User talk:Brirush

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

Contents

Some Wikipedia conventions[edit]

Hello. Please notice my recent edits to the article titled Finite subdivision rule. In particular, the article began thus:

A finite subdivision rule is a recursive way of refining a cell complex.

That fails to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what it's about. I revised it to say

In mathematics, a finite subdivision rule is a recursive way of refining a cell complex.

In some cases, that's not necessary. For example, in the article titled Group (mathematics), the title itself accomplishes that purpose, and the same is true of something titled Associative algebra. One might also say "In geometry,..." or "In number theory,...", etc., but not "In category theory,..." since non-mathematicians would not usually understand that that is mathematics.

Also:

  • I made the article title singular. WP:MOS says the title should be singular except when there is a special reason for it to be plural.
  • The title of the initial section was the same as the article's title. I deleted the section heading for the initial section. That is customary. At any rate, that heading was redundant.
  • WP:MOS also says one shouldn't capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading. The first letter of the heading is capitalized, and of course so are the initial letters of proper names and the like.

I also added a few links. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Research webpage[edit]

Personal Research Webpage

Disambiguation link notification for September 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open set, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem[edit]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference Elstrodt & Singh but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined. Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Frze::

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Algebraic number theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norm residue symbol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Analytic number theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ring theory[edit]

Hello! I recently noticed your contributions at Ring theory. I liked some of the modifications, but there was a large chunk of content I removed. Let me explain.

I don't know if you were aware, but in the past year there was a lot of discussion about reconciling the roles of some of the "ring" articles, and the upshot was that ring theory would talk about the theory as a whole, whereas ring (mathematics) would talk about detailed information and examples of rings.

I think if you check out the latter article, you'll see that most of what you wrote about examples of rings and ideals is already there, so it shouldn't be duplicated to that extent elsewhere. I and other editors of these articles look forward to whatever ideas you might have about them. And knowing that there are these other articles might reduce the "expansion" task you hinted at in your edit summary :) Anyhow, I'll watch your talkpage for responses in the near future, and you're always welcome to contact me on my own talkpage. Regards Rschwieb (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I see that ring (mathematics) does contain all of the material that I added. I've been trying to move all `start class' top importance articles up to at least a C. C articles are described as:

Useful to many readers. A reader would feel they generally understood the basics the topic, but there are noticeable gaps in the material presented. There may be questionable or irrelevant material or the material may not be organized in a way that makes the subject easy to understand. Will be of little or no use to a serious student or researcher.

I feel that ring theory is already at that level, if not higher. I felt that the only thing missing was a description of more of the objects used in ring theory, but I see now that that belongs to another article. I will continue on to other 'start class' articles, however, I was considering adding some image (like the formula for the distributive law, of Hamilton's famous quaternions cycle, or a diagram of a scheme, or a page from a book, or a picture of a famous ring theorist such as Emmy Noether). Brirush (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha, well I'm glad to see this effort :) A picture would be pretty cool. I don't think any ring theorists would recommend a picture of a person, but yeah, one of the quaternion picture or else the page picture from Hilbert's book at ring (mathematics) might be good candidates. Good luck in your work! Rschwieb (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Commutative algebra[edit]

You have added a section "Main tools and results" to commutative algebra. Such a section could improve the article dramatically, but not with the content you have added. In fact, except for Lasker-Noether theorem, none of the subsections are specific to the field. On the other hand the main tools that make commutative algebra a field that is different of non-commutative ring theory are not even cited. These tools include localization (including the field of fractions of an integral domain), completion, Zariski topology on prime ideals.

I could have reverted your edits, but is seems more constructive to let you correct them by yourselves.

D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it's good to have a direction to move in. I'll work on that, unless you beat me to it. I felt uneasy after my edits, but didn't know how to correct it. Brirush (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Felix Hausdorff, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Continuum, The Will to Power and Paul Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Felix Hausdorff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Continuum, The Will to Power, Cofinal, Paul Cohen and Complete

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Brirush. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your work on product (mathematics) (and, I now see, plenty of other pages as well. BTW, you might enjoy socializing at WP:WPM. User:Linas (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I was borrowing layout and equations from the German version; I know I left a lot for people to fill in, but I figured it would help people if there were a framework. I have been trying to get all 'start class' 'top importance' articles from mathematics to C class. Brirush (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to General topology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • :<math>d\colon X \times X \to [0,\infty)</math>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gromov boundary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • X</math> to be the origin. A '''geodesic ray''' is a path given by an [[isometry]] <math>\gamma:[0,\infty)\rightarrow X</math> such that each segment <math>\gamma([0,t])</math> is a path of shortest length
  • Given a point <math>p></math> in the Gromov boundary, we define the sets <math>V(p,r)=\{q\in \partial X|</math> there are

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited General topology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compact and Continuity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Closed graph theorem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cubic
Set-theoretic topology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Whitehead group

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mathematical constants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Value (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits[edit]

Wien weltausstellung med.jpg Medal of Honor
Good idea to split, the new title is: Mathematical constants and functions. Thank you. Ignacitum (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Point (geometry) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Let ''X'' be a [[metric space]]. If ''S'' ⊂ ''X'' and ''d'' ∈ [0, ∞), the ''d''-dimensional '''Hausdorff content''' of ''S'' is the [[infimum]] of the set of numbers δ
  • of [[metric space|balls]] <math>\{B(x_i,r_i):i\in I\}</math> covering ''S'' with ''r<sub>i</sub>'' > 0 for each ''i'' ∈ ''I'' that satisfies <math>\sum_{i\in I} r_i^d<\delta </math>.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Finite subdivision rule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • W. R. Parry. ''Lattès maps and subdivision rules''. Conformal Geometry and Dynamics, vol. 14 (2010, pp. 113–140.</ref>
  • subdivision rules to refine a surface to any given level of precision. These subdivision surfaces (such as [[Catmull-Clark subdivision surface]] take a [[polygon mesh]] (the kind used in 3-d

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finite subdivision rule[edit]

The article Finite subdivision rule you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Finite subdivision rule for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SnowFire -- SnowFire (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Shape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Cylinder, Line, Acute, Scalene and Obtuse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isotopy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Topology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Topology[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Topology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Philroc -- Philroc (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Topology[edit]

The article Topology you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Topology for things which need to be addressed.

Your GA nomination of Topology[edit]

The article Topology you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Topology for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Philroc -- Philroc (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clopen set, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connected component. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frequency distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • An example of a univariate (i.e single [[variable (mathematics)|variable]] frequency table. The frequency of each response to a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical statistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numerical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principle of permanence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connected component. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spectral graph theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • More formally, the [[Cheeger constant (graph theory)|Cheeger constant]]) ''h''(''G'') of a graph ''G'' on ''n'' vertices is defined as
  • : <math>h(G) = \min_{0 < |S| \le \frac{n}{2} } \frac{|\partial(S)|}{|S|},</math>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Restriction (mathematics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[injective function]] <math> f: \mathbb R\to\mathbb R; x\mapsto x^2</math> to <math> \mathbb R_+=[0,\infty) </math> is the injection <math> f: \mathbb R_+\to\mathbb R; x\mapsto x^2</math>.
  • County Durham, UK, February 5-7, 2006, Revised Selected ... Computer Science and General Issues)''. Springer (2006)</ref> Similarly, the '''range anti-restriction''' (or '''range subtraction''')

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Functional (mathematics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • thumb|The [[arc length]] functional has as its domain the vector space of [[rectifiable curve]]s (a subspace of <math>C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^3)</math>, and outputs a real scalar. This is an example of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Issai Schur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurland and Libau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elementary mathematics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fraction and Similar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Distributive property, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Difference. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Error analysis (mathematics)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Error analysis (mathematics), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://tittobagus.blogspot.com/2013/12/error-analysis_22.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Growth curve (statistics)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Growth curve (statistics), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://answerparty.com/question/answer/compare-and-contrast-logistic-and-exponential-growth-curves.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages for book refs in Symmetry[edit]

Hi, I saw you've been supplying badly-needed refs to this article, which is great. It would be even better if you could provide page ranges or chapters rather than just pointing at whole books, as it is rarely the case that the whole of a book is totally relevant to a topic, and even when it is, it is often possible to indicate specific sections to help readers and editors. It's also much easier for the person adding a ref to do this than for other editors to have to hunt down the books afterwards. Many thanks for your collaboration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James W. Cannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Adams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Equation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • de|Glenn James}} et {{Lien|lang=de|Robert C. James}} (éd.), Van Nostrand, 1968, 3 ed. 1st ed. 1948), {{p.|131}}.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Differential equation
added links pointing to Fluxion and Newton
Bernhard Riemann
added a link pointing to Abelian
Equation
added a link pointing to Equality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sequence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Separable and Compact. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Conjecture
added a link pointing to Geometrization theorem
Theoretical computer science
added a link pointing to Process

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Charney article[edit]

Pancake Braid.JPG Four-Sided Fishtail Braid.JPG Hair braiding Kinshasa 4.jpg
Woman with short braid Gambia.jpg ChiefJoseph.jpeg Long cornrows.jpg
Braid Group Award
Wow, great work! WP clearly needed an article on Dr. Charney, and the one you made is clear and well-sourced. I hereby award you this custom-made Braid Group Award as a token of gratitude!

FourViolas (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karen Mohlke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic sequencing. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spokesperson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public affairs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Addition[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Addition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Addition[edit]

The article Addition you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Addition for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Addition[edit]

The article Addition you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Addition 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 Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

help please[edit]

hi brirush,

it seems some noobs are continually reverting my edit to Pierre de Fermat, where i retitled him as a 'mathematician' as opposed to amateur.

if you look at the edit history, i am on my second revert. i understand the third would be a violation and i want to refrain from this.

however i was wondering if you could read my comments on the edit history and chime in, as i feel an inconsistent criteria is being applied.

there are many amateur mathematicians whose profiles lists them as mathematicians. in fact, i argue that the title amateur mathematician is unnecessary, but nonetheless: if the likes of ramanujan are listed under 'amateur mathematicians', yet their profile says mathematician, why should fermat be any different?

note ramanujan is just one example. my edit comments show quite a few who have this issue. given your stature in the wikimath, and my observation of your great edits to the topology sections, i am hoping you can take hold of this situation and lead the community to some sort of _reasonable_ conclusion.

ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from user page[edit]

Hey, Brirush:

I'm confused. You say about changes to the "Normal Distribution": This is a brand new paper and seems to be someone's self-reference.

The approximation is valid and used for years. Why then is the fact that it just now put in a "brand new paper" disqualify it for use in this article?

Do you object to where it is placed? Should it be placed elsewhere? What is your real concern?

Hikenstuff (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi[edit]

i'm not anti hindu. i just didn't agree with the insertion at all.

could i have voiced it in a more civil tone? probably, but the insertion of a hindu prophet was unwarranted.

i am confused as to why you felt like i was being anti hindu. while many great mathematicians were religious, none of them are considered prophets or apart of 'Series on <religion>'.

can you please share some insight as to what motivated you to say i'm anti-hindu? do you think it is appropiate that religious prophets should be listed among the 'best' mathematicians of all time?

further: i saw no other reason for the insertions other than if the individual who made them being hindu. that was my fault for speculating, however i just cannot see anyone else wanting to insert these people. i've never heard of these people prior to the insertion. on the other hand, i was exposed to the names of many mathematicians on this page (PRIOR to that edit) during my K-12 years.

as i said to dianna in a followup: i am from a country that preaches religious tolerance, so to suggest that i somehow am against that freedom is inappropriate. i am just against using religious prophets as 'prominent mathematicians'.

i am quite sure the list of mathematicians was fine as-is before that insertion. could you please provide some insight as to why you felt otherwise?

lastly: yes the other aggressive edits could have stated more politely, but i think your motivation for reporting my behaviour was more about the anti-hinduism tones. i want to be clear: i am NOT anti hindu. i am NOT anti-religion. i ENCOURAGE people exercise their rights to religious freedoms.

i just can't agree that the individual being listed 'belonged'. given that i was a beneficiary of arguably some of the best public education in the world, can you please enlighten me as to why i was incorrect? maybe you were irked by the tone of my reversions, but i vehemently stand by the fact that no prophet needs to be in the list of prominent mathematicians.

i just want to make sure we're on the same page. maybe you just didn't like my tone, but i just want to make sure we're clear and have a decent discussion about this edit.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_mathematics&diff=653914682&oldid=653780326 someone from india tried to inappropriately 'move up' the date of the history of indian mathematics to 3000 BC (from 2600 BC). proof it's an ip from india: http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/in.html

- i will let you draw your own conclusions. but i am far from anti-hindu.

oh and al-hazen was a muslim. just wanted to state that because for some reason that edit didn't get through (I still get what you were saying about the anti-religious tones, which wasn't necessarily my intent. moreso was trying to say others with religious bias were going to skew wiki in favour of the scholars who inspired them most. nonetheless i digress)

my consultation of the cited source for the original dates of 2600 to 1900 BC found that Boyer (ed 1 p208 as the cited source) stated 2000 BC.

can i get some clarification or moderation by you as to why the history starts at 2600? 174.3.213.121 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

we coo. thanks for the response homie 174.3.213.121 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition[edit]

I had put a placeholder note last week in your FAC nomination for addition, but then was unexpectedly busy and got distracted till I saw the archive note pop up on my watchlist this morning. Sorry! Kudos for taking on such a large topic. I think these very broad articles are more challenging to review, so if and when you take it back to FAC I think it always helps to have people who know the subject aware of the nomination and ready to provide comments.

Some general suggestions from reading through the article:

  • A possible coverage gap is the absence of information about adding and teaching addition in traditional, pre-industrial societies. (I wondered if the Piraha people would come up - whose language supposedly lacks number words and who supposedly are unsuccessful in learning addition - though I don't remember if those claims turned out to hold up.) You do mention Rome but nothing about the mechanistic process of adding in Roman numerals, and I don't see anything about numeral representation in other writing systems or in societies without written language. (IIRC writing numbers for trade purposes generally precedes a full written language?)
  • On the same theme, most of the discussion of education ("In primary school,..." etc.) implicitly assumes an educational system in the western tradition. It would be interesting to know if/how addition is taught in places with little formal education, and if any major educational systems have distinctive ways of teaching. Expanding that section would be a better use of space than the full addition table, where just one or two columns would suffice considering virtually all readers will be familiar with the idea.
  • "positive fractions are added before negative numbers are even considered; this is also the historical route" - it would be interesting to flesh the reasons for this out a bit more; I was surprised by it. (I'm pretty sure I learned the other way around, at least.)
  • The ASCII-art examples of stacked column addition (is there a name for this?) could be improved or supplemented as images. An animation illustrating "carrying" would be particularly effective in comparison to the text version.
  • My understanding is that American early education has recently been emphasizing the early discovery of the pattern-based strategies you list, where previously there was emphasis on memorization. Is that true? Can you expand that section with studies of how effective this kind of education is? Currently that section is just a list of common mental-math tricks.
  • Overall, I think (as a non-mathematician) that this article does a good job touching on the relevant more technical aspects without getting bogged down in explaining formal concepts that have their own, mostly well-developed articles. The history, culture, and education side of things is a little weaker, and that stands out more because the related articles in those topic areas are also weaker.

Anyway, I wanted to give a few suggestions since I had intended to review the article in more depth and the timing didn't work out. Good luck! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Guessing[edit]

Since you worked on Conjecture, I was wondering if you might be interested in improving the draft at Draft:Guess. I am particularly interested in finding some good page images to illustrate the concept of guessing. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistake on Principle of Permanence[edit]

There is no version of the "Principal of Permanence" fro two variables. For example f(z,w)=z vanishes on set with accumulation point. Gamelin has no discussion in two or more variables. This was really bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost-n-translation (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamelin is a book concerning holomorphic functions in one complex variable. You wrote in the Wikipedia article that f(z,w) is an analytic function and you cited Gamelin. This would require that the notion of an analytic function of two variables be defined in Gamelin. gamelin doesn't do this. Instead he supposes the function is separately analytic (which turns out by Hartog's theorem to be equivalent). In any case, the example that I provided is not an opinion, it is a counterexample to the statement that you made. You apparently did not understand what is written in Gamelin, and so you wrote something that is not logically equivalent. It's really dangerous for someone who apparently has no training in mathematics to put things that he thinks he understands up on a Wikipedia page. That's not an opinion.Lost-n-translation (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about warring over this article. Anyone who reads the article will notice that the section you inserted has several mistakes (such as Latex not working), and will look in the history to find the original statement. Because you cannot change the user history, I will not bother making any new changes. Brirush (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to fix either. I am deleting the section that you created because the statement was not correct and did not agree with what Gamelin wrote. What Gamelin wrote is correct. If you want to write exactly what Gamelin wrote, then I will have no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost-n-translation (talkcontribs) 17:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And my point is not to got to war over this, but to make you aware that you just can't misquote mathematical statements in Wikipedia. It's really bad for Wikipedia. I want to tell my PhD students that they can use wikipedia, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost-n-translation (talkcontribs) 17:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)