User talk:Twri

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Altenmann (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Twri, 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:

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! Bearian (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

Several of your recent recategorizations to Category:Graphs do not fit, because they are not about specific graphs. For instance, Mycielskian, implication graph, quasi-bipartite graph, etc., are bad fits to this category. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered/commented in User talk:David Eppstein. Twri (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single graph, agin

By this logic, husband is a single person, because you can define it as "the husband of a woman is the person the woman is married with".

The point is that every hypergraph has a primal graph. This is to say, 100 hypergraphs have 100 primal graphs. Tizio 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom (functional)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Blossom (functional), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cramster.com/reference/wiki.aspx?wiki_name=Blossom_(mathematics). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm. Twri (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conical combination

Hello. I came across the article conical combination that you created and I wondered whether you could please check it. I think you have to drop the condition $\sum _{i}\alpha _{i}=1$ . Furthermore, I didn't find a definition for conical combination on the page that you put in the references, but assuming that coni(…) on that page refers to conical combinations, it confirms that the coefficients need not sum to 1. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Constraint satisfaction"

If you start an article by saying "In constraint satisfaction...", I can easily imagine the lay reader thinking it's about sexual fetishes, or about jurisprudence, or about international banking, or a variety of other things. But if you tell them it's mathematics or computer science, they will understand (even if they don't understand). E.g.: "In the problem of constraint satisfaction in computer science,..." Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

related to fractal chaos

in article on artificial neural networks, related to holographic like neural networks I send you some references:

Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and perception: holonomy and structure in figural processing. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0898599954. [http://books.google.com/books?id=nsD4L2zsK4kC&pg=PA111&lpg quote of « fractal chaos » neural network

J.C. Perez, « Digital holograms computers », in Neural Networks : biological computers or electronic brains - Les entretiens de Lyon – (directed by "Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon") - Springer-Verlag Editors 1990

J.C. Perez, Fractal Chaos: a new neural network holographic model, International Neural Networks Society (INNS) conference Boston USA in NEURAL NETWORKS international publication, 1988.

J.M. Bertille, J.C. Perez, « A spatio temporal novelty detector using FRACTAL CHAOS model », IJCNN conference, Washington, 1990, published by NEURAL NETWORKS (INNS).

J.C. Perez, Jerry Magnan, J.M. Bertille, « Global optimization with a lattice dynamic system », SIAM dynamic systems conference, Orlando USA, 1990.

J.C. Perez, De nouvelles voies vers l'intelligence artificielle (pluri-disciplinarité, auto-organisation et réseaux neuronaux), editor Masson Paris - 1988 and 1989

J.C Perez,Integers neural network systems (INNS) using resonance propertiesof a Fibonacci's chaotic `golden neuron', in in: Neural Networks, 1990., 1990 IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural networks, Publication Date: 17-21 Jun 1990 On page(s): 859-865 vol.1 [1]

sincerely yours jc perez

Jean-claude perez (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, however this is your original research. Please find sources which say that your research is notable. There are millions of scientific articles published. Wikipedians cannot judge their notability. Only multiple independent publications/reviews/citations by peers may do this. Twri (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Aaronson

With regards to this edit, why should "Complexity Zoo" be in boldface? —Werson (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —Werson (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter

Dear Twri, related to the article about parameters. I noticed that you removed an explanation about 'parameters' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parameter&diff=next&oldid=242991093). I was interested in why this explenation was removed? To me it seemed like a simple, first step, in explaining parameters. I placed the explanation at "simple english", but i believe (unless this example is really incorrect) that it would be very usefull to most readers to place it back in the main text.--Joost.vp (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Other complete problems

Category:Other complete problems, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could shed some light on the meaning of your previous comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_8#Category:Other_complete_problems, I think it would be beneficial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please...

WRT your comment on the {{afd}}...

Several people suggested there was sufficient material for an article with a title something like Shoma Holmes incident or Shoma Holmes incidents. If I understood your comment your position was that there was not sufficient material for an article entitled Shona Holmes. Could you please think about whether your concerns would be satisfied if the article was renamed to something like Shoma Holmes incident or Shoma Holmes incidents?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polytope families

Hi,

I moved your renaming request to Talk:Polytope families, where folk can make suggestions. Do you have a better idea what to call it? I know it could be better, but I can't think of what that might be. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mark Watson (author)

The article Mark Watson (author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Please note, this article is about Mark Watson the author of "Royal Families Worldwide" and should not be confused with other Mark Watsons. The Notability tag has been on this article for 11 months without it being improved. The only sources listed were produced by the subject himself. The citation for the claim that he has "a reputation for providing straight-forward facts and impartial advise" is taken from the publicity materials for his own book. The article reads like self-promotion. The author's book, "Royal Families Worldwide," his main claim to notability, was first self-published and they reprinted by a vanity press. Despite the article's claim that "He has written books" (note the plural) amazon.com only lists the one book[2] and the author link on amazon.com's page for "Royal Families Worldwide" list only the one book by this Mark Watson[3]. (Note that the books amazon lists as refering to "Mark Watson" actually cite "Mark R. Watson" a different individual[4] and there are other amazon pages for unrelated Mark Watsons.) Amazon does not have a sales rank or a review for "Royal Families Worldwide" indicating that despite its decade in print it has not achieved much notice. I have looked at "Royal Families Worldwide": it has an entry for each current "monarch" which consists of a public domain photo of the monarch followed by a few sentences (filing half a page) stating his or her name, DOB, and other very brief biographical details. In every case, wikipedia's own articles on the monarch in question have much more information than that contained in this expert book. Mr. Watson's other claim to fame is that the served as "secretary" to the ex-king of Rwanda (a man who was over-thrown as a child and has not even visited Rwanda in fifty years) and as "aide-de-camp" to an obscure "prince" of the long overthrown Burmese monarchy. The claims "Prince" Shwebomin of Burma are openly questioned on numerous websites[5][6] [7] and the "prince" does not have a wikipedia article. In short, Watson seems to be the author of an obscure book that no one is reading, a secretary to an obscure monarch, and an "aide-de-camp" to someone who is not notable enough for his own article. At this point, it might be worth noting that if King Kigili's article only moves beyond the "stub" classification by including information on obscure self-proclaimed experts like Mark Watson. I am sure Mr. Watson is a nice person, but he clearly is not notable and this article seems to exist solely as part of a self-promotion scheme for individuals assigning themselves exotic titles in the courts of non-reigning and possibly fantasy royalty. I am sure I have wasted my time writing this since Mr. Watson's friends will surely pop-up to declare his importance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my edits, when you have nothing constructive to add, MR. Tiwari.192.87.123.159 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you provide no proof of correctness of your statements. Please see wikipedia policy "Cite your sources". Twri (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical objects has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mathematical objects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neural network (disambiguation)

The article Neural network (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]