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 "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

Egyptian fractions, last year and this year's subject

In moving all of your Wikipedia discussions to the old stuff area, there is little that has been resolved between our two points of view. Your view does not commonly or consistently consider the ancient math structures that stressed the FTA, reporting each arithmetical form found within its relatively easy to read historical examples - be it medieval radix info, or whatever. My view tends to take an ancient pattern, like the two medieval radix fragments that you mentioned, a notation that may not be connected to the FTA, and then I work (by well known scholarly references) to connect the medieval fragments back to Egypt, or some other source, commonly documented to have been used prior to that time period.

All math, at any time was built on the shoulders of its giants, a point of view that is consistently, and directly, written into my point of view. Looking forward at any time, taking a strand of info here and there, and building a foundation to discuss one or two modern subjects, seems like an odd way to fairly report ancient mathematics and its foundational arithmetics within its confirmed historical context.

Yes, 2007 will find us again debating Egyptians (like Ahmes), Greeks (Euclid and many others) and medievals (like Fibonacci) scribes and mathematicians that worked very hard in their lifetimes to solve many types of problems using the factoring of rational numbers as its core arithmetic thought.

Your point of view quickly switches to the modern algorithm, or to Babylonian base 60 (a culture that did not use Egyptian fractions as its central form of arithmetic). The medieval algorithmic point of view did alter 3,600 years of Egyptian fraction arithmetic, since Western arithmetic included zero written as an exponential place-holder, defining numbers by algorithm as written up by Stevins in 1585 AD.

Yes, 2007 should be an interesting Wikpedia year.

Best Regards, Milo Gardner 1/2/07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Milogardner (talk • contribs)

Hello Milo and David. My question is for Milo. Is there a reason why you don't sign your comments in the usual way, with the four tildes? It makes you seem like a newbie or a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Since you wish to be taken seriously in your mathematical views, adding your signature consistently would improve your credibility. Always logging in to your account before commenting would be another step that would it easier for others to follow the discussions in which you participate, and perhaps grasp your argument more quickly. EdJohnston 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a newbie on Wikipedia. My focus continues to be on the ancient math. At times I have not properly logged before returning to the issues that motivate by Wikipedia participation. As a New Year's resolution, I'll try to log on and even learn the proper way to sign my name. What is the four tilda method? Best Regards, Milo Gardner 1/3/07. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Milogardner (talk • contribs)

Type four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment, before pressing 'Save'. The tildes will expand into your signature and a date-time stamp. EdJohnston 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

David, your suggestion that Fibonacci's 7 methods, distinctions, to find Egyptian fraction series only present a small section of the book is way off base. All the first 6 chapters show in practical and abstract terms how and why Fibonacci was able to factor any number, integer or fraction, using the FTA within several notations. These chapters necessarily lead to the 7th chapter, with the 7th chapter's summary section citing the 7 methods that elegantly and not so elegantly report 3,200 years of Egyptian fraction history, again written in several notations. It should be noted that Fibonacci consistently includes in his practical descriptions the point- if you wish to know why - a clear example then follows that easily allows today's 2007 reader to see the why side of his abstract reasoning. I'd be happy to further detail Fibonacci's abstract reasoning for you - on a separate web page, using the same central abstract methods that Ptolemy, Euclid and Ahmes used (citing remainder arithmetic - quotients and remainders - all the way!)

Again, I will be taking down your Struik reference, oddly placed at the begining of a section, used more as a rhetorical reminder (in my view) that there are many Pro-Babylonian scholars out there. I run into these folks all the time. These people are well know, at least to me. I'd be happy to cite a few of their names (off-line), and their rhetorical styles, just as we are discussing the anti-Egyptian fracion views of Struik, and have misread his point of view. Struik takes a common position, picking up a minor point written in Egyptian fractions, Ptolemy's use of base 60 statements, and then Struik falsely jumps to an incorrect and confusing conclusion that Ptolemy was not pleased to have worked and written in the practical and theoretical form of Egyptian fractions. Ptolemy was pleased with Egyptian fractions, and used it all the way, in all of his work. The base 60 data was not written outside of the traditional Egyptian fraction system! As proof, as you know, from your own description of Fibonacci's Egyptian fractions, Fiboancci wrote several classes data in different number or weights and measres bases. Fibonacci also mixed numeration and weights and masures bases a, b, or c, as needed, a step that Ptolemy also took - though Struik did not grasp the appropriate meaning, as you can discover for yourself by reading the Almagest. Best Regards, Milo Gardner Milogardner 12:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A WP policy that might help in writing about Egyptian fractions

I couldn't help thinking back to last year's debates about Egyptian fractions, when I came across this proposed policy from Wikipedia:Attribution: Unpublished synthesis of published material

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. This includes analyzing sources in a way that produces a new idea or argument. Even if A and B are published by reliable sources, it is inappropriate to combine A and B to conclude a new position C. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable if and only if a reliable source has published that precise argument in relation to the topic of the article. See the FAQ page for an example.

I won't attempt to draw any conclusions about that here, but I think it could be helpful to think about. EdJohnston 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but without more specifics it's difficult for me to understand what you see as synthetic in the current article. The part that looks most that way to me, the description of the multiple RMP methods, has different citations in each bullet less because there isn't a single source that covers all these methods (I think Gardner 2002 does cover them all, for instance, although it does so in Milo's idiosyncratic style) and more in an attempt to assign appropriate historical credit for each observation. If you mean that the whole article collects together several loosely related ideas on Egyptian fractions that have not been brought together by a single article elsewhere, I don't really see that as different than most other WP articles; the quote you mention is less about putting A and B together in a single article and more about putting in new inferences that combines material from the two. —David Eppstein 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, It appears that you have not seriously taken to reading and reporting Sigler's comments (footnotes) related to Fibonacci's seven methods to convert vulgar fractions to Egyptian fraction series. The methods were written very close, at times, to the the oldest Egyptian style. At other times a Greek style appeared. Then an Arab style, arguably appears, since it included Hindu-Arabic numerals, with zero being a remainder. It may be best, at least for myself, that a separate web page be developed to cover all seven of Fibonacci's distinctions, and the three notations in which the raw data was written. A blog was posted today per:

http://liberabaci.blogspot.com

citing a brief outline of Fibonacci's Egyptian fraction methods, as translated by Sigler. A great deal more work needs to be put into the blog to improve is readability beyond my usual mangled syntax.

In that way (my spending time on the blog and away from Wikipedia) we may not be arguing (as much) and posting different views. Such a blog may assist in exposing and connecting the interworkings of Fibonacci's set of 7 examples, with sometimes more than one example per method (distinction, to use Sigler's term), to its sometimes older sources (at least that is my goal). At present only a small sample of the examples have been mentioned on Wikipedia, thereby hiding many of the more interesting aspects of Egyptian fractions. Best Regards, Milo Milogardner 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, and Ed: I agree with David on ths topic of A + B + C + ... may equal a visible ancient elephant. To only report A, B per one or two scholars and omitting scholars 3, 4 and 5 (by some undefined process) and parts C, D, and E of a topic, only the trunk, feet or tail of an elephant may be shown. Milo Gardner Milogardner 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo, now everything is great, you are signing your comments, but can you please create a user page? If you authorize me, I'll create one for you, that is blank. In that way your signature will not show up as a 'red link' for your name, and will not alarm people :-). EdJohnston 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

David,

Our time together has nearly ended, provided that your odd position concerning Struik, Fibonacci, Ptolemy and many others that wrote base 60 facts and relationships in one of the three Egyptian fraction notations can be modified, considering a few additional facts. For example, Fibonacci's base 60 data was cited to solve a contest problem, while Ptolemy's data was written to solve other irrational number problems, a general statement of latitudes and longitudes. Fibonacci and Ptolemy easily wrote within the Egyptian fraction system, and therefore neither was complaining as Struik oddly concludes in Ptolemy's case. Struik's odd anti-Egyptian fraction position reads more like Neugebauer's Exact Science in Antiquity suggestion, that Egyptian fractions marked intellectual decline in Ahmes' time, and by implication all other time periods. Since Fibonacci's first 127 pages are well defined in LA, and his methods connect to Ahmes's 2/nth table, and its remainder arithmetic, Ahmes's initial Egyptian fraction work should not have been seen as denoting intellectual decline. Hence, Struik and Neugebauer were both incorrect, two errors that we can easily overlook, and move on to other topics. Best Regards, Milogardner 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

David,

There may be two deeper issues that are effecting your thinking process, at least that is my take on our debate. Let me stress the oldest issue, the documentation of the Horus-Eye numeration system, and its links to the Babylonian numeration system. The Egyptian cursive numeration system was inferior to the Babylonian base 60 cursive way of writing its numbers. Given that Babylonians, through all of their history only used 2, 3 and 5 in their denominators, round off problems severely degraded the accuracy of their everyday and highest theoretical arithmetic, a situtation that was even more troublesome in the binary fraction context.

By contrast, 2,000 BCE Egyptians found a way to solve their "Horus-Eye" problem. It was achieved by allowing any number to appear in their numerators amd denominators within its newly developed Egyptian fraction system. The clearest evidence of this fact is provided by the Akhmim Wooden Tablet where 1/320 was used to down-scale large denominators when partitioning a hekat, thereby allowing scribes to work with small Egyptian fractions.

Aspects of the Egyptian fraction solution have been sent to you in a formal paper that is being published this month. When the journal is released I'll provide the needed reference specifics, if you desire. Prior to that time, remember, Babylonians only used 2,3 and 5 in their denominators - not very accurate, right? Best Regards Milogardner 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

David, the second issue deals with definitive sources that allowed our modern algorithm to become the context for writing our modern base 10 decimal system. In this area area I may strongly agree with your intuition (I use that phrase advisedly - since you have not made comments on this area) that Hindu-Arabic sources can be attributed as the source for the creation of our modern base 10 decimal system. All the facts found in India and the Arab and Islamic countries, that I have seen, point in your direction. Given a large body of overwhelming, but fragmented, evidence in your favor, I will not confront any of the related Egyptian fractions issues. Therefore our debate is over.

However, as a review, there is great fuzziness in the area of sources that birthed the algorithm that birthed our base 10 decimal system. My sources (Ore and Eves) strongly suggest that al-Karaji may have been Fibonacci's source to convert Diophantine indeterminate equation methods into the Hindu-Arabic numeration system, and so forth. That is, the Islamic algorithm could have reached Europe using several Arab paths. Fibonacci is a likely path, but not the only path.

In conclusion to our two month debate, let up stop pushing our respective sides of very old arguments. We both have reached an area of fuzzy primary sources. The majority of our scholarly debates have fairly identified and fairly concluded that Greek and Arab documents are overly fragmented, and therefore can not be used to reach definitive conclusions in certain areas. Wikipedia standards demand that opinion should not be introduced as a source when fuzzy sources are pointed out. That is, I should not and will not go into any of the fuzzy algorithm and algebra areas, where only personal opinion governs. As a code breaker, I must deal with hard facts connected to more than one text (thereby confirming the existance of an ancient pattern). Thanks again for a stimulating discussion. Your ardent support of your point of view has been very helpful, forcing my long held views to be reconsidered by reviewing 40 year old sources that I had not read for many years. Best Regards, Milo Milogardner 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• David, your view of Egyptian fractions stresses your excellent modern math skills, as a single window to the past. Your method tends to consider information developed from other sources and methods to be improper, it seems. My view is that your single rear view mirror will never fully be able to see the fundamental threads that built the 2,000 BCE Egyptian fraction methods, methods that were very likely created to solve the Horus-Eye problem. Hence, the need for the discussion of proper methods used beyond your singular rear view mirror method is hereby highlited, and will be further discussed, as follows.

That is to say, my view accepts your your singular rear view method, looking backwards in time takinng only the snap shots of particular relationships (i.e. Hultsch-Bruins) that only presents puzzle pieces, leaving the pieces unassembled on a web page, or in incomplete essays written by Peet, Gillings and others, and a confirmational forward viewpoint, slowly accepting new pieces into the larger puzzle.

Stated another way, my forward viewpoint is added to your read view merthod by analyzing each thread of information, parts A, B, D, E. ..., N, ... of a Egyptian fractions, and slowly pieces the ancient puzzle together, unusually by the assistance of at least two texts. Given that every new piece, is confirmed by two or more text, each puzzle piece thoroughly documented using Wikipedia rules. At no time have I every concluded, using all the available pieces, that the puzzle is complete!

Rewording the discussion, your view of finding A, and B (at anytime) does not confirm C is correct. My view requires seeing A and B in two directions, beginning in 2,000 BC, and working toward 1202 AD, as well as working in the reverse direction. Note the confirmal steps involved in isolating the scope and depth of A and B by using the two-directional method. Hultsch-Bruins (A) and the hekat divison method (B) were both indepdendently isolated and confirmed by this bi-directional method. Additional threads C (quotients), D (egyptian fractions as remainders), and E (multiples of EMLR unit fractions to find Egyptian fracions have been found in the RMP and the Liber Abaci), hence there are additional pieces on the table. Oddly, your singular method is relatively with opinions, mostly skeptical ones, directed against C, D and E, (points like the Horus-Eye problem, quotient and remainders, and so forth) because your confirmational methods of A (Hultsch-Bruins) and B (Greedy algorithm in the LA) are weak.

Again, is is important to answer the Horus-Eye problem question, documented from two points of view. What was the most likely reason for Egyptians to have used an exact form of unit fraction notation, and how does anyone confirm or oppose such a hypothesis?. It is easy to deny the hypothesis and a historical ancient Horus-Eye problem, a problem that would exist with any binary fraction system at any time. The problem is shown by excessive round off, a problem that was solved in the AWT, and in other situations and texts. Yet, you take a defensive position that allows a very old outdated fragmented view of Egyptian fractions to continue as the 'proper' and current scholarly view accepted by Wikipedia. I've gone on too long. Best Regards. Milogardner 21:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David, the current Wikipedia version falsely reports that the RMP contains 84 algebra problems. About 18 of the 84 problems can be seen as algebraic, with the total breakdown roughly consisting of: division by 10 (same as the Reisner P.- 6 problems), addition (17 problems), AWT (squaring the circle, the basis for the hekat - 5 problems), MMP (14 problems), business (23 problems) and recreational (3 problems). The total does not add up to 84 since several categories overlap (possibly more than cited above). I'll be summarizing this breakdown into a draft later today. Thanks again for discussing these texts in historical context. Milogardner 17:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

David, your latest wikipedia rant - that my suggestion that the greedy algorithm was recreational to Fibonacci is confirmed on three levels. First is the LA itself, wherein Leonardo creates elegant series as his preferred method, and as you state yourself, the awkward series, non-so-elegant using Sigler's term. So why is is not fair to conclude that non-so-elegant series was a form of recreation?

Second, is from India, the source of Fibonacci's numerals. Mahavira was reported in my EMLR paper as using an Egyptian fraction method that many in the history of Indian mathematics have classified as recreational math. To be fair, to report my readins of a 1938 definitive text on the subject, all of Egyptian fraction math reported from India was recreational during the time preceding the arrival of base 10 numerals to Arab sources, the sources that Leonardo read. The question then arises, did Arabs only use Egyptian and Greek sources for its Egyptian fraction methods, and exclude the recreational sources linked to Mahavira and the Hindu numeral system?

Third is the RMP, where 3 of 84 problems were recreational, Robins-Shute is my source, or 1 of 28. That is, from the beginning of Egyptian fractions recreational problems were discussed along the way, the most commonly cited problem is RMP #84.

So what is odd about concluding that one of Leonardo's 7 methods may have been recreational? Well, there were more that 7 methods. Method one was actually three methods. And the 7th method, where your version of the greedy algorithm contains a second fractoring method, much as 2/95 as used by Ahmes to write 1/5 x 2/19, with 2/19 taked from the 2/nth table, the issue of not-so-elegant and elegant arises. I have not counted up all of Leonardo's Egyptian fracion methods, but there are 10 referenced above. One may or may not be recreational. That is, your firm reliance on the first half of method 7 being mainstream, and not recreational, with no question or discussion allowed, is injured by Sigler's use of the 'not-so-elegant' term. At least that is my view.

Of course, you can fairly argue, but not declare (your usual style as you have have unfairly done with respect to decimal notation in the LA) that Leonardo was not-recreational any where in his work. I would not fully argue such a point, since I have not looked at all his problems, except the 'Going to St. Ives' problem, written as 'Going to Rome', that appeared in the RMP as problem #84.

Again, one of my central complaints returns to your usual style, one modern size (of algorithm) fits all, that algorithms were used by Leonardo in ways that directly lead to your work, as noted by Sylvester in 1891. We have not discussed Sylvester's earlier Egyptian fraction paper (Sylvester, J. J. “On a Point in the Theory of Vulgar Fractions”: American Journal Of Mathematics, 3 Baltimore (1880): 332–335, 388–389) one that was contrived, in my eyes, and in the eyes of my friend Noel Brayer (deceased). I suspect that Sylvester's later 1891 paper was also contrived, given that all seven of Fibonacci's methods were not reviewed. Had Sylvester looked beyond the Greedy Algorithm, he would have seen and anticipated F. Hultsch's 1895 discovery, the most likely primary 2/p conversion method used by Ahmes, since Leonardo discussed it!

Let me stop here. Best Regards, Milogardner 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

David,

Your latest Hultsch-Bruins essay seems not to take into consideration the four methods used by Leonardo in the Liber Abaci. The first two used the traditional method that I discuss, one that used subtraction by selecting a unit fraction first partition by some unknown process, creating an elegant Egyptian fraction series. Methods six and seven introduced medieval only concepts. Method six uses a vulgar fraction as a first partition, raising 3/8 to a mod 8 mutiple, or 18/48. Method seven we have discussed several times, so I will not repeat my position at this time. Best Regards, Milogardner 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Milo Gardner

Fractions in Monty Hall Problem Article

Hello. I undid your last change in the Monty Hall Problem article, and left a note in the discussion page for that article explaining why. Please review and add yor comments there. Thanks. The Glopk 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

La Rouche link

Could you explain better why you keep removing it. I can see that you are mathematician, and probably your abstract thinking abilities are higher than mine, but when I was learning about this cube problem, the applet from that website helped me understand it as it is 3-D, and I don't need to abstractly imagine 3rd dimension from other links that are there. These applications are helpful in understanding the problem. Honestly, I don't care about larouche and his politics, but that simulation is worthy, and should be in the linked to article. Couldn't find on the whole internet any similar. Lakinekaki 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The cube applet itself is fine. If it were by itself on a standalone page I would keep it, regardless of the name of the url. But surrounded by so much other irrelevant stuff, with the political links at the top of the page, it doesn't come across as a useful mathematical description: it looks instead like a collection of vaguely useful stuff thrown together in the hope that people will link to it and by so doing garner more attention to LaRouche. You know, like the spammers who copy Wikipedia content so that Google will index their spam. —David Eppstein 17:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, I was learning about doubling the cube with the help of that simulation, and I didn't even pay attention to other stuff as it didn't seem interesting to me (as I can see, it talks about KKepler's law, and some other stuff, that I don't know how are related to the cube, but certainly don't have negative effect on the page). I think that people do have ability to filter out noise, and just because something comes from bad guy, it should not be dismissed. I would really appreciate if you put the link back, as I don't like revert wars, and also, simulation was helpful to me, and I believe, it will be helpful to others too. Lakinekaki 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Penrose tiling

Hi, you said:

rv. Replacing svg by png seems like the wrong direction to me

but I want to point out that I replaced Image:Penrose tiling3.jpg with Image:Penrose tiling 3 iterations.png; I replaced JPEG, not SVG, with PNG.

I would have replaced the JPEG file with an SVG file, but Image:Penrose tiling 3 iterations.svg doesn't look very nice when rendered by MediaWiki, so I made the PNG manually. (MediaWiki usually converts SVG files into PNG files for Wikipedia.) --Kjoonlee 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I misread, sorry. The png does have somewhat more consistent looking strokes than MediaWiki's rendering of the svg but I don't see a big difference there. —David Eppstein 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki uses librsvg (probably version 2.14.0) to render SVG files at present, despite its known limitations. Having looked at the source for the tiling example, which is quite simple, the ugly rendering is a surprising disappointment. The default thumbnail size is 180 pixels wide; perhaps an image width that is an integer multiple of that will work better. My hunch is, the inconsistent widths are an aliasing problem in the renderer, though I wouldn't expect that from the cairo backend. --KSmrq^T 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mathematics

Hi David, Thanks for your comments. I've replied to them on the Indian Mathematics page. Will fix the Taylor series remarks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your participation in the ongoing discussion. Sir, I'm not making any claims at all; everyone who has entered the discussion seems to assume that I am an Indian nationalist intent on inflaing India's contributions. All I have done is provided citations for the already existing statements, removed the glowing praise for Indian mathematics from the intro (including words of Laplace and Einstein), removed the Indian charge of "Eurocentrism" and the very oddly written "Assesment of Vedic mathematics" section which provided a series of quotations. Sir, I have been removing flamebait material not adding it and suddenly people are lablling me as an insignificant troublemaker which is devastating to my credibility.

I have carfted a version for Indian mathematics. The version can be accessed here.

Kindly compare the version with the present Indian mathematics article, the version which to which I edited earlier and the version prior to my involvement

Judge me on my intentions and the effort I'm willing to make for this article through my examinations, sir; and not what a group of users has to say about me. I have yet to actually "make claims" and "inflate India's contribs\utions" as people automatically seem to have judged of my edits. Many regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi David, I e-mailed you several days ago about some fractal sequence I was trying to re-create in flash, I found you on here just by chance as I was browsing a reference desk page and saw you sign on there (small world!?). I havent heard back from you and was wondering if it got caught in the hole that is spam prevention, or if you're just busy? I'm still struggling with it. Capubadger 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell your email from the name you're using here, but if it was the message with subject line "Indra's Pearls?" then it was me being busy; if it was a different subject then the spam filter got it while letting through a lot of spam. On the assumption that the Indra one was you, though: if I remember correctly, that image was generated by starting with four mutually tangent circles then repeatedly inverting the configuration through its circles. There's a web site for the Indra's Pearls book. And for more on circle inversion you might also look here. —David Eppstein 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's the one. I had a look at the indra's perals site and saw things that were similar to the picture I linked to, but not quite similar enough for me to work out what's going on. I'm having a hard enough time working out the coordinates and radii of 4 mutally tangent circles :p, I'll have to look at inversion a little more closely. Capubadger 08:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian mathematics

Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Centered number Smarandache-Wellin number Fibonacci prime Centered pentagonal number Convex combination Highly cototient number Apastamba Supersingular prime Highly totient number Constraint satisfaction problem Turán's theorem 196 (number) 163 (number) David S. Johnson Tutte theorem Menger's theorem Square-free Centered cube number Neil Sloane

Cleanup Graph pebbling Computation Vertex Merge Binomial test Implicit function theorem Classless Inter-Domain Routing Add Sources Reductio ad absurdum Golden spiral Uncountable set Wikify Cardiac function curve Jakob Senneby Endelkachew Makonnen Expand Degree constrained spanning tree Fractal dimension Knight's tour

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you know...

Probably the struck out "yaoi" was removed because of yaoi. So I'm curious. Did you really mean to allude to yaoi? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 08:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I meant "thoughts on yaoi" as a catchphrase to mean going on at length about stuff very few people are likely to care about. My actual thoughts on yaoi are that I don't care to read it but don't care that it's out there either. —David Eppstein 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, ok. That went completely over my head. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly wrote it that way for my own amusement rather than in the expectation that most readers would get it. —David Eppstein 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PlanetMath bio

Just thought you might want to know there's a bio of you at PlanetMath (link: http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DavidEppstein.html) Though I think having a Wikipedia bio is the higher honor. CompositeFan 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since it doesn't seem to be on the WP entry and the PlanetMath page guesses wrong: I was born in 1963. If you have IEEE subscription access there's some documentation here. —David Eppstein 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guessed wrong. It was the NSF Young Investigator Award that made me think of the 1970s. Hopefully that was the worst of the mistakes, right? Anton Mravcek 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only other inaccuracy that I saw was that the paper from which I first got the Erdos number was earlier, via Frances Yao: Horizon theorems for lines and polygons. M. Bern, D. Eppstein, P. Plassman, and F. Yao. Discrete and Computational Geometry: Papers from the DIMACS Special Year, J. Goodman, R. Pollack, and W. Steiger, eds., DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 6, Amer. Math. Soc., 1991, 45-66. You could also see Google scholar for a better idea of which of my papers are considered important.

I used the AMS MR Collaboration Distance Web site provided by our WP article Erdős number. Like the Bacon Oracle provided by the equivalent article, the AMS oracle tends to favor newer work (a lot of actors get linked through the 2005 film Where The Truth Lies). But I will change the PM bio to use the earlier path. Anton Mravcek 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan

Thanks for your patience with me Alf^Photoman 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the same to you. This sort of thing would be a lot easier if the people writing these bios had been through a few such debates themselves and written with the expectation that their article would undergo this sort of review, rather than making us find the sources after the debate starts... —David Eppstein 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested a few times that we don't really need debates for deletion but debates for inclusion. That way all the fluff and unsourced material would never get to the view of the public. Alf^Photoman 12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Divisor function stuff

Howdy, professor. I see you edited the template I created at Template:Divisor classes and also Highly abundant number. Maybe then you are enough a mathematician or you know a math professor who can help out here. As I said at Template_talk:Divisor_classes#Heading, I had a box to create and a concept I could describe, but no name for it. The heading "Divisor class" should be changed. (The underlying template name can remain, since readers don't see it.) Also, at Talk:Divisor_function#What_is_.27.27the.27.27_divisor_function.3F I point out that "the divisor function" is used inconsistently. — Randall Bart 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a good name either, so I tried making it more of a description and less something that sounds like a name for something else. —David Eppstein 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I like the categorization scheme, too. I was just trying to logically bunch them, but you've done better. That was the first box that I created from scratch, and I spent a lot of time learning not to fight the tool. Once I got a box that looked decent I stopped. — Randall Bart 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Split graph

Hi, David!

I just read your new article. It's great! I'm not even an algebra guy, and it made sense to me. I'm glad you're able to tear free from Egyptian fractions long enough to add such excellent new content to Wikipedia.  ;^> DavidCBryant 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you found it helpful! Though I think I would call it combinatorics more than algebra... —David Eppstein 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

more graphs, enjoy

Series-parallel graph Cactus graph Operations on graphs, Hamiltonian completion. `'mikka 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I don't promise to do a lot of editing on these, but I'll take a look. —David Eppstein 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was the idea. I merely wanted to show you "Series-parallel graph" with your name inside. `'mikka 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see that. It's good to see a few articles here related to my actual research rather than my recreational math web sites. So, thanks again. —David Eppstein 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies

Hello,

I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies and listed you as a party because of your involvement at Talk:Indian mathematics.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies about what you think of Freedom skies' edits?

A summary of your comments at Talk:Indian mathematics will suffice.

Thank you.

JFD 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Would you be willing to fully support the proposition "Freedom skies cites sources which do not support his claims as well as sources which are highly suspect" under the title "Freedom skies' citations are suspect"?

CiteCop 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —David Eppstein 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done —CiteCop 10:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rafel Gely

I notice your colleague at Laval has about 10 published peer-reviewed articles (smile) DGG 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fast catch on Heppel!

Cheers, Pete.Hurd 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cellular automata

Any thoughts about creating a WikiProject for the CA articles? If you think it's a good idea, let me know at my discussion page, along with ideas for tasks, potential members &c. Alpha Omicron 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Ira Lewy

David - Am I putting this in the place you requested? I am writing about your comments about non-documented statements about Lewy. You are right; I cannot document that he had no medical privileges for the last ten years or so of his career, as it is almost impossible to document that someone DIDN'T have those privileges, only that he lost them. But there is a host of material on Lewy and the Burzynski Clinic, available by Googling Burzynski and Lewy. some of which directly or in a cached form show that he was the "Medical Director." I just don't know how to incorporate that into the text and its references. As to the credentials of the Burzynski Clinic, quackwatch is a good place to start, but again, I don't know how to connect that up to the article. There are many other references to Burzynski and his clinic by respected oncologists. My only interest here was in seeing that the original biography, with its many omissions, not be used for malevolent purposes. I am not the one, by the way, who has removed references from the bibliography and reference section. Thank you for your comments and your help in this matter. MarciamariaMarciamaria 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Close enough to the right place, thanks! I can find plenty of web pages showing some connection between Lewy and Burzynski, but sadly nothing in Google news, which would be more likely for something usable as a source in an article. It doesn't just have to be true, it also has to be documentable to go in. As for the Burzynski clinic, WP's current coverage in Stanisław Burzyński and Antineoplastons makes it look respectable; if you believe otherwise, again, you need reliable documentation. I did add a critical link to the Antineoplaston page; we'll see whether this leads to an edit war. —David Eppstein 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr Eppstein: Dr Lewy appreciates your thoughtful comments and certainly would like the original complete set of references, including the Circulation article,restored. The article was never intended as a global review of his life, merely a dry rendition of his various publications and philanthropies.At this, it has not succeeded. Best. Kingseasn.

I don't think a complete bibliography is appropriate. This is not a curriculum vitae. If there are a small number of articles that can be documented as particularly well-cited, or necessary to support the claim that Lewy has worked in some general area, it's reasonable to include them, but I don't think this is the place for a "complete set of references". —David Eppstein 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability template at PROF

David, I would support a better paragraph following the prime notability tmeplate at PROF. Please read the template. We have been successful in introducing some broader inclusion language in the template through compromise. I would support a following paragraph which acknowledges the special cases as exceptions rather than "likely" to have coverage examples. The consensus to use the template is at WP:N and it is inevitable, why not work together to make the inclusion more palatable? --Kevin Murray 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page for WP:PROF, I view the template and WP:PROF as serving completely different purposes. I think having the template there unnecessarily confuses the issue. —David Eppstein 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there room for compromise such that inclusion of the template could be acceptable? --Kevin Murray 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'd find it acceptable to include a compromise that mentions or includes the template, states that in general most academics will meet the minimum threshhold stated in the template due to their publication and citation records, and goes on to state that standards that more directly address importance are needed for academics and here they are. Is that the sort of thing you mean? I would not want to see a compromise that weakens the language of WP:PROF and directs readers to WP:N to resolve any ambiguities, though, because I see WP:N as inadequate to resolve discussions of academic notability. —David Eppstein 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to that. My concern is lack of continuity. I would rather that PROF could be covered under the creative professionals section at BIO, which has evolved in that direction, but as a compromise I can go with your concerns. I less oppose PROF than I oppose a plethora of special pages by profession. MAybe we could work together on some wording and build some consensus. Thank you for discussing this with me. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:205.161.198.57

Hey I'm just letting you know that I removed the warning you placed on this user's talkpage and replaced it with a vandalism warning rather than a "no OR" warning. The edit was pure vandalism, nothing else. Hope you don't mind. LibLord 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. —David Eppstein 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudotriangle

Hi, I was thinking of nominating Pseudotriangle for Wikipedia:Did you know, but I'm not a mathematician, so it's a little difficult for me to write a "hook". Would you be interested in trying? If so, please add it to Template talk:Did you know in the "Articles created on April 12" section. Today is the last day that it's eligible, so if you'd like to see the article on the Main Page, try and get something soon. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a suggestion there. —David Eppstein 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On 17 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pseudotriangle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe Sanchez article

In late March and early April, I added comments to the Joe Sanchez page in an effort to improve it. After weeks of inactivity I marked the article for deletion and after the time limit no changes were made and the page was deleted. Yesterday the article reappeared and the user Brentwood said it was brand new. I am at a loss of what to do. I would love to see the article stay if it is improved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typewriter (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I keep forgetting to sign. Typewriter 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)