia (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It is addictive, we are getting so used to it that a mathematics text written without it looks hideous.Limit-theorem (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)