User talk:Glrx

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ray^Talk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

MATTLAS Implementation

MATTLAS BLAS is a full implementation for x86_64 supporting AVX. There are only two open source BLAS libraries in existence that support the AVX instruction set, OpenBLAS is the other (GotoBLAS doesn't support it, everything else is closed source). MATTLAS BLAS is a full BLAS implementation, as the subsection of BLAS implies, that uses a novel task based technique that scales better than many other (including closed source) options. I encourage you to check the Wiki for MATTLAS BLAS for more information.

Toluene Article

Toluene is used in the synthesis of the antipsychotic drug Haloperidol wherein Heating 4-chloro-1-(4-fluorophenyl)butan-1-one with 4-(p-chlorophenyl)piperadine-4-ol in presence of potassium iodide as catalyst and toluene as solvent affords [[4-[4-(4-chlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1-piperidyl]-1-(4-fluorophenyl)butan-1-one]] also called Haloperidol brand name Haldol.

Glrx..... Why are you defending the removal of this edit from this article when it is a genuine use of this chemical and has a reference. The only thing I can see that removing it serves is special interests that want to keep such things a secret. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D5B6:C1CD:4D8E:9B53 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the edit because I think the application is too narrow for the article. Two different editors removed it before I did,[1][2] but you reverted both of them. I reverted you a third time and left a WP:3RR warning on your talk page. If you believe the material should be in the article, then it falls to you to start a discussion at Talk:Toluene and get a consensus to include it. See WP:BRD.

That a statement is sourced does not guarantee that it should be included in an article. Reporting every application of a common chemical would bloat an article and make it read like a laundry list.

The synthesis may be appropriate at the Haloperidol article, but I take no position about its inclusion.

However, I'd be careful. Your mid-sentence capital-H "Heating in presence of potassium iodide as catalyst and toluene as a solvent affords" shows a cut-and-paste WP:COPYVIO of the cited source. If you cut and paste, then you must use quotation marks.

Glrx (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D5B6:C1CD:4D8E:9B53 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent history. Talk:Toluene#Toluene as used to make Haldol Should be added to Uses Glrx (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eric Grimson

Background: Tumbultaaron added material to Eric Grimson; it was removed as a BLP violation[3] by User:Silvrous who also left a talk page warning.[4] Tumbultaaron readded the material, and I reverted[5] and left a talk page message.[6] Tumbultaaron reverted[7]. I reverted[8] and left 3rr and BLP warnings.[9] Tumbultaaron reverted yet again[10] and left the 3rr warning below. Glrx (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eric Grimson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tumbultaaron (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your background documentation: Please correct these sources accordingly. The material that was removed by User:Silvrous is not the same as the one that was added later on. The material pertaining to Aaron Swartz and Eric Grimson are well known and documented. I can add more references if need be, but that should not be necessary at this point. You seem to be wanting to engage in an edit-war so as to keep hiding the truth. By properly documenting and references facts and figures, I have not committed any wrong doing. Tumbultaaron (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to supply better references for BLP material. Blogs and wikis are not acceptable; you have already half-way acknowledged that your current sourcing is unsatisfactory.[11] You should self-revert your reinsertion at Eric Grimson and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. WP:BRD Glrx (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not already half-way acknowledged anything. I made an observation about something. And I have supplied an additional references that documents Eric Grimson's involvement. Note, that as Chancellor of the university, he is responsible for leading these investigations anyhow. this is public knowledge, just like Grimson's and Abelon's long time friendship is. Tumbultaaron (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, Tumbultaaron's edits violate WP:BLP through their non-neutral tone, it is clearly skewed against the subject of this article. Also, the provided references only tangentially refer to Grimson, making this seem like original research on his part. The controversy can, of course, be mentioned, but in a neutral tone, using a language that properly expresses that this is the opinion that some hold, not a fact. Silvrous ^Talk 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent history. Rather than continuing to revert, I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive178#Eric Grimson to get other eyes; the edit was removed. Tumbultaaron persisted, and User talk:Tumbultaaron's history shows many interactions (lots of warnings were removed). There were two topics at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Outing and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Talk:Eric Grimson needs eyes, that resulted in Tumbultaaron and User talk:Macgovern1 being indefinitely blocked. Tumbultaaron's talk page access was eventually removed.[12] Glrx (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Analog to digital converter

Hi, you made a somewhat ambiguous edit to this article and I'd like to know what your reasoning is. You disagreed with "The resolution of the converter ... determines the magnitude of the quantization error" and changed that to say "determines the lower bound". Can you explain what you meant by that remark? Are you thinking of nonuniform sampling strategies? Or something else?18.62.28.248 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Gull

Hello Glrx,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Steve Gull for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Merge_sort Top down implementation

I added a new section for the talk page. Hoping for some feedback before I spend any more time trying to get the top down example similar in style to the bottom up example:

Talk:Merge_sort#Top_down_implementation

Rcgldr (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this topic got lost in a mess of other events. I was tempted to revert your edits, but wanted to think about them some more. Another editor came along and did the revert. You're clearly trying to make things better, but sometimes adding too much detail can be a bad thing. There's also something to be said for sorting linked lists rather than sorting arrays. Glrx (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Heterodyne

This is regarding your undo-ing of my edit on the Heterodyne page. I believe the statement that "heterodynes are closely related to the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics" is misleading, especially to people who are not experts in the field (presumably the audience for the article). Beats in acoustics are fundamentally linear, certainly for the acoustic power levels commonly encountered, while heterodyning is essentially nonlinear. While your terse comment on the revert that "products of sines are equivalent to sums" is correct as a statement, it rather misses the point. The difference between heterodyne signals and beats is easily illustrated. For example: consider a superposition ("beat") signal S(t) = A sin(2 pi f1 t) + B sin(2 pi f2 t) with A \neq B. The spectrum of this signal contains (unequal amounts of) power at frequencies f1 and f2. On the other hand, a beat signal S'(t) = A sin(2 pi f1 t) x B sin(2 pi f2 t) contains *equal* power at f1+f2 and f1-f2.

I would appreciate it if you would restore my edit (or some equivalent of it) on the heterodyne page. Please feel free to let me know if any of the above requires more explanation, or if you have any questions.

AmarChandra (talk)

Sorry I'm replying late, but I've been fighting a string of problems outside of wikipedia -- and losing browser histories.

Chetvorno reverted the edit, and I agree with him. I reverted based on the math identity and not the necessity for some nonlinearity to create cross products.

I agree with your math but disagree with the conclusion. There are amplitude values were the effect is complete. Different amplitudes would affect the depth of the null. Furthermore, mixing in real life is seldom perfect.

I haven't had time to pull the IEEE article, but if it presumes that human hearing is linear, then I'd have to disagree. I can sense the amplitude of a signal.

Glrx (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Quadratic

Hello Glrx. I put some quotes into the footnotes of the quadratic equation article, plus rephrased a little bit. I hope that takes care of the problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Talk:Quadratic equation#Quadratic formula in the lead

The record is currently a mess. User:JamesBWatson's edit removed my and some other editors' comments. I've got to paw through that to see if it is salvageable.

I still oppose your changes. I'm neutral about including the quadratic formula in the lede, but your statements go too far. In addition, I have trouble with the weight of the sources.

Glrx (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to salvage that stuff. If you get a chance, I'm wondering if you could give an example of how to present the quadratic formula in the lead that would be acceptable. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that more. Focusing on the QF may be too pointed. The QF is important in applied fields and high school algebra, but I'm not sure how to rank it for mathematics in general. That's also where I have trouble with your sources: they are technical/engineering/high school texts, so their opinion doesn't give broad coverage. The QF is also something of a fluke. There are are formulas for third and fourth order polynomials, but they are rarely used. The first order is so simple that it is largely skipped over as just an algebraic manipulation. Glrx (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies for accidentally removing a whole chunk of comments from the talk page. I'm not sure how that happened: perhaps I edited the wrong revision of the page by mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  I know you are one of the good guys.... Glrx (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for offering to think about whether there is an acceptable way to put the quadratic formula in the lead of our Wikipedia article about the quadratic equation. I've just assembled the following list of sources that may be useful to you.

• [1]Blanton, Floyd. Modern College Algebra, p. 162 (McGraw-Hill, 1967): "The quadratic formula is the most powerful method for solving quadratics since it can be used to solve any quadratic."

• [2]Li, Xuhui. An Investigation of Secondary School Algebra Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Algebraic Equation Solving, p. 56 (ProQuest, 2007): "The quadratic formula is the most general method for solving quadratic equations and is derived from another general method: completing the square."

• [3]Jahr, Cathy. Barron's How to Prepare for the Tennessee Gateway High School Exit Exam in Algebra, p. 137 (Barron's Educational Series, 2005): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics because it is a method for solving all quadratic equations."

• [4]Heywood, Arthur. Intermediate algebra: lecture-lab, p. 235 (Dickenson Pub. Co., 1975): "The quadratic formula is one of the most important formulas in mathematics, and we will now spend some time studying many different ways of using it."

• [5]McConnell, John. Algebra, p. 603 (Scott Foresman 1993): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most famous formulas in all of mathematics. You should memorize it today."

• [6]Banks, John. Elements of Algebra, p. 97 (Allyn and Bacon, 1962): "The quadratic formula is one of the most useful formulas in elementary mathematics. You should be certain you know what it is and how to use it. Many other equations can be solved by first reducing them to quadratic form."

• [7]Larson, R. and Hodgkins A. College Algebra with Applications for Business and Life Sciences, p. 104 (Cengage Learning 2009): "The Quadratic Formula is one of the most important formulas in algebra, and you should memorize it."

• [8]Smith, R. and Peterson, J. Introductory Technical Mathematics, pp. 408-409 (Cengage Learning 2006): "The factoring method has limited application. Only certain quadratic equations can be solved by factoring. Completing the square…can be a rather long and complicated procedure and is seldom used in practical applications. [The] quadratic formula…is the most useful method for solving complete quadratic equations."

• [9]Payne, M. Intermediate Algebra, p. 289 (West Publishing 1985): "While the method of completing the square may be used to solve quadratic equations, it is more involved than the quadratic formula, and is seldom used in practical work."

• [10]Davis, L. Technical Mathematics, p. 174. (Merrill Publishing 1990): "You can use the quadratic formula, as well as completing the square, to solve any quadratic equation. However, you will find that the quadratic formula is easier to use."

• [11]Dugopolski, Mark. Algebra for College Students, p. 541 (McGraw Hill 2006): "Any quadratic equation can be solved by completing the square or using the quadratic formula. Because the quadratic formula is usually faster, it is used more often than completing the square."

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you are trying to go with these sources. Nobody doubts that the QF is widely used. The sources that state QF is easier/faster than completing the square seem more like a passing remark about human effort rather than a serious study about efficiency. The statement also strikes me as a bit odd because the QF can be viewed as an expression of completing the square (and if the quadratic is monic to begin with, completing the square is simple). I also doubt the need to inject such a statement in the lede. Your earlier edits to the lede were strong statements about QF's significance in algebra, and most of the sources above do not seem qualified to make such as assessment. WP wants a source that would survey the field, but the above sources are more focused on teaching the fundamentals of technical or intermediate algebra rather than surveys of algebra.

Glrx (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. When I initially looked for the QF on Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I expected that it would have its own article, given that it is one of the most well-known and frequently-used of all mathematical equations. When I found that it had no article of its own, and was instead buried deep in the article about the quadratic equation, this concerned me. My feeling was that a person who reads nothing more than the lead ought to at least see what the QF looks like, because it's an equation that every student of mathematics should memorize. I think that's a very widely held view. Anyway, I obviously have no personal stake in burying or unburyng the QF, and my only concern is good article-writing. At this point, if you don't see any acceptable way to put the QF in the lead, then I'm certainly not going to try and put it there. I did the best search through Google Books that I could. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)