User talk:David Eppstein

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. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

Notation for definite integrals

Hello, David. I have just seen this edit at Series (mathematics), where in your edit summary you said "you can't have an already-bound variable as the variable of integration". Certainly there are many situations where using the same letter to represent both the bound variable of integration and a limit of integration is undesirable, but it is certainly logically possible, and in some contexts useful, to use a letter to represent a bound variable which and the same letter to represent another variable outside the scope of that bound variable. This is exactly the same principal as using the same textual name for a local and a global variable in computer programming. (Or more as local variable and another variable, local or global, whose scope excludes that of the first variable.)

I am posting these comments essentially in case you may find it of some interest, rather than to criticise your edit, but I do also think there is a good case for regarding the edit in question as being one of the contexts in which it is better to use the same variable. The variable t is not used in any way other than as a dummy variable to satisfy the notational convention of always having a letter to represent the variable of integration, so any arbitrary letter will do as such a dummy, and using the same letter as is used in a different scope will not cause any ambiguity or difficulty in understanding. Anyone with only an elementary knowledge of calculus is likely to be used to consistently using two letters (usually x and y) to represent the variables in each of two dimensions, not switching letters between bound and unbound uses of a variable in the same dimension. They will therefore understand the notation using x in both places without difficulty, but may be confused by the version which introduces another letter which they may not understand the purpose of. On the other hand anyone with more than such an elementary knowledge will have no difficulty understanding it: they will either regard it as a perfectly valid use of the same symbol in two non-overlapping scopes, or at worst they will regard it as an "abuse of notation" but perfectly comprehensible, so either way nothing will be lost. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think those two cases should be differentiated. EEng 13:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. to DE: Thanks for being available on Sunday. Predictions of apocalypse were unfounded.

Programming languages have explicit rules for scoping and shadowing of variables when you use the same name more than once. Mathematics usually just disallows the repetition. In any case I think it's bad style and confusing to do this. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously now, I agree. EEng 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Prime number

On 4 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prime number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that prime numbers have been studied since the time of the ancient Greeks, but have had few real-world applications until the invention of public-key cryptography in the 1970s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prime number. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prime number), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Conway's Life / Of Man and Manta

Is this a sufficient reference for the edit? —Hobart (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

To me that is clear evidence that it is off-topic for the Conway's Game of Life article. Because something in "a cellular space of dimensions higher than our spacetime" is a different cellular automaton; the Game of Life itself can only be two-dimensional. So it belongs in Category:Cellular automata in popular culture (where it already is!) but not in the Game of Life article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the review! —Hobart (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Riemann hypothesis

Just to mention (since you were involved in the talk pages about Opeyemi Enoch's attempt at a proof of the rh) that the Riemann Hypothesis is now proven by a Wikipedia editor (me). The proof is in an 8 page paper on viXra, with full details in the follow-up, unlike Enoch's papers these are online http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0703vF.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0317vD.pdf . The proof uses nothing beyond second-year calculus techniques (double integrals) . There won't be an attempt to modify the Wikipedia article since viXra is not a reliable source, but I thought you'd want to know about the outcome anyway, that the rh is true. Createangelos (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Good of you to let us know first. EEng 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So the writeup is not fully detailed, not peer-reviewed, and not even on a reputable server? I think I'll wait. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're just jealous he proved rh. But if you hurry you could crack NPC. EEng 23:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(found my mistake, never mind)Createangelos (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well keep up the good work. EEng 23:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Related article pseudomathematics now up for AfD. But in my mind the distinction between cranks and honorable amateurs is that (unlike CA here) the cranks refuse to admit their mistakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grothendieck got upset with Deligne because his proof of the last of Weil conjecures circumvented the use of standard conjectures. Similarly many would be upset with an elementary proof of Riemann hypothesis as to quote Michael Harris it is widely believed that the completion of Langlands' program is intimately connected with it. The article currently does NOT mentions the word Langlands at all (it didn't even mentioned Complex analysis(!!) until I introduced it). I have added many quotes related to this topics to Wikiquote however the aesthetics of this particular Harris quote (in an appendix with number 49(!)) does not satisfy my tastes. I won't add it but won't revert if any of you do add it. Solomon7968 05:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That Burton quote is bizarre. How could it be "so unexpected, connecting two seemingly unrelated areas" to link number theory and complex analysis? They've been linked since Euler's solution of the Basel problem using the series expansion of the sine function in 1735, over 100 years before Riemann formulated his hypothesis. As for Langlands, it seems relevant to point out that Langlands program doesn't mention the Riemann hypothesis, either. Surely when there are two connected topics, we should hope for the more advanced one to mention the more well-known one, first? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably either of them doesn't mention the other because few Wikipedians (ONLY ONE?) have grasp of this connection as this is just too too deep. I say only one Wikipedian who uses a three letter user name separated by dots and a Fields Medal winner. I won't link to his user page but I see DE that you have posted on his talk page congratulating for being elected to the NAS and he replied back. He didn't replied to me (twice) and I wonder what made him do so in your case as he (to my neutral eyes) has NOT revealed his identity. Your research interest and university affiliation doesn't intersect either so I guess it is unlikely you discussed Wikipedia/Math in real life/on Email. How is it, I am genuinely curious to know. Solomon7968 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I think he got driven away as one too many of his articles was put up for deletion. He hasn't edited for over a year. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see. But to think in other way maybe it is better that he can do the more important task of producing original mathematics without distraction and maybe solve a millennium problem to gain immortality. That's the real world's future which may take decades. The future for the Wiki math project seems to be completing bios of AMS fellows and ICM speakers which should take few years NOT decades from now. BTW you still didn't answered my question if you interacted with him in real life. You are in CS and he pure math. Solomon7968 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've interacted with plenty of pure mathematicians off-wiki, but not him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry for the rollback on your talk page...my error, fat finger syndrome. Apologies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries...I was working on something else and didn't even notice until seeing your message. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The "Did You Know...?" Reviewer's Barnstar

Thank you for your work in evaluating articles that are submitted for review so they can be mentioned in the DYK section of Wikipedia’s Main Page. I have often wondered why reviewers often don't get accolades for their work since they often put in as much time as those who improve content. The effort needed to participate in this area of Wikipedia is significant. I don't think most other editors realize what a service you are doing to help showcase new, expanded or recently promoted GA articles. What you do provides an incentive for new and experienced editors to continue improvement and creation of content. I find my curiosity piqued by the DYKs. You do a great job and help me gain insight into the range of topics that Wikipedia covers. You’ve put in the time and effort to improve content and therefore deserve recognition and appreciation.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome for the reviews! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Somebody needs to ask pardon.

Do you see any other pardon (NOT biographical) articles, e.g. Pardon of Richard Nixon, in Category:Pardon recipients or its many subcategories? The person is already in Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, for someone with your number of edits, I'm a bit surprised that you'd violate WP:ESDONTS. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The context: Clarityfiend somehow thinks that Pardon of Joe Arpaio should be removed from categories about pardons. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction: pardon recipients. Also, this is a diffusing category, so this article doesn't belong for a second reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've found a solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hercules' Dog review/suggestion

Hi there; I'm a first-time reviewer. I've suggested what might be a better hook for Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye on the Nominations page. I wonder if you'd mind checking it and seeing if you agree. Cheers, —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Australian mathematicians

WP:SUBCAT is quite clear on non-duplication of articles in parent and child categories. That being said ...

For Yuriko Renardy [1][2][3] - possibly:

• Category:Australian mathematicians should have a non-diffusing sub-Category:Australian men mathematicians
• Category:Australian mathematicians should be a {{container}} category, with all articles sub-categorized by gender and/or century.

For Thomas Gerald Room [4][5][6] - possibly:

• Category:Australian cryptographers should be a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"What about the men?" Really?? Women form an important subcategory of mathematicians because of the historic and extreme discrimination against them. No such thing is true for men. You need to learn about what non-diffusing categories are for, and why. They are a clear exception to the parent category rule. As for Room: he was a mathematician, period. We don't keep Alan Turing or Andrew M. Gleason or W. T. Tutte out of the mathematician categories because they also did crypto. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consult someone listed at Category:Category theorists. EEng 19:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't keep Alan Turing or Andrew M. Gleason or W. T. Tutte out of the mathematician categories because they also did crypto.

• Alan Turing is in Category:20th-century mathematicians, Category:English mathematicians and Category:British cryptographers but Category:British cryptographers is not a subcategory of either of the other two.
• Andrew M. Gleason is in Category:American cryptographers but not the supercategory Category:American mathematicians.
• W. T. Tutte is in Category:British cryptographers but not the parent Category:British mathematicians.

... non-diffusing categories ... are a clear exception to the parent category rule

Category:Australian cryptographers is not currently a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. As I explicitly suggested previously, perhaps it should be. If you think it should be, tag it as such.

In any case Thomas Gerald Room should probably be moved from Category:Australian mathematicians to the more specific Category:20th-century Australian mathematicians, which would also resolve the issue. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by using Category:20th-century Australian mathematicians. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch! Although to me the fix seems so far removed from the "problem" that it seems clear to me there is something wrong with our definition of what constitutes a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

the fix seems so far removed from the "problem" ... — Agreed! But it ought not be too difficult to resolve the underlying problem.

1. If all cryptographers are necessarily mathematicians (I think that they are) then Category:Australian cryptographers is rightly a subcategory of Category:Australian mathematicians, and (per WP:SUBCAT) articles should not be listed directly in both categories (unless one of the exceptions applies; see #3 below).
2. If all cryptographers are not necessarily mathematicians, then Category:Australian cryptographers ought not be a subcategory of Category:Australian mathematicians.
3. If all cryptographers are necessarily mathematicians, but cryptographers are a "subset which have some special characteristic of interest" (which I think is reasonable), then Category:Australian cryptographers should be marked as a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} of Category:Australian mathematicians, and the duplication is "allowed". I've mentioned this a couple of times already, and you've alluded to it as well, but you've not explicitly stated whether or not you think Category:Australian cryptographers should be a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} of Category:Australian mathematicians, nor have you tagged the former category as such.

Do you think that cryptographers should be a non-diffusing subcategory of mathematicians?

Or is there some other flaw in my reasoning?

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian cryptographers should only be treated as a diffusing subcategory of Australian mathematicians if there are sufficient other subcategories of the form Australian specialist-in-some-other-mathematical-subtopic so that we can list all cryptographers-who-also-do-other-mathematics by all of their specialties. As it is, the categorization creates the false impression that someone known for work in multiple topics, or worse someone like Room known mostly for other mathematical topics, would be hidden away in the cryptographer category where people seeing his name would wrongly assume that he is known only as a cryptographer. And in general a "fix" that would be immediately unfixed if we ever created a category of 20th-century Australian cryptographers seems to me like no fix at all, but merely a kluge on top of another kluge that makes the categories right temporarily but is unstable and does nothing to fix the underlying badness of this partial and incomplete categorization by intersection of nationality and mathematical specialization. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian cryptographers should only be treated as a diffusing subcategory of Australian mathematicians if ... — Is that a yes or a no to "Do you think that cryptographers should be a non-diffusing subcategory...?", given the current existence or not of other subcategories?

Or do you have an alternative specific change that we should make? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the category system is hopelessly broken. We should not be making categories that intersect unrelated criteria, like nationality, specialty, and timeframe. When we do, this sort of mess happens: we can't properly categorize this guy by nationality+specialty because only one of the nationality+specialty categories exists, it's one that only covers a minor aspect of his expertise, and your mindless pedantic insistence on following pointless rules about category diffusion then kicks in and takes him out of the more general nationality-without-specialty category that is more descriptive of what he actually did. I think you should spend more effort on getting the category system right in the first place and less on enforcing a wrong system. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the category system is hopelessly broken. — Feel free to propose changes at WT:CAT.

We should not be making categories that intersect unrelated criteria, like nationality, specialty, ... — WP:NARROWCAT agrees with the assessment, at least in some cases. Feel free to propose deletion of Category:Australian cryptographers, if you think it appropriate.

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Proportion

Hi, David Eppstein! As a mathematician, could you chime in Talk:Proportion, I would like to create an entry for this concept and I have been consistently shot down. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of my edit

My edit on a special property of primitive Pythagorean triples was removed and reinserted by Anitat5196 upon review. It is found to be removed again by yourself. What do you mean by a "reliably published source"? The source along with the link is given. The source is a well known math periodical in India and is available on the net. The result is established by proof in the source article along with two examples. The result is also verifiable mathematically. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity. I feel bewildered by such frequent interventions on grounds that are not tenable. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I mean a mathematics journal indexed by MathSciNet. But more generally, see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The source here satisfies the general WP:RS criteria as it is a published material, published by an academic institution, and directly supports the claim; and it also meets the requirements of WP Verifiability. The link to the source is given. Regarding the "significance" of the result that you asked for in your comment to Anita5192 it may be said that the result, like most other known properties of Pythagorean triples, establishes a relationship between the three members of a triple of a particular kind. It is a modest contribution to the existing knowledge about Pythagorean triples. Denying it a place in WP would mean denying place to a property that is true, established by proof and examples, and verifiable to the cited source. I think these considerations call for a review. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Three-gap theorem at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This was the fault of Gatoclass, who removed the approved nomination from the DYK queue for bad reasons and failed to re-link it anywhere else. I have asked Gatoclass to undo their mistakes; in the meantime, I'll keep this here on my talk as a reminder to check back and make sure this gets fixed. Thank you, bot, for telling me about this: I unwatch closed DYK noms and so would not have otherwise noticed the re-opening. And un-thank you, Gatoclass, not only for your bad re-open but for failing to notify me of it as the edit notice on DYK noms suggests you should do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Barr

The article Mark Barr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mark Barr for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh darn, there goes my record for longest still-active GA nomination, and it didn't even drag out for a full year. Thanks, all! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Quotes and attribution

I don't care if you revert me (and insist on machine-based date formats for accessdates and human-readable dates for publication dates, all lumped in together, although that is an incredibly odd thing to actually edit war over), but direct quotations need attribution, i.e. who actually said them, and that's need in the prose. So please do that as soon as you find a convenient moment. Much obliged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not biased opinion, I don't even look at whose articles at sitting in the DYK queues, I just look at the potential issues. That you have clearly conflated WP:V with WP:ATT is not my problem, and you should know that once challenged, a source is required. But thanks for fixing it, eventually. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE emphatically does not say that all quotes need to be attributed in inline text. In fact it says the opposite: "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote." FOOTNOTE. Not prose. It does say later that potentially-biased opinions must be attributed in prose, but a description of the writing style of a book does not strike me as the sort of thing that is aimed at. (And for anyone else who cares, the context is Márta Svéd.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It was challenged, you edit warred over it, and finally did the right thing. No further commentary required. Except sorry for changing your odd mix of date formats again. I did say I would't do that but I didn't check who owned the article at the time of my edit. While I still have no clue at all ever in any way shape or form why anyone would expect the natural language readers of an English language encyclopedia to want to see YYYY-MM-DD dates, I do accept that I said I wouldn't do that. So at least, on those grounds, you have my regrets. You also have my complete and utter bafflement, but that's not important. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, re this rather-combative edit summary: I still disagree with the initial placement of the tag, but the "pointless" in my earlier edit summary merely referred to the fact that I neglected to remove the tag when I was adding the dubiously-required inline attribution, and that after the attribution was added the tag became pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well your comment there entirely sums up the problem. It appears you have some real issues with some of the guidelines and policies around here. Never mind, we can move on, but rest assured that the next time one of your own articles gets to the queues and suffers such genuine issues, I will take the same course of action. So it's better you acknowledge the shortcomings of the article, and ensure we don't have to go through this all over again, particularly the distasteful edit warring by you after a challenge, and particularly the SHOUTING IN EDIT SUMMARIES which is usually a very bad sign (TM). Nothing was "dubiously-required" in any sense, and the sooner you realise that, the easier your DYK nominations will become. I did note that others had actually help you fix up your own article to comply with the DYK rules. Maybe it's worth re-appraising yourself on the rules of the DYK project and the overall Wikipedia guidelines and policies to help prevent this in future? I won't be commenting further here, but like I said, if I see any more erroneous articles going to the main page (regardless of whether they're your's), I'll be conducting the same level of scrutiny and exacting commentary. Cheers now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If you take any disagreement with your interpretation as a disagreement with the guidelines themselves, I can see why you might continue to be at loggerheads with people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be in violation of WP:CIR right now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Bring it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to, it's self-evident from your current editing pattern, failure to understand the difference between verifiability and attribution, failure to understand edit-warring... I don't care really, you're the one who made such a stink about me changing your precious date formats and asking for attribution, you're the one failing here. I'm all good. So, until the next time, bienvenue. (P.S. instead of "bring it", maybe next time it'll be "to the max!" or "get real!") The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/75|"Women of the Sea"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/76|"Villains"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/77|"Women in Sports"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/78|"Central Eastern European women"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Márta Svéd

On 30 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Márta Svéd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hungarian mathematician Márta Svéd earned her Ph.D. at age 75? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Márta Svéd. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Márta Svéd), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The article however tells us nothing about the OBVIOUS question for the reader if 75 is the (till now) upper age limit for earning Ph.D. (not just in mathematics!) Solomon7968 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Far from the oldest PhD. I can't easily find sources on other old mathematics doctorates, but Christine Ladd-Franklin was a little older. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Three-gap theorem

On 1 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three-gap theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the three-gap theorem explains both the spacing of leaves on plant stems and the intervals between adjacent tones in certain musical tuning systems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three-gap theorem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Three-gap theorem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Logarithm article

I really don't understand your inflexibility with respect to the logarithm article. I hate to be ad hominem, but as a computer science guy, you out of anyone should see the virtue of using the TeX typesetting system. But beyond this relatively trivial issue, given you academic stature, I'm also surprised by your defense of the status quo of a mediocre article, for the sake of "consensus", whatever that means. I am still waiting for an objection to my most recent edits, other than "they were disruptive." Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So now you are going WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with respect to the objections already raised to your edits? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop hiding behind a rule book. You appear to be incredibly inflexible and doctrinaire. User:Jakob.scholbach objected to my edits, and being reasonable objections, I took into account his objections. Other users like User:Dmcq have supported some of my changes, including the integral definition and the general need for a concise rigorous definition.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the only the second user to voice opposition to my edits, which is hardly a consensus. Moreover, you have given no useful suggestions, other than to say that I haven't been following the rules. I am well aware of them. Just as I am well aware I shouldn't call you an a**hole, but will anyway.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet, instead of using the integral definition, you re-added material like "If rational number $q=m/n$ (m, n positive integers), $b^{q}$ is defined as the nth root of $b^{m}$, ${\sqrt[{n}]{b^{m}}}$. For a real number y, $b^{y}$ is defined as the number approached by a sequence $(b^{q_{1}},b^{q_{2}},\ldots ,b^{q_{n}},\ldots )$ for rational numbers $q_{1},q_{2},\ldots ,q_{n},\ldots$ that are successively better approximations of y." to the article. No, they are not defined that way in modern mathematics, and we should not pretend they are. It does not assist high school students (at whom the level of the article should be primarily aimed) to confusingly switch back to old-fashioned definitions. This is a featured article, meaning that it has already gone through a significant level of careful review, and you are changing things haphazardly and without attention to whether they are actually improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OMFG, you are dense for a well-known CS professor! I made these changes because User:Jakob.scholbach didn't like the integral definition. He suggested it would be reasonable to use the continuity property to fill in the gaps to extend the function to the reals, as an imprecise, intuitive definition. Thus, I gave a definition for the rationals and took his suggestion. My god, you accuse me of being heavy handed, and when I take someone else's suggestion, you now say my definition isn't rigorous enough! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so he's dense. But is he compact? EEng 05:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, E! After an infuriating past few hours defending my edits, you made me laugh for the first time. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Language, please. But the short answer is that I think that going from calculus to real analysis is a step in the wrong direction if we want to keep things simple and less technical. Rigor is very important in some contexts. Explaining basic concepts to high school students is not one of those contexts. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the language. But I disagree -- there should be a formal definition given somewhere in the definition section, or at least a hint as to how that would be done.

To defend the definition I gave, a continuous extension of a function defined on the rationals (or any dense subset) to the reals is unique, so a sequence like the one given certainly is a valid definition for irrational arguments of b^y. However, I actually liked splitting the section up between a motivation and informal definition and then a formal one, before that was inexplicably reverted. Would you be open to reviving that version instead?

Anyway, given how obstinate you've been and your penchant for jumping to conclusions, I'm just glad that we're in different fields, and you can't influence my tenure decision. ;-) Respectfully, Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to a wide audience, but if everything in it is high school level, it would be no better than a high school textbook, especially if it tries to shove things under the rug. Details, caveats, and technicalities should be pointed out (though not necessarily presented in detail), so that it is not misleading to people pursuing tertiary education and beyond. Even for high school students, wikipedia should prod them to go beyond what is in their textbooks. There is also no rule saying that high school students are our target. (Otherwise, I would've stopped learning things from Wikipedia ages ago.)Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is, actually: WP:TECHNICAL. It doesn't specify high school students (some subjects should be lower-level than that, others higher) but I think high school is when students typically first see logarithms, and our articles should be readable by them. It doesn't mean keeping out advanced material, but it does mean avoiding unnecessarily technical ways of explaining non-advanced material. Which is what you have been doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

By which you mean, there isn't any rule, just your opinion of who you think the target audience is. In any case, please see the new section on the talk page of logarithm. I would like to see you defend how the definition section is currently written. Alas, faculty members become absolutely insufferable when they haven't had to defend anything they say in a decade. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks are not particularly helping persuade me of whatever points you are trying to make. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You've behaved in such obtuse and moronic way towards me, in a manner highly unbecoming of your station, that I frankly don't care about your goodwill.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care about getting blocked from editing here. That can happen to people who remain persistently uncivil after being warned that it's against the rules, as you already have been earlier in this thread. See also Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In any case it wasn't my goodwill that I thought you were seeking, but my agreement with changing the article along your preferred lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DePiep and DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Metatron's cube

I've just added five citations as external links (which shows what I think of their reliability). (Google turned up several more hits; I only listed sites which aren't obviously trying to sell you things.) Metatron's cube doesn't look like a WP:HOAX: those citations look pretty much independent of each other and of our article. The Hopler citation itself cites four books by different authors, spread out over several years, not all of which are obviously self-published, and all of which are on Amazon. I suspect that the topic may sneak through WP:GNG. What do you think? Narky Blert (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Those look like junk woo web sites to me — I agree with you that their reliability is dubious. So I don't think they contribute much to notability. Galobtter's re-redirect is an improvement, but still problematic, as the link target makes no mention of this design. There are reliably published books on sacred geometry, and if we could find this in more than one of those, I think it would be notable enough, but I couldn't find it in any. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The whole concept looks very modern woo to me. Of course, that is no argument against notability. Narky Blert (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Holly M. Lewis

Hi. And as always (even though we don't always agree), thank you for your thoughtful and inciteful comments at AfD. Saw your edit on the above article, where you added additional material was provided by Holly Davidson Lewis. Is this the same Lewis? I can't find a connection between Holly M. Lewis and a Holly D. Lewis. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)