User talk:Tosha

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

Space-Filling Curve[edit]

I don't understand the objection (i.e. Tosha's deletion of most of what was recently added) to discussing the iterative construction of most space-filling curves as sequence of approximation curves. 25 Dec 2005.

I just corrected few bit missleading statements and made it shorter a bit, while keeping all info. Tosha 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What was misleading? [Dec. 27, 2005]

Ough, read your-self Tosha 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm not translating only, but the word unarbitrarily made me think there was an error in the article... Manuel Anastácio 12:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Please, can you give me web references for your "minor" edit: "In dimension 3, it was recently used to give a complete classification of compact 3-manifolds." in Ricci curvature. Thanks. DefLog 02:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I mean the Perelman's solution of Thurston's conjecture. Tosha 03:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the latest news, on the Perelman proof? Charles Matthews 19:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No news, it is just solved.Tosha 04:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert??[edit]

Was what I wrote about where the spellings connection and connexion are most common correct?? Why did you revert?? 23:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

You are writing about the word but not about the term. Both of the terms used everywhere it is more related to math. school than to country. You could add it to connection (if you are sure its correct). BTW I found article connexion which does not say anything about connection maybe it shold be glued together, but I suppose it must be done by someone who knows English better than me...

Tosha 20:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

category: differential geometry[edit]

i noticed that you recently classified the Lie Algebra article under differential geometry. I am not sure i agree with that classification. the study of Lie Algebras is pretty much pure linear algebra, right?

You are right, my mistake Tosha 11:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverting II.[edit]

Maybe my corrections on geometry weren't lucky, but would you be so kind as to explaining your deletions (in the future) (a deletion of a sinful edit, without motivation, doesn't inhibit a fallback. Thanx Gubbubu 20:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I hoped that you will see it yourself, your correction did not contain "information" or better to say that it was at wrong place. I do not like this article at the present moment, I only think it should not get worse. Tosha +++Gubbubu 11:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poincare sphere[edit]

If by Poincare sphere you mean homology sphere, we already have a page on that. Walt Pohl 19:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tosha
If Poincaré sphere is the same as homology sphere (forgive my ignorance), this should perhaps be mentioned in the article. As it is, it is rather confusing that when one follows the link Poincaré sphere, one arrives at homology sphere which does not mention Poincaré spheres. -- Jitse Niesen 11:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possibly PS is a type of example of HS only; not that I'm an expert. Charles Matthews 12:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe it is not very standard term, is it? Tosha

Message from[edit]


I found here a definition of a lambda convex function that I do quite understand. It seems to me, from a few eqamples I tried, that the factor lambda depends on a geodesic, for example its length. Would you be able to provide an example of a lambda convex function, for positive lambda, please?

Thanks for your help

Krzysztof Krakowski

my email address is

fixed, thanks Tosha 05:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Pythagorean theorem revert[edit]

Why? Is said knowledge in the article somewhere that I missed? Cburnett 23:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it directly related Tosha 23:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is the fact that Pythagoras didn't prove the theorem not relate to the theorem? You're going to have to explain this one a little better than with 7 words. I'd all but guarantee people don't know this fact. How is it less related than the bit about the Indians, Greeks, Chinese, etc.? Trim it down? Maybe. Reword it? Maybe. Cburnett 23:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you do not know for sure, all you know is that it is proved in Euckids book, and it is unlikely due to Euckid, anyway it is more related to history of math. Yes, Pythagoras did not have a proof in a way we understand it now, but the same is true for Euckid (although it is closer) so there is no point in your statement. The same is true for all old theorems... Tosha 01:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Miller-Rabin primality test interwiki[edit]

You inserted an interwiki to the ru: article, but it doesn't exist. Maybe there was a typo, or perhaps you're just planning on writing the article later. Just thought I'd give you a heads up on it. I'll check back in a day or two and if the article's not there or the link hasn't been corrected, I'll remove the interwiki. Cheers. CryptoDerk 22:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, by some reason it does not want to have "—" inside of ref. so I gave a ref to a redirect page (with "-" istead of "—") maybe there are better solutions?

Tosha 00:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to matrix (mathematics). I have just one request. Could you please put an edit summary when you make a change? For example, by writing "+ru" in the edit summary, you will let people know you put a Russian link. This would be very helpful. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 04:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sphere cat[edit]

Hi. Why did you remove the category from sphere? —msh210 14:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly an example of metric space, but this category does not describe it best. Cat. surfeces is much better Tosha 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Sorry for the arguments over geodesic, and I would rather not battle there, as you must certainly know this material better than I. Please explain what you saw in there that was wrong. I worked hard to try to make that article easier to understand, and your edits seem to do nothing except remove a simple, easy to understand, definition while leaving the abstract complex definition untouched. I am unable to see what error this might have fixed. linas 15:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Main things:

  1. Geodesics are defined not only for metric spaces, (your def kills GenGravity.)
  2. lenght-minimizing curve is NOT a geodesic

everything else is metter of style

I'm not against simple, easy to understand, definition but they should be correct Tosha 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Intrinsic metric[edit]

Hi, I just made a couple of edits to your intrinsic metric article. I left a question at Talk:intrinsic metric regarding the statement about approximate midpoints. Cheers, AxelBoldt 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

small changes to geodesic's definition[edit]


there a few things in the definition provied I do not quite agree with. Firstly, when one talks about point, I think the points are "in" a space, not on it, as this assumes some kind of ambient space. We live in R^3, not on it.

I also think that one cannot support the stement that geodesic are defined as the shortest paths. Locally or not, because of reparametrisation, for example. I like the definition given in "John M. Lee. Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature. Number 176 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. " where geodesic are simply the curves whose acceleration is zero (well, the covariant derivative of the velocity). Geodesics are, locally, the shortest paths, but the opposite is not true. From the point of view of accelaration, it is natural to see then that the lenght of the velocity vector of a geodesic is constant.


   Krzysztof Krakowski 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is better to discuss it in geodesic --Tosha 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Triangle geometry[edit]

Why use "Triangle Geometry", with a capital "G", rather than "Triangle geometry", with a lower-case "g", as the title of a category? Now it will have to get moved. This is one of the many many many many many many many many ways in which categories are inferior to lists. Michael Hardy 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Many Many Many Ways. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for changing all this. --Tosha 15:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"little monster tensor"[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for starting the article Curvature of Riemannian manifolds. In the introductory section you wrote "Riemann introduced a way to describe it as "little monster tensor"". Can cite the a source for this statement. I mean "little monster tensor". Thanx.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I guess something like that had been used in Gromov's "sign and geometric meaning of curvature", but I do not see why it might be important :) --Tosha (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Convex metric space[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Convex_metric_space.

And please learn to use the edit summary, it is basic etiquette on Wikipedia and helps others understand what you do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And note that the definition in Convex metric space is not wrong, it is backed up by references. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Area of figure[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Area of figure, an article 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/Area of figure. 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. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing[edit]

Hey there...

I am going through a number of images that have some minor licensing issues. I came across Image:Kseg.png which you uploaded. The licensing on this image is not complete as it was uploaded many years ago. I wonder if you could follow the link to the image page and correct the licensing with a GFDL license (or other free license). If you have any questions or issues, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hausdorff paradox[edit]

A few years ago you wrote the following in the Hausdorff paradox article:

The structure of the group of rotations on the sphere plays a crucial role here — this fact is not true on the plane or the line. In fact, it is possible to define "area" for all bounded subsets in the Euclidean plane (as well as "length" on the real line) such that congruent sets will have equal "area". This area, however, is only finitely additive, so it is not at all a measure. In particular, it implies that if two open subsets of the plane (or the real line) are equi-decomposable then they have equal Lebesgue measure.

I don't understand what you are saying. If the area is not the Lebesgue measure, then what is the connexion of the last sentence to the previous sentences?

    • The point is that are is for ALL bounded subsets (not nesessury measurable).--Tosha (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had understood that. But what is the "it" of the last sentence ( implies...)? Maybe you meant that the existence of this area implies that if two open subsets of the plane are equi-decomposable then they have equal areas. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You also wrote:

Sometimes the Hausdorff paradox refers to another theorem of Hausdorff which was proved in the same paper. This theorem states that it is possible to "chop up" the unit interval into countably many pieces which (by translations only) can be reassembled into the interval of length 2.

But I don't see that in the paper of Hausdorff.

    • Read it and you will see it...--Tosha (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just looked again! It's a short paper. Here's the link, see if you can find it and tell me what page it's on: Bemerkung über den Inhalt von Punktmengen
I would somewhat prefer to continue this by e-mail. You can e-mail me from Special:EmailUser/Eric_Kvaalen if you're logged on. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mahalanobis distance[edit]

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of free electronic journals in mathematics[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of free electronic journals in mathematics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

We already have the more comprehensive List of scientific journals in mathematics. Sub-dividing by subscription status carries little benefit and is difficult to define or maintain. No other journal lists are split by subscription status.

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. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Kseg.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kseg.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sharafutdinov's retraction[edit]

Please look at these edits. Note that

  • One cannot assume the lay reader knows that topology is a branch of mathematics. I learned in elementary school that that's what it is and I was astonished when I found out many years later that many adults don't know that, but it is nonetheless a fact.
  • Linking to retraction in this context doesn't make sense, since that article begins as follows:
A retraction is a public statement, by the author of an earlier statement, that withdraws, cancels, refutes, or diametrically reverses the original statement.
  • One should use complete sentences, not dictionary-style defintions. This is codified in WP:MOS.

I also have qualms about linking to the surname Sharafutdinov. Since he is not an immensely famous person like Fourier, Euler, Einstein, Shakespeare, etc., including his first name in the part the reader sees, as well as the link target, seems appropriate. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael, that is right name --- people use it...--Tosha (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. I was referring to linking simply to the surname. A link should not be simply to [[Sharafutdinov]]. Rather, one should include at least a first name. That doesn't mean one shouldn't use that name in the article. A link is a link. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can unlink it if you want, but for sure this guy deserves a page in wikipedia. --Tosha (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Soul theorem assumption: manifold connected?[edit]

Hi, I wonder whether on soul theorem we should include the assumption that M is connected? Our definition for Riemannian manifold doesn't seem to include that assumption, but the soul theorem appears to need it, or else the disjoint union of a plane and an infinite cylinder wouldn't have a soul.

Also, in the soul conjecture, the meaning of the assumption "K>0 at some point" is not completely clear to me. Does it mean that at that point each section gives a positive sectional curvature, or at least one section at that point gives a positive curvature? From your proof sketch on Talk:Soul theorem it seems that the first interpretation is the correct one, but maybe we should make that explicit in the article itself. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes...--Tosha (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gsp.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gsp.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mojżesz David Kirszbraun for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mojżesz David Kirszbraun, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojżesz David Kirszbraun until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you give your opinion please[edit]

Dear Anton, could you please have a look on the article considered for deletion and submit your opinion (if any):

article Nonlinear quality of life index
discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nonlinear_quality_of_life_index

With best regards,--Agor153 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Stone–Čech compactification[edit]

Could you have a look at Talk:Stone–Čech compactification and perhaps add a few words explaining your edit on Tychonoff's precedence? Thanks! --Kompik (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yurii Reshetnyak[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Yurii Reshetnyak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tassedethe (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)