User talk:David Eppstein/2010c

Geometric Progression

Don't know quite who is the general custodian of this page but technically in the summation formula you should run from k=1 to k=n and not from k=0 to k=n. The nth term is customarily ar^n-1 and not arⁿ. So the summation formula should read $S_{n}={\frac {a(r^{n}-1)}{r-1}}$ or alternatively ${\frac {a(1-r^{n})}{1-r}}$. In the derivation of this formula the final term in the sequence is ar^n-1 and not arⁿ.

Neil Parker (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with summing n+1 terms instead of n, and making the exponent on the last term be n instead of n−1. It's just a trivial change of variable. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is of course not technically wrong at all. You could always (equally trivially) sum n+101 terms and make the last term's exponent be n+100 if you like. But with due respect this is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia and therefore as far as possible should abide by well established convention in which arithmetic/geometric sequences are defined over n terms beginning with n=1. With T_n=a+(n-1)d and ar^n-1 respectively to ensure the first term in both cases is just a. And then we sum n terms - not n+1 terms. Sorry to 'nitpick' but I think it's a point that ought to be made.

Neil Parker (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that n means "the number of terms". With that assumption, the convention you describe makes sense. But n could equally well be interpreted to mean "the exponent of the last term". With that assumption, the other convention makes sense. I don't know of a natural meaning for n that would make sense of having n+101 terms ending at an exponent of n+100. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A fundamental definition of the term finite sequence is a function whose domain is the set of positive integers {1,2,3...n}. So we start the sequence at position 1 and we end at position n. And by this definition n is indeed the number of terms in the sequence. Notation such as T_n= ... or S_n=... relies on this definition and will undoubtedly become ambiguous if we start inventing alternate interpretations of n however 'natural' they may be.

Neil Parker (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more common in higher mathematics to start at 0, actually. But, more importantly, this is NOT a definition: it's just a convention. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention or definition? Fundamental to the concept is the idea that you have a set of tangible discrete elements and when you count tangible discrete elements (sheep, pencils, people or whatever) you start at 1 which is the common sense rationale for mathematically defining a sequence over the set of positive integers.

Neil Parker (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortune's algorithm

Thanks for reverting! I realised overnight that there are two different projections in play. Came in this morning to revert, but found you'd got there first.

Fortune's paper uses an oblique projection that transforms the edges in the Voronoi diagram into hyperbolae. This treatment – an orthogonal projection of the parabola representing equidistance from scan line and a site, which projects the Voronoi edge hyperbolae to lines – is clearer. Michael Fourman (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the way it's described in the Dutch book. Sometimes I forget that the original paper did it a little differently. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested

You voted in this AfD. It was closed in six days, than the minimum seven. The article was re-created (though not by me), and was tagged with a speedy. I have contested the speedy, while not removing it myself. Just thought I'll leave a note for reference. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

Please arbitrate my allegation of wikihounding

Since you are an administrator, I ask that you arbitrate my allegation that Arthur Rubin is harassing me with destructive reversions. While I recognize that much of the reverting he does is legitimate enforcement of Wikipedia rules, it seems that in many cases (not just mine--see his talk page and its archives) he is hampering people's legitimate efforts. I am an editor with hundreds of constructive edits, and not some fringe crackpot.

My specific complaints are outlined on his talk page in a 5 July 2010 entry. I ask that you consider a temporary block on him as a warning.

If you are unwilling to arbitrate or feel that you have a conflict of interest (having sided with him or against him in the past), please pass this request along to a neutral arbitrator.

Thanks very much. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I only see three reversions of your edits among his last 50, and they all look like appropriate removals of inane wikilinks to me. I don't think this is wikihounding, and I don't think it needs any administrative attention. I think you should take this episode as constructive criticism and think seriously about making your edits be more useful rather than whining about being unappreciated. I'm not going to pass your request along, I'm certainly not going to block him over this, and if I see you making such requests elsewhere I'm going to come out against them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you won't. But did you even look at my reasoning on his talk page? I challenge you to explain why any of my links that he reverted are "inane", as you put it. For example, please explain why linking "quintic equation" to "sextic equation" is inane.

Also, please show me where I was "whining about being unappreciated"—I don't recall that. In fact I believe I am appreciated on Wikipedia. Please be civil. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

BINGO

You left out Bo Jacoby (!). What do I win? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I haven't had the misfortune to encounter him often enough to remember. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Graph style

Hello. To avoid copyvio issues with MathWorld, I have changed the style of my graphs: [1] I have also redrawn a few of them. For the large graphs with low-order LCF notations, I have chosen new Hamiltonian cycles.

In fact, Wikipedia will be prettier if all the graphs use the same style. Now can I change the style of your graphs? I have done it on File:Goldner-Harary graph.svg (as an example).

I have also added some sources for my layouts. If there are remaining problems with copyright, please, let it know. Koko90 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Recoloring the vertices doesn't particularly bother me, in the cases where the colors aren't already meaningful, if that's what you mean. I don't think I'd want the ones where I'm already using multiple colors to highlight some features of the graph (such as File:Branch-decomposition.svg) to be recolored. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Koko90 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete 'Elaine Mardis' article

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know I couldn't reuse my own material on this site. I believe this is why you deleted my article on 'Elaine Mardis.' Would you mind restoring the article and I will rewrite it so it no longer contains copyright issues? Many thanks, --Gremerow (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not restore copyright-violating content, but it seems I don't have to: it appears to be the same as what's currently on your userpage. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've restored the material myself so it no longer violates copyright - can you tell me if it will still be targeted for deletion? Thanks, --Gremerow (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. The US News and CBS News cites look like enough for notability, and her citation record in Google scholar looks well more than enough for WP:PROF. Some of the basic factual information in the article (her education and current and previous positions) could use citations to third-party sources, though.

Added additional citations/references. Thanks, --Gremerow (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you close this AFD? (Siemens PLM Software)

This AFD was opened more than a month ago and hasn't been commented upon since July 9th. The consensus looks pretty clear to me. Would you consider closing this AFD? (I would close it myself if I had not voted on it.) Thanks--Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Mardis

When you closed this discussion you only dealt with the one article. The AfD mentioned two other articles (George Weinstock and Timothy Ley) and although it's debatable whether they should have been added to the AfD they are still AfD tagged with the tag pointing at this discussion so some clean up is necessary. As closer of this AfD I was wondering if you'd be so good as to look into it and tidy it up. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the copyright problems on all three articles have been resolved. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it would appear they got resolved a couple of hours after I left you a message but I haven't been around on Wikipedia to notice and let you know. Dpmuk (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Incompleteness talk page

Thanks for moving the thread I started there. I had thought about it moving it myself (or archiving it), but I hesitated to move it before other people had a chance to respond. The argument was devolving, as you pointed out, to the same argumentative historical revisionism as before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Could you please not semi-protect that page? I've been posting to it for a long time, and there are lots of good editors working in math articles from IP addresses in general. Just revert any edits that appear to contravene the Hewitt ban, and block any IP's that make those edits. 67.122.211.208 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you can't make a login for yourself? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I had one a long time ago but I quit using it. I'm a much happier editor this way so I have no interest in turning back. 67.122.211.208 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch that we've have one longstanding IP editor from San Francisco (formerly this IP). Unfortunately most of the Hewitt socks are in California as well. My personal preference, at least slightly, is to just be more proactive in moving comments to the arguments page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, given both of your requests to do so I've unprotected the talk page again. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The situation isn't really good either way. Maybe it will improve when the school year starts. If it gets worse, I will not argue against protection. I'm on the fence as it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the editor CBM linked to (and 67.122.211.208) are both me. I don't understand why either of you have a problem treating ban evaders in the traditional fashion per WP:BAN: revert and block on sight. I realize that Hewitt has done some worthwhile stuff as a CS academic but on Wikipedia he and his socks are simply unredeemable abusers and spammers. It may just be that in mathematical logic Hewitt's activities are no more than a nuisance, but in computer science things are much worse. They have made sizeable swaths of Wikipedia unreliable. Anything having to do with actor languages or Scheme needs massive rewriting and cleanup that will probably never happen, so they will stay full of Hewitt's self-aggrandizement and revisionism. Please also see this discussion proposing a fullscale ban, also initiated by me, but which didn't go anywhere. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: if of any interest, Hewitt has moved some of his antics over to Lambda the Ultimate (theory-oriented programming language blog): [2]. I guess they'll figure out his game sooner or later. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahinda Pathegama

Hi David, I am little taken aback by the comments left by an editor against me in the above article. This the first time such an accusation has made against me. Well, I am not from the UK, I live in Sri Lanka and I have no association whatsoever with this professor or any of the contributors to the article. As you might have noticed there clearly we have two camps here, Pathegama-praisers and Pathegama-attackers. As an independent Wikipedian who has been here for two and a half years, I won't bow down both parties' personnel attacks or POV of their opinion on the subject. Thinking of Keep !voting in the AfD. Hope you can assist me on the personnel attacks and vouch for my identity as a genuine, NPOV Wikipedian. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination)

Dear David I have looked up Motl on both Web of science and Scopus. Web of science calculates a h-index of 8 and total citations of 419 for the 12 articles. Scopus also yields a h-index of 8 - these seem a lot different from your figures. Do you know what I might be doing wrong or what the explanation might be? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

It could be simply a matter of using an index that only looks at dead trees and not at the arxiv, where as I understand it all high energy physics research is done these days. I did only the most basic Google Scholar search by author [3]. Note, for instance, that his most highly cited paper in GS ("Proposals on nonperturbative superstring interactions", nearly 300 citations) exists only as an arxiv paper and not in journal form. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

photo of Little River

Thanks for the photo!—Stepheng3 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I added a few more of some other nearby spots. But the weather in the Mendocino area wasn't good for photography, this visit, or I would have taken more. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Metric dimension

Based upon Deza & Deza, I made Metric dimension a disambiguation page. It previously redirected to Metric dimension (graph theory), but clearly the term has several disparate meanings. I only linked it to two other pages, but I'm sure several more should be added. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the right way to handle it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Konocti Harbor

Courcelles 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been busy

I see from my watchlist that you've been busy improving a bunch of California geography articles. This is one of my areas of interest, and I'm pleased with your contributions. Thank you and please keep up the good work. Cheers! --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just returned from a long road trip to northern California, and that generally perks my interest in the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

John C. Wright (author)

Thanks for your contributions to protect this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shibley Rahman

You obviously have a lot of experience, but I just simply feel you are wrong.

You haven't addressed any of my points, especially you choose to ignore that the Brain paper is cited as a key reference in the current edition of the 'Oxford Textbook of Medicine' which is one of the world's most prestigious textbooks for all physicians. Consultants and Professors even use it.

I have written this below elsewhere but please do not take any of it personally.

Regards though.

A person has written

Delete. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the article has few or no reliable sources that are actually about its subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

CLEARLY the person has not read any of the above. H If you do a Google search on "quality of life" or "Freezing of gait" for the Parkinson's disease articles, also using "Rahman" "Griffin" and "Jahanshahi", you'll find all the papers cited in the Google Search. Going to the actual papers will then tell you how the paper has been specifically discussed.

Furthermore, for "frontotemporal dementia", "Rahman", "Hodges", and try any of the papers cited in the references, you will find the papers discussed in the actual papers.

As I said, many of them are international reviews not done by Rahman.

Your person above, David Eppstein, has FAILED.

And he should NOT ignore the fact that the Brain study has been cited in one of the world's leading reference for medicine.

I find therefore the manner of Eppstein's remark INCORRECT.

In his communication, I find no evidence that he has addressed any of the points in the discussion above, which is clearly wrong.

Articleman11 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Articleman11

I didn't as such answer your question, David. I am disabled,

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

This research has made a huge impact for a decade. It is a massively cited paper, and a lot of the papers in the article themselves are independent reviews of the work in book chapters or journal reviews

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Dr Rahman received an academic scholarship at Cambridge which is one of the UK's top universities.

The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Dr Rahman has been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society for Encouragement in the Arts, Commerce and Enterpreneurship; and been elected as a Member of the Society of Biology. . The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

I posted some of the details of http://www.lawandmedicine.wordpress.com., http://www.twitter.com/lawandmedicine, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-and-Medicine-Limited/256834847084?ref=ts, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=153399719297&ref=ts, and I have a Wellcome Trust grant currently under review for a series of podcasts.

SR has therefore attempt to make an impact in law and medicine outside a formal academic setting. Furthermore, whilst disabled, he chose to work unpaid for a year in the information department of a medical charity, given my knowledge of medicine (this also has been deleted by one of the moderators completely unhelpfully: but the evidence he can't delete is here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/drshibleyrahman )

Please note that a friend of mine Daniel Hahn has a stub more or less, and his profile is there nonetheless. Please apply your standards FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY!

Articleman11 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Articleman11

he research discussed fairly, with reference to many other international groups other than Cambridge, is cutting edge research in Cambridge. It is hard to know how you assess notifiability, the success of an academic, and these numbers will mean more to you than me, However, clearly a paper which has been cited 250 times by other journals (if that what it means) does merit coverage in a non-specialist source such as Wikipedia, if the whole aim of Wikipedia is to intend to educate? I think in all these rules you've lost sight of the actual purpose of Wikipedia, as explained in fact by your CEO.

I looked up the Rahman papers on Google scholar

Specific cognitive deficits in mild frontal variant frontotemporal dementia oxfordjournals.org [HTML] S Rahman, BJ Sahakian, JR Hodges, RD Rogers, TW … - Brain, 1999 - Oxford Univ Press Cited by 214 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 7 versions

Paroxetine does not improve symptoms and impairs cognition in frontotemporal dementia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial JB Deakin, S Rahman, PJ Nestor, JR Hodges, BJ … - …, 2004 - Springer Cited by 74 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 7 versions

Methylphenidate ('Ritalin') can ameliorate abnormal risk-taking behavior in the frontal variant of frontotemporal dementia

S Rahman, TW Robbins, JR Hodges, MA … - …, 2005 - nature.com Cited by 27 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 10 versions

Quality of life in Parkinson's disease: the relative importance of the symptoms hi.is [PDF] S Rahman, HJ Griffin, NP Quinn, M … - Movement …, 2008 – Cited by 46 - Related articles - All 8 versions

The factors that induce or overcome freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease S Rahman, HJ Griffin, NP Quinn, M Jahanshahi - Behavioural neurology, 2008 - Cited by 5 - Related articles - All 2 versions

Articleman11 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Articleman11

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that the longer and more rambly and more argumentative you are, the less persuasive you are? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That was simply rude AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Do not be offensive, please. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

Whilst I'm on the point, where exactly am I touting myself as a university academic? Is Wikipedia suddenly anti-intellectual? I am clearly described as having an interest in education and teaching.

I am not pretending to be an ACADEMIC,

Articleman11 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Articleman11

DYK for Ten Mile River (California)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Randolph Blackwell

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

Hello,

I contact you to request mediation with the user User:AlexCovarrubias, I make a change in the Latin America article citing references that verify the changes. But the user User:AlexCovarrubias reverts my edition, wanting to have another version with an outdated reference and not prior to that I provide.

You can see the same thing in the edit history. This topic was much discussed in the Spanish Wikipedia, being correct these references.

Thanks you! --Maxpana3 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Albion River Bridge

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tate Publishing

You started an RSN thread about Tate Publishing & Enterprises last year. I've started a new thread about one of their publications. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tate Publishing: The Father of Hollywood.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tate Publishing

I would like it if you look at the page again and reevaluate what you posted. I hope you will take time to look at all the links I included. Perhaps you did not know the history of H J Whitley. Thanks for your help. Whithj (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Duality

Keep in mind though there is a difference between accessibility and an intro which is vague. Regards.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But the starting sentence you chose instead, "Generally speaking, a duality translates concepts, theorems or mathematical structures into other concepts, theorems or structures, in a one-to-one fashion, often (but not always) by means of an involution operation: if the dual of A is B, then the dual of B is A.", is neither. It doesn't give any idea that the subject is mathematics and the use of technical language such as involution makes it unreadable to anyone who isn't already familiar with mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, I didn't actually rewrite the paragraph - I simply switched the placement of the first and second. I would have exceeded my limitations to rewrite the paragraph, but the concept "generally speaking" does get to the gist: Articles can and should get to the gist of a subject before getting into caveats. For example at the matter article, there are specialistic conceptions which contradict each other, still we are required to say something like 'matter == physical objects that have mass and volume.' The other problem with noting the caveats early is that often theres no attempt to explain exactly what those caveats are until much later. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

John C. Wright (author)

Tanks for protecting that. I had asked at the RFPP page and have closed that now your have done it. Semi protection would have worked for the article but we presently are not able to add or request it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did only semi-protect it, I think. At least, if I protected at a higher level than that, it wasn't intentional. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion to LiveJournal

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to LiveJournal, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than responding in kind to your failure to read edit summaries, maybe I should just point you to WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

new user

Fyi: [4]

75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

David, some of that user's edits surprise me. Could you contact RJL offline and confirm this is not a hoax? Thanks. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out your suspicions are justified. I contacted the real RJL and he said it's not him. So I blocked the account for violating our user name policy (it's not ok to impersonate someone else). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you should mention this block on ANI (or I can do it for you if you want), since the person may return with other subtle mischief. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct board for this is WP:UAA rather than WP:ANI, but I don't really see the need for it unless we see evidence of a return. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not thinking so much of further impersonation particularly, as more trolling in CS articles in whatever form. Someone has been doing that on several CS blogs including Lipton's, and seems to have expanded their operation to Wikipedia. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Makes me wonder whether the (also recently created) user Fortnow is who his name suggests he is. His edits are OK, though.—Emil J. 13:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just confirmed that one; it's legit. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, great! Thanks for checking.—Emil J. 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rjlipton seems to now be editing as Ckplato (talk · contribs), still trying to put that Chaudhury paper into the P vs NP article. Doesn't seem to be trolling per se, just a bit misguided, complains that we're discriminating against Indian journals and researchers. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. But since there aren't any famous living computer scientists named Plato, it seems to be less of a problem than his or her previous id. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I won't count the philosopher of mathematics / logician Jan von Plato.[5] :) 75.57.241.73 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad day?

You seem to be a pretty good admin and as such wonder why you would slap me on the verge of being WP:UNCIVIL for reverting me. I did know what I was doing as I stated in my arguments on the talk page. You did not even respond to my arguments.

I do feel slighted but I'm going to leave it alone as you seem to be on top of the issues in the Zecharia Sitchin article. Thank you. Pmedema (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My day has been going fine. But this is an issue that has come up over and over and over again and I'm tired of seeing it. The Sitchin apologists keep trying to water down the article to avoid any criticism of Sitchin's obvious lunacy, and have specifically repeatedly removed the part of the quote that you removed again. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty and I didn't (and, really, still don't) see any reason to distinguish your edits from others of the same type. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And so you feel that the statement, which is not indicated in the article as a quote (appearing to be an editor's comment) and cited with a reference that dosn't exist, satisfies WP:RS? Hmmm... Interesting. Pmedema (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh... and I just realized, you show that you have a WP:POV issue yourself with the statment "Sitchin's obvious lunacy". I'm not for or against. That's why I won't edit the article anymore; I don't want to have a conflict with you. Moving forward, I would suggest you have another editor/admin police this article considering your feelings. Pmedema (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't recognize Sitchin's lunacy as obvious, I question your ability to edit anything here neutrally. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Golden ratio, Jean-Claude Perez

Hi David, I see that you edit the page Golden ratio. I wanted to briefly draw your attention to the last entry in the section Golden_ratio#Disputed_observations, about Jean-Claude Perez, for the following two reasons: (1) it appears to duplicate the second entry in the same section. (2) it was added by User:82.229.26.74, who (I would guess based on editing history) is Jean-Claude Perez. You've run across this character before in some similar context (a Fibonacci article of some sort), and you appear to know a bit about what the appropriate way to deal with something like this is on Wikipedia, which is why I bring it to your attention. --18.87.1.234 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't feel comfortable removing it altogether, but I abbreviated it — there's no need to go into as much detail as the anonymous editor wanted to. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! --18.87.1.234 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Plimpton 322

It is difficult to "source" mathematically elementary observations about right triangles and it would be embarrassing to describe a subject which has been worked over for thousands of years as "original research"; it is just mathematics. In contrast, it is natural and proper to source interpretations, as is done in the article, as they are proposed by individuals. If anything, it is surprising that the mathematical reconciliation, being completely trivial, had not already been included in such a "definitive" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The calculations themselves may be trivial, but by putting those calculations in that context as if to lead to a conclusion about what Plimpton 322 was used for, you are committing original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

However, routine calculations are allowed and what is given is entirely routine. You seem to be misreading the text. No comment is made about what Plimpton 322 was used for, although comment is made about how the Pythagorean rule can and was used (that can be sourced, for example, in the writings of Jens Høyrup. Rather, without giving weight to any interpretation, the remarks show how they are related mathematically. It was puzzling how such an elementary observation had been left out of an otherwise "definitive" article. Let me restore the comments in good faith, since otherwise readers who are not so mathematically deft are deprived of pertinent information. Of course, you are free to edit the section so as to give only mathematical trivialities that say absolutely nothing about the use of Plimpton 322. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I have now qualified the section heading to emphasise that only the mathematics of two contending interpretations is being reconciled (as you might expect to have been done already in a "definitive" article when mathematically speaking the points are so trivial). You are clearly anxious about the making of inferences about how Plimpton 322 was used. Can you say how clarifying the very simple mathematics in the two interpretations has bearing on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your point in adding that passage to the article? It's not just a calculation — if I wrote 1+1=2 at the end of an article on Fibonacci, it would be a true statement of mathematics, but it would not lead anywhere. I am similarly having a difficult time seeing how what you wrote in Plimpton 322 connects to anything in the article, but if it does connect, it is (I assume) in order to make some particular point about the Babylonians' ability to solve quadratic equations or generate Pythagorean triangles. That point, whatever it is that you are trying to make, needs a source. It is not good enough to say that the mathematics in what you wrote is true, and that any conclusion is in the mind of the reader. Either you are adding pointless irrelevant calculation to the end of the article, or you are committing original research by synthesis. Either way, it doesn't belong. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are a very distinguished computer scientist, so your comment is bewildering. One interpretation of Plimpton 322 is in terms of Pythagorean triples, another is that it is an exercise set for the solution of a certain quadratic. Non-mathematical readers might not notice that the mathematics of these two interpretations is closely related, indeed that you can use the Pythagorean triples to solve just such quadratics, not just the one mentioned. So, the mathematically trivial computation is closely tied to the existing text and designed to assist those readers. You are reading into this a suggestion of what the Babylonians could do, but it is not there nor does it need to be there, although just such issues have been discussed (as I say, for instance, by Jens Høyrup). Moreover, what you are also throwing out, is the very simple observation that certain right triangles, such as the 3-4-5 triangle, have all their sides determined as segments of grid lines in a square grid. So, in fact, you really do not need to know all that much, other than to count. So, I submit that the section is pertinent to the existing text, helpful to readers, but not original research, whether by synthesis or in some other way. If indeed I am right in thinking you are a computer scientist, I should be surprised if you did not want to help non-mathematical readers see how the mathematics of the two interpretations is related. You do agree that the mathematics is related as stated and also that Pythagorean triples can be generated in the square grid without knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem or number theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be removed. There are several reasons I can see:

• It is original research by synthesis given that there are no sources given.
• The reason given: "Just in case the solution algorithm for the quadratic equation might seem divorced from Pythagorean triples" is not valid. There are already connections to quadratic equations given right above it.
• Contrary to what is claimed, this will not help any non-mathematical reader in any way shape or form. My experience developing and teaching liberal arts mathematics courses tells me that even the average freshman at a university (so reasonably well-educated) is going to take one glance at the writing and ignore it.
• The reference to folding squares/triangles is questionable given that they wrote on clay tablets.
  

I agree with Dave Eppstein, this needs to be removed. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly original research by synthesis resonates in the Wikipedia community. But surely it is to stop synthesis that is tendentious. AnnekeBart helps out by supplying an instance: yes, indeed, quadratic equations are mentioned immediately beforehand, but the elementary calculations connecting them with Pythagorean triples are not. So, that is why the material is inserted, "just in case". As it happens, one of the leading authors in the history of mathematics in the USA has just written in privately to say the reasoning is excellent and he regrets having missed it, simple though it is. Why was it not already in a "definitive" article? The reference to folding right triangles side to side is to help visualise the significance of the half angles. But writing on clay tablets has nothing to do with it - yet another synthesis gone wrong. I agree that, if that is the level of the readership, then very little, not just the inserted section, is going to register - eyes are likely to glaze quickly encountering the elaborate account of the vs in the algorithm for solving the quadratic. Against that, my guess is that college freshmen, like the leading historian, might rather say, "Pyth to solve quadratics. That's cute.

So, let me try to say yet again what this section is intended to do. The Neugebauer thesis draws on Pythagorean triples. The Robson thesis draws on solutions to quadratic equations. Already here then in the article are suggestions of Babylonian skills. But what sort of mathematical threshold do these skills represent? The talk of number theory for the triples might seem to make it less plausible even if the triples themselves are fairly concrete. But, no, this need not be the case, because right triangles with commensurable sides can be identified in playing on the square grid. Again, the talk of solutions of quadratics, with numerous equations for the algorithm, might remind readers of why they were never any good at mathematics and, indeed, where they lost the plot. But, no, this too need not be a challenge, because a computational trick with Pythagorean triples, little more than difference of two squares, brings out the solution. So, the section supports the existing content of the article by indicating the skills threshold that might be required for one or other of these two interpretations. Moreover, it reveals that they are not exactly exclusive. However, it does not come with any tendentious suggestion as to the use of Plimpton 322 or the skills achieved by the Babylonians. Why deprive readers of this support?

Mathematics as elementary as this cannot be said to be original research. Just imagine trying to publish this in order to generate a source. But I suspect that even if there were a published source to quote at this juncture, that does not seem to be really what is troubling David Eppstein or AnnekeBart. I am afraid that they come over as strangely hostile to the idea of noting for readers how the theses of Neugebauer and Robson are linked, so not chalk and cheese, as might appear from the article. To that extent, it is the article that is tendentious. I agree that the section is in the nature of a footnote or an aside. I should hope that Wikipedia was sufficiently versatile to handle this. But Wikipedia does already have options for leaving material in, while cautioning that original research might be present.

On the other hand, there certainly are cognate sources. There is a large body of problems in old Babylonian mathematics. For instance, BM13901 looks at the problem of two squares for which the sum of areas is known along with either the sum or the difference of the sides, giving the same haunting, suggestive mix of the Pythagorean rule and quadratic equations. One researcher who has written extensively about this material and who is widely quoted is Jens Høyrup. I refrained from putting any of this sourced comparative material in because it might upset the focus of the article on Plimpton 322, although it might be helpful to put Plimpton 322 back in a context from which it has become somewhat detached by being such a centre of attention. In that wider context, the comingling of the Pythagorean rule and quadratics is familiar, at least in our latter day understanding of the subject.

As I say, I was startled and amazed not to find the inserted section already present in a "definitive" article, and now I am bewildered that there is this insistence that supportive information of a non-tendentious nature be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If the section is badly written, why not say that at the start? Unhelpful to any reader? You seem to be changing your tune the more your objections are answered.

Here, in contrast, is the message from the author of one of the leading histories of mathematics published in the USA: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.

Are you not rather undercutting the spirit of Wikipedia here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, and acknowledging the proper place of sources in Wikipedia, it occurs to me that it might be worth reminding ourselves of the abstract for one of the key sources for the Wikipedia article, Robson's contribution to Historia Mathematica in 2001. In view of Robson's final sentence, maybe I was wrong not to have included mention of some of those other texts, such as BM13901: Ancient mathematical texts and artefacts, if we are to understand them fully, must be viewed in the light of their mathematico-historical context, and not treated as artificial, self-contained creations in the style of detective stories. I take as a dramatic case study the famous cuneiform tablet Plimpton 322. I show that the popular view of it as some sort of trigonometric table cannot be correct, given what is now known of the concept of angle in the Old Babylonian period. Neither is the equally widespread theory of generating functions likely to be correct. I provide supporting evidence in a strong theoretical framework for an alternative interpretation, first published half a century ago in a different guise. I recast it using regular reciprocal pairs, Høyrup’s analysis of contemporaneous “na¨ıve geometry,” and a new reading of the table’s headings. In contextualising Plimpton 322 (and perhaps thereby knocking it off its pedestal), I argue that cuneiform culture produced many dozens, if not hundreds, of other mathematical texts which are equally worthy of the modern mathematical community’s attention.

DYK for Pancyclic graph

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald L. Voiles on Plimpton 322

Let me stress, once again, that I have every sympathy with Wikipedians on their policy on OR especially as applied to mathematics; one has only to take a look at entries such as Difference of squares and Pythagorean triples to see why. It seemed clear then that the extirpation of an attempt at the customary scholarly apparatus of reconciliation of interpretations qua interpretations, otherwise missing in Plimpton 322 was not primarily on OR grounds. You hinted at underlying reasons, but Richard Morris helpfully came out into the open: the real worry was about something I did not write, certainly would not write and quite explicitly disclaimed. In such circumstances, I should be honoured and delighted to be blocked. Apparently the idea of such a scholarly apparatus must be poorly understood. But Robson points to it in describing Bruins (1949) as work published under different guise. Comparison of the (mathematical) content of interpretations is standard. But it is neutral as to what is being interpreted. When Robson says Bruins work is in different guise there is no comment on what the Babylonians knew, only on how one thesis stands in relation to another.

However, I have now added to the discussion of Plimpton 322 a section reporting on the interpretation of Donald L Voiles, which actually interested Robson, but has gone missing from the main article, skewing somewhat the account there of Buck (1980). I hope the references and sources are to your satisfaction. Naturally, I am happy to work on them further.

In a few days, I may have more about Donald L. Voils himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

Emailed you yesterday to see if you wanted to add to the RFC/U, and if you wanted to certify it. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added to the draft earlier today. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I missed that in my rush this am. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rockport, California

Thank you for the recent edits to the north coast section of the California State Route 1 article. I concur that most of the Mendocino coastal villages were formerly company towns, but Rockport seemed a little different at the time of my last visit. While many of the other towns were subdivided into individual residential and commercial ownerships, I believe Rockport remained part of commercial forestland. Little evidence of a town was visible from the highway. A few structures may remain for forestry equipment maintenance, but the general tendency has been for landowners to gate access roads and demolish unused structures to avoid vandalism by homeless trespassers. Rockport seemed to resemble Usal, Andersonia, Korbel, and Crannell more than Elk, Albion, Caspar, and Fort Bragg. I intended the description as a "former company town" to reflect a difference from the other small communities with similar history; but I would value an alternative description from your observations of the site.Thewellman (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been on the stretch of Highway 1 between Albion and Fort Bragg quite often, but I've only been through Rockport a couple of times and I don't remember much about it. So I don't really have anything to add to your observations. It sounds like you intended your description to mean that it isn't really a town any more, but formerly was? But that didn't come across; instead, I read it as meaning a town that still exists but had a history of being a company town, which is true for many other towns as well. So a rewording that made the intent more clear would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rockport deserves description not so much as a community, but as the place where highway 1 finally leaves the coast it has followed for hundreds of miles. The location identified on maps as Rockport is different from most of the similarly labeled coastal communities. Your accurate recollection of Rockport confirms the apt warning about missing it if you blink. Thick second growth forest screened Rockport from highway view when I last passed, and the access road resembled a gated driveway. In the absence of description, I envision drivers winding up over Wildcat Ridge before they are aware they have left the coast. Since you declined an opportunity to describe the location yourself, I am puzzled by your objections to my description.Thewellman (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, we have very brief mentions of a lot of much more significant towns and cities, and then a long detailed description of Rockport, both geographic (the place where the geography forces the road away from the coast) and historic. It seems to violate WP:UNDUE. My edits left the geographic part in, as it is relevant for the road itself, but left the history for users to find out about by clicking the link. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I've copied the gist of our discussion to the article discussion page so other editors may enjoy the benefit of your rationale.Thewellman (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

SWAT and WADS

OK fixed. But the question remains; if SWAT and WADS are what they are known as, then how do we guarantee people won't look for that in the category? If on the other had they are known by their full titles, then the article is named wrongly. Rich Farmbrough, 06:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

SWAT and WADS conferences

Please note that every single article on Wikipedia must have at least one visible, non-hidden category directly on it. You cannot deem an article to be properly categorized because there's a category on a redirect to that article, if the target article itself has a blank categories section. If there is not at least one visible content category on the SWAT and WADS conferences page itself, then the {{uncat}} template goes on and stays on the page until such time as you or someone else has found a suitable category for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is stupid. There should be some way of decoupling the list of categories that are visible in an article (which I agree should be nonempty) from the list of article names that are visible in this category (which in this case should be the two redirects; listing the name of their joint Wikipedia article as well is redundant and pointless). But since I agree that a category name should be visible when you view the article, I've added the category to the article as well, accepting the extra name in the list of article names in the category as a necessary evil. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)