User talk:Gandalf61/Archive10

Experimental mathematics

Have a look at page 4 of the article http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/math-future.pdf. It's explicitly written that the author has no formal proof of the identity (however it's checked with high precision). Just in case, there is another interesting example in the article -- identity is true with 42 digits, but it's not true. I do not know LaTeX enough to print this formula in Wikipedia, please, add it if you can. Thank you! Gaz v pol (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The identity that Bailey and Borwein say had not been proved formally (at the time of writing that paper) is the one near the bottom of page 4, involving the integral of $\log \left|{\frac {\tan t+{\sqrt {7}}}{\tan t-{\sqrt {7}}}}\right|$. They show this by putting a ? over the equals sign in the statement of this "identity". The identity that you added to the article comes from page 3 of the paper and does not have a ? over the equals sign, and Bailey and Borwein do not say that this one had not been proved formally. Typically, Bailey and Borwein use integer relation algorithms to generate likely identities, and then prove them formally afterwards - so if they had been unable to find a formal proof for any of the identities on page 3, I am sure they would have said so. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that you are right, my mistake. I have changed the identity to the one with ${\sqrt {7}}$ and also added 2 more examples. Please, have a look if you have some time. Thank you!Gaz v pol (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have improved the wording of your new sections. I also fixed your statement of the $\log \left|{\frac {\tan t+{\sqrt {7}}}{\tan t-{\sqrt {7}}}}\right|$ example - in Bailey and Borwein's paper, the exponent of the denominators in the infinite sum is s, but you had changed it to 2. Having said that, Bailey and Borwein do not explain what value s takes, so I am still somewhat puzzled by that example. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much for re-wording! (my English is not very good as you see). Regarding the "s" case: this is misprint, 2 is the correct (see another article where this relation appeared before http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/quadparallel.pdf ) Gaz v pol (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaosbrot

Hi, thanks for reminding me about WP's no original research policy; nevertheless, while your argument is valid to an extent (it does not Google very well and the only places that mention this are my own forum and blog posts), a mathematical generalization that can be recreated easily should be notable per se. A superellipse is the generalization of a circle in the planar curve; this is a similar generalization for fractals, much like how the mandelbrot set can be generalized to higher powers (with queationable mathematical significance).

While the name "Chaosbrot" is of questionable validity, the concept itself is significant in that it provides a straightforward link between two notable fractals, the Mandelbrot set and its derivative Tricorn fractal. Sets produced by certain values of p experience similar period-doubling as the Logistic map and p = -2 gives a diverse family of hyperbolic functions as a consequence of the independence on the imaginary coefficient.

Before putting this up for AfD, please explain why the Gravity set is notable while this is not, since that article seems to cite only one website: that of its creator. Not to mention that the whole thing (and the Fred Mitchell page) seem to be blatant personal advertisements. We even have stuff like the Nova fractal (which survived an AfD, IIRC) that is mathematically insignificant and only notable because it is a built-in algorithm for a commercial package that produces pretty pictures. Everything is original research to some extent: just because some people are able to readily publish their findings and therefore create their own "reputable source" doesn't make their research more stringent and notable than that of someone who is unable to do so. Sorry that the post got a bit too long, but please do reply at some point in the future so we can sort this out somehow. Thanks, :)

Doomed Rasher (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I cite Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_calculations. This is technically a series of calculations that can be replicated easily on any sufficiently powerful computing platform and replicated by hand if you really want to remove the computer aspect of it. Objection to the name can be removed by merging the article into Mandelbrot_set#Generalizations so there is no need to use "Chaosbrot" anywhere, which is the only arbitrary and original element of the article. Again, it is a mathematical formulation which is notable by itself.

You have also failed to provide justifications as to why the Gravity set and Nova fractal are notable whereas Chaosbrot isn't. Please respond when you have demonstrated your aptitude for reading and understanding a complete post. Doomed Rasher (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see what other editors think. By the way, belligerence, rudeness and sarcasm in response to a politely worded request are not the most effective forms of persuasive argument. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting a discussion at WP Mathematics certainly seems to be a good way of obtaining a consensus regarding this; I thank you for taking the initiative. As for your remark that I came across as "belligerent", my response was not intended to be offensive and I apologize if I came across as such. However, bear in mind that the second comment that you posted on my talk page appeared to be condescending and critical and did not show that you actually took the time to read what I had said, much less cared about it, so you'll have to excuse me if my response was a little harsh. Perhaps we should improve on our communication in the future. Doomed Rasher (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved my reply to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics as that seems to be where this is being discussed. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Started a Science Reference Desk Question

I started an exchange you might look at involving the subject of Carbon capture. What I'm ultimately interested in is an absolute ideal cost per time on the subject of environmental restoration, but that's a bit much. At any rate, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. I also need to say that there is a lot coincidental about you and someone I knew once (who unfortunately isn't British): Very heavy into math and physics, has been called 'Gandalf', and born in '61 or '62.Julzes (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be missing something on the 1001-related problem we started each other on. See what I recently observed. It might be new, interesting, and within the range of mathematical proof.Julzes (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Julia set

Stop deciding that any explanation of how to plot the Julia set compared to the Mandelbrot's algorithm is unclear216.99.102.149 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "explanation", which says "A Juliet set can be implemented as the Mandelbrot set, but with the continued addition of C replaced with a constant for the entire plot", does not actually explain anything. The relationship between Julia sets and the Mandelbrot set is covered elsewhere in the article, under Quadratic polynomials. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lucas primes

I have restored the IP statement on Lucas number and added a source. It appears heuristically likely that there are no more primes for power of 2 indices, considering the growth rate of such numbers, but I don't think anything has been proven. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had assumed that the absence of primes for higher power of 2 indices was proven rather than just conjectured. I stand corrected. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

S.O.S.

Dear Mr. Gandalf61, can I please ask you for help with the article Vladimir_Miklyukov. He is a living Russian mathematician and my father, so it's within a 'conflict of interests' policy. I did my best to comply with the verification, notability, no original research rules, when was writing an article, but still got a bunch of ugly tags on his page Talk:Vladimir_Miklyukov. I tried to use a Wikipedia:Third_opinion option, but it did not work since the editors do not have interests in mathematics. The discussion was at User_talk:SobakaKachalova Thank you very much for your help.-sobaka_kachalova 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how I can help you. What sort of help are you looking for ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material article

Verbal has started attacking the Seth Material article again. First he started reverting my revisions, though I was trying to make the terminology more neutral. Then he tried to delete portions of it, and I restored them. Now he has placed a tag on it about the neutrality being disputed -- and he did that AFTER I made changes to satisfy him. Consequently, I feel that he's spoiling for a fight. We've been through all this before, and if a few editors who are supportive of the article would show up, it would be helpful. Thanks!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal has now cut the Seth Material article to one-third it's former size.--ESB60 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(User:ESB60 is a suspected sock puppet of banned user User:Caleb Murdock, and has been has been blocked indefinitely.)

Re:Boy Scouts in Palestine

Yes, I saw it. Thanks. Yesterday was Town meeting day. After that, one of my dogs started having seizures and died. So I have been distracted by real life and haven't been able to check the thread. Thanks for responding and keeping me updated. Dismas|^(talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help - and sorry to hear about your dog. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Being a WP editor, you'll appreciate this. My dog's name was Calisto (yeah, I spelled it with one L). What was yesterday's featured article? Callisto. Dismas|^(talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Avril Troll

To keep this low profile, I am posting it here. I thought I'd let you know that the troll who is making tons of accounts and asking tons of question is the Avril Troll. He has been indef.blocked for years. He has never stopped making tons of accounts and asking tons of questions. It doesn't matter if anyone is "chasing" him. He has also pointed out, when he doesn't get his unblock accepted, that he will prove he can still use Wikipedia by flooding us with tons of questions because we can't delete them all. Well, he is right. There are too many users who say, "That is a good question - don't delete it!" So, the truth is that he has us on the ropes. There isn't a strong enough consensus to simply delete absolutely everything he posts. Therefore, he will continue to do what he has done for years - flood the reference desk with garbage just to prove that he can. -- kainaw™ 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand all that. I just think that you and KageTora are handling the situation in completely the wrong way. Don't start a fight that you can't win. I would leave his posts alone (unless they were truly offensive) and wait until he got bored. But you can do whatever you like - you don't need to justify your actions to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you left a parallel message on Dmcq's talk page?

Anyways, I didn't revert to the same version, as you can see.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not warned Dmcq because (a) Dmcq has only made two edits to exponentiation today and (b) I am sure that Dmcq, as a long-term editor, knows about 3RR, whereas I felt there was a possibility that you may not have been aware of the rule. You should read WP:3RR carefully, and note that it applies to more than 3 reverts of any kind to a single article in in a 24-hour period - the fact that you did not revert to the same version is irrelevant. A lot of admins take 3RR violations very seriously - it is one of the few actions on Wikipedia for which admins tend to hand out blocks immediately, without warning or discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Power of 10

I see you moved Power of 10 to Power of 10 (TV series) and then changed the former to redirect to Powers of 10. I'm not sure the TV show (never seen it myself) isn't the primary topic but I will not contest the move. However, Special:WhatLinksHere/Power of 10 has many links and nearly all are for the TV show but don't get there now. Will you fix the links? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot to take care of chores like that. I don't have time or inclination to change all those links by hand, so I've restored the redirect instead - Power of 10 now redirects to Power of 10 (TV series) again. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor is needed to check disambiguation targets. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation lists some tools that can help make the edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

215 (number)

I just wanted to thank you for your work on the article for 215 (number) I started work on that page because I was rather annoyed by the fact that for so long, it was the smallest whole number without a wikipedia article. Anyway, thanks for your work on that article. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Main diagonal

You reverted a small edit to Matrix with in the edit summary "a non-square matrix doesn't even have a main diagonal". However, at main diagonal it is clear that they have; it just doesn't end in the lower right corner. This usage isn't sourced, but neither is the statement that the matrix has to be square. More surprisingly, the wording at Triangular matrix implies the same interpretation, even though this may leave a non-triangular region. In any case I think nobody would propose a different meaning for main diagonal of a rectangular matrix. As for the old wording, I find "turning rows into columns and vice versa" unclear to somebody wo doesn't know already what transposition is (it could suggest a quarter turn), and it suggests two separate actions that I cannot conceivably separate. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have never heard of a rectangular matrix having a "main diagonal", I can't find any supporting references, and it seems very unintuitive to me, as it does not lie along the diagonal of the rectangle. Having said that, I see that transpose also uses the phrase "reflect A by its main diagonal" without qualifying it to apply only to square matrices. So if you feel strongly about your new wording, then go ahead and reinstate it. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag

The article's creator has basically moved the material in that article to his article on Christian O'Brien. I think that settles the redirect question.Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for un-merging this page. I just thought I'd mention that Kharsag is now being nominated for deletion (and rescue). I would very much appreciate your thoughts and vote on the matter in it's discussion page. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware of the AfD through following the discussion at WP:FTN. I have considered the arguments put so far in the AfD and have added my opinion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Squaring the plane

I am aware of that, but "usually" does not mean "always" — I had good reasons to make it show in the category "Tiling" listing. I will restore the cat. Arcfrk (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what your reasons are. In Category:Tiling you now have Squaring the plane (which is fine), and immediately above that you have Squaring the square which just redirects to a sub-section of Squaring the plane. What is the point or use of that ? 81.154.27.74 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm… My reasons were to make it visible to someone who browses through the category listing, but I see your point — since they appear there right after one another, it may not add much, I don't know. Arcfrk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A contrast of Constant and Scalar

I thought to add Scalar to the list of links on the page for Constant because of how the two concepts contrast. Specifically, an uninitiated reader looking at constant may really want to be looking at scalar. In case it isn't obvious, ... the contrast is

1. A scalar, e.g., a scalar field defined on a manifold, will remain fixed under a coordinate transformation, but it will not necessarily remain fixed from position to position in the manifold.
2. A constant, e.g., a constant vector field, will remain fixed from position to position (e.g., if we have path-independent parallel transport) but its coordinate representation may not remain fixed under a coordinate transformation.

Quantling (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lambert W Function

I don't understand why you removed the link to the C++ implementation of the Lambert W function. Will you please explain the reason? I.persian (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The main reason that I removed the link was because you had linked directly to a tar file; the External Links section is mainly intended for links to web pages - see this guideline. It would be better to link to a download page that describes the software and gives the reader the option of downloading it if they want to. However, I also have doubts about whether a particular implementation of the function is sufficiently notable to be in the external links section at all. I suggest you propose your link at Talk:Lambert W function, and see whether the reaction is favourable. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense. The implementation is based on a proposed and published method. See this The reason that makes me insist on putting the link to the implementation is that usually the articles on mathematical functions have links to their implementation in various languages. Moreover, as far as I know, this is the only documented, validated implementation of the function which is GPL licensed. I.persian (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)