User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Disambiguation link notification

Extended content

Ovation Guitar Company

Hi. When you recently edited Ovation Guitar Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Parabolic, Semi and Glenn Campbell (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) 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Harley Benton

When you recently edited Harley Benton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peavey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DPL is rarely happy

Asymptotic theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Limit
Ovation Guitar Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jim Messina

DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Body fluids, etc.

Extended content
The four humors
NFPA 704
NFPA 704
fire diamond
Flammability code 1: Must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Flash point over 93 °C (200 °F). E.g., canola oil Health code 2: Intense or continued but not chronic exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury. E.g., chloroform Reactivity code 2: Undergoes violent chemical change at elevated temperatures and pressures, reacts violently with water, or may form explosive mixtures with water. E.g., phosphorus Special hazards (white): no codeNFPA 704 four-colored diamond
Fire diamond for Sodium borohydride
Nalgene bottles.jpg

When I first saw File:4 body fluids.PNG at the top of your talk page, I thought it was a hazard diamond. 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting observation, worthy of the glass-bead game!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Now there's a blast from the past. I remember reading that as an undergrad (I suspect as much for the appearance as the content). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In the late 1970s or early 1980s, even Walden Books carried a lot of counter-culture books, which seemed like the best sequel to science-fiction and fantasy novels that I had been reading.
I made my way through Hesse's Steppenwolf, Siddhartha, Demian, and The Glass-Bead Game, the last of which I thought was his best. To understand Hesse, I even read a Jung book, Man and his symbols, which I later would have definitely thrown across the room, but which helped me more quickly to become bored with Narcissus and Goldmund...! The "be yourself" message of course appeals to every student's "inner teenager" but only the Glass Bead Game showed any concern with the human community, It was a remarkable piece of self-criticism by Hesse, who did his best to heal from his Jungian damage. (The death of Joseph Knecht was profoundly unsatisfying---like Hesse had run out of steam.) Many Germans have told me that Beneath the Wheel was one of their favorite books in gymnasium.
The Glass Bead Game had an introduction by Thomas Mann, whom I next read: Now I think that he's largely an over-rated blowhard, but his The Magic Mountain has remarkable characters. I'll always love Herr Settembrini and despise Herr Naphta (Georgy Lukacs)! :)
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

From one wolf to another...

Extended content

Hugz, licks, etc. You're hurting. I can understand the anger, the frustration, the tiredness, the "God, what an awful distortion of what could / should have happened" thing. Unless I'm (quite possibly) reading you totally wrongly, in which case, I beg forgiveness. But I can see the possibility of you getting very bitten, and the possibility that maybe you're digging a hole to bury things in which you might end up getting buried in yourself, instead. Things could have gone so much better, yes – but they could even more easily have gone so much worse. I think, with the strength (and sheer number) of views / feelings in this, the Arbs were not so much between a rock and a hard place as between a poison-eel-and-shark-infested reef, a vast amount of noisy and thunderous surf, and a shoreline on which they could already see cannibals wielding spears and cooking utensils. And a ship behind them which was infested with lice and infected with typhus. My advice, for what it's worth, is to indulge in some long-distance and well-meaning hugz; have a beer or several, and sit quiet and watch the dust settle until the tumbleweeds have blown away. Take up quiet gold mining in a few quiet and almost-forgotten articles. Stuff like that. (>**)> Pesky (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly and vividly write so that others can understand and better remember my intended message, at the risk that others may misunderstand and better remember unintended and misunderstood messages.
I have little interest in the back-pages of Wikipedia, apart from helping a friend in need. I should have thought that ArbCom would have had a better understanding of the importance of maintaining the policy meaning of "disruption" (disruptive editing), rather than further expanding it and licensing its misuse. There is no way that Malleus F engaged in disruptive editing, in the sense of Wikipedia.
I have good reason for personal concern about licentious misuse of "disruption": I was blocked for "disruptive editing" for objecting again to the calling of a good editor a "Nazi" (or "National Socialist"). I am glad that page stalkers had the good sense in the last episode of my objection to the "Nazi" smearing to let the discussion continue, rather than engage in another round of twice-"reviewed" blocking, so that the user-box in question was finally changed and the editor in question clarified that he was in fact a libertarian.
Thanks for your wishes. I have edited Discipline Global Mobile because of its being a small, independent, intelligent, and relatively mobile enterprise of Frippian good will. Fripp's quotation of John G. Bennett is also worth reflection:

"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering."

— John G. Bennett, quoted by Robert Fripp on his Exposure

"If you have an unpleasant nature and dislike people, it is no obstacle to work."

— John G. Bennett, quoted by Robert Fripp on his Exposure
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
More hugz ;P (I like any excuse for a hug). I'm certain that other people misunderstand both you and your intentions on a regular basis, which is sad. And I, too, am aware of the insidious process of redefining words. It's worse then redefining policy itself to mean something other than it actually means. And, for many of us, redefining words causes a lot more angst than it does for others. Best wishes; take good care of yourself. Pesky (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your ascension. Keep up the good work!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I'll start using those Collapse templates myself. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps

Hey, K-Wolf-- If you don't mind outting your identity to participate there is a fairly interesting Facebook discussion group emerging at CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES FOR ETHICAL WIKIPEDIA ENGAGEMENT. Cullen and I are there and its always good to add a couple more grumpy old content creators to the mix... Okay, I'm grumpy and Cullen's not. Anyway they're starting to grasp that WP decision-making isn't a top-down fiat process and are looking for more voices to help them suss things out. I'd encourage you to chime in. Ditto for the dozens of lurkers reading this message. Cya. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting discussion; I'd love to be able to contribute but the Facebook account is strictly for family interactions only! What a shame .... I'm over 50, as well, with 5 grandchildren. I think there are more of us about than many people realise. Pesky (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
It was interesting, but I think that I've run into Rklwtn enough to last me a lifetime, already. Let me know if I can ever help out there by email, to protect my privacy. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, since WP is turning into FB, why not create a KW account?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, Robert seems much better than he did before, thoughtful and willing to change his mind, and he seems to write with Carrite-like clarity. (I do think that he should apologize for the statements regarding SG and She Who Does Not Want To Be Named, and I think that that I'm not over-reacting because of some sexist chivalry, on that score.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Statistics talk

Bayesian inference

Dear Kiefer, I notice that in some of your recent edits you have complained that edits to Bayesian inference are "ignorant nonsense" by a "wrecking crew" and perhaps suggesting that other editors are incompetent... I would just like to mention, as somebody who has been editing that article for a while, that if you think the article is wrong, then please just say so. If you have more knowledge of the subject than somebody like myself, and you put forward the reasons that the article is misleading, then I for one would be more than happy to agree. However, the edits are in good faith. Where material has been simplified or is incomplete (such as, for example, an abridged explanation of the philosophy), it has been to provide an explanation appropriate to the article. Gnathan87 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You removed the material that explained your errors, that I am now correcting. You should read and understand what you are removing from articles, particularly when it has in-line citations to the highest quality most reliable sources.
I tell you what, let's take this to the (frisky) mathematics and the (not so vivacious) statistics projects, and ask them to look at the errors you put into the article and the correct material you removed, without informing me (the author of the material). The claims you had in the lede were directly contradicted by material you removed, and this doesn't seem to bother you.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer - I do not want this to become hostile. I have brought this here in slight indignation as to your comments on the authors, rather than the content. The decision theory section was originally removed by somebody else, at 04:48, 15 September 2011. My subsequent removal of that section was partly motivated by this earlier removal, and also notes Removed section on Decision Theory - a justification of Bayesian inference more suitable to Bayesian probability, and now mentioned in "Philosophical background". I do not question that the sources were reliable or high quality and, mea culpa, I did not think to look up and notify the original author. However, I simply felt that in the process of finding a better focus for the article (that is, a more general article focussing on the mechanics, uses and properties of Bayesian inference, rather than the philosophical justification, which could be covered at greater length in Bayesian probability). I have no doubt that there are improvements to be made. But, I state again, the edits were made in the process of improving the article groundwork and - if I may say so - I think it does now have better foundations to build upon. Gnathan87 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In what sense, if any, can you continue to insist that a discussion of frequentist statistics (decision theory, in your terms) belongs in Bayesian probability rather than Bayesian statistics---particularly when you include other applications of Bayesian updating?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I gave up hope on trying to edit Bayesian probability long ago, particularly when the article is about personalist probability rather than Bayesian probability---and the page rolls happily along as though they were identical. Another editor would have to read a book on the philosophy of belief rather than relying on coffee-room asides about Bayesian inference, and you can see how much interest people at that page displayed in such topics....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
At the time, I just came to the conclusion that the article should focus, as I say, on the mechanics, properties and applications of the Bayesian inference procedure itself, rather than more general relationship Bayesian procedures have to statistics, which could be discussed elsewhere. (Maybe, yes, in Bayesian statistics instead of Bayesian probability). On reflection though, I think maybe you are right that there is a place to mention this in Bayesian inference. Gnathan87 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing I would mention, and again I do so here to is that I feel the article must be made more accessible. Part of the reason for trying to simplify things (although introducing errors, as you rightly pointed out), was for this purpose. I can't help but feel that a sentence such as "Bayesian inference derives a "posterior" probability distribution as a consequence of two antecedents, a "prior" probability and a "likelihood", probability model for the data to be observed." as an introduction to the concept will be absolutely unintelligible to the layman, or even the mathematically inclined newcomer. Indeed, the purpose of that sectionw as first to introduce the conept in terms of a single hypothesis, before extending it to distributions in the next section. Even the lead as it now stands may, I fear, be much too inaccessible. What is apparent I think is that work is required on explaining the concepts while still retaining accuracy. Gnathan87 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gnathan87!
Sorry that I was irritated. Dealing with a Ukrainian troll :( kept me up past my bedtime and so delayed my Ukrainian breakfast. :) I have been running late today.... No excuse for rudeness, of course, and I'm glad that you weren't too upset.
A second thing to do is to move the article, replacing the Cambridge/fancy-pants "inference" with "statistics". "Inference" has been corrupted by the Fisherian "method" of playing pretend with a "statistical model", a "stupid fiction" according to Ramsey.
A related change is to stop the focus on Bayesian stats as a religion or philosophy, slightly better than Dianetics but on a par with Objectivism. Bayesian stats is not the answer to all decision problems.
Bayesian stats is used when somebody has an important problem that is so important that it is worth describing by a probability model---and this involves time by an educated statistician, so it is expensive: They want to make predictions about some important event that is exchangeable with some data and they have some information about the both (e.g. expert knowledge, or simulations of mathematical models, or prior experiments or surveys, etc.).
Let me quote from John W. Pratt:
"Howard Raiffa and Robert Schlaifer ... 25 years ago, and our joint paper of 1964 said:
'... we consider the problem faced by a person who on most occasions makes decisions intuitively and more or less inconsistently, like all other mortals, but who on some one, particular occasion wishes to make some one, particular decision in a reasoned, deliberate manner.... [We have] avoided any reference to the behavior of idealized decision makers all of whose acts are perfectly self-consistent; instead, we have taken a strictly "constructive" approach to the problem of analyzing a single problem of decision under uncertainty, hoping thereby to dispel such apparently common misconceptions as that a utility function and a system of judgmental probabilities necessarily exist without conscious effort, or that they can be discovered only by learning how the decision maker would make a very large number of decision'
I am sorry to sound so nasty. For some reason, statisticians who work in the foundations of the field often seem nicer in person than in writing. Shafer does, and I hope I do too."[1]
    I agree with Pratt's remarks, especially the last.
    Furthermore, Bayesian inference is a small part of inductive inference, which is a small part of inference, much of which is covered by Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmaticism (c.f. mode of inquiry). Peirce noted that thinking starts when there is a recognition of a problem, and then there is work to be done. Thinking is not easy. Gelman is right to have been allergic against the snake oil that everybody must use Bayesian updating all the time to think, if they are rational, imho.
    Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker)Well, I'm glad you settled down there! And there I was, about to pin you down on the floor and lay about you with the eight-foot plaited leather bullwhip, whilst wearing the leather gear and thigh-length boots ... except that you might have enjoyed it ;P Pesky (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Disambiguation link notification

    Extended content

    Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

    Bayesian inference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
    added links pointing to Consequence and Antecedent
    The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
    added a link pointing to Specialist

    It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    WMF's "rate this page"

    After answering a survey on an article, readers are invited to edit as part of WMF's strategy to recruit new editors.

    I opened a discussion of the WMF's "rate this page" initiative to recruit editors from readers. Such recruitment "surveys" are prohibited by the ethical code of public-opinion researchers.

    FYIly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

    Extended content
    Civility
    Keifer, please consider redacting this comment in the discussion about the AFT. Implying that someone who argues against you may have brain damage (and the "momentary lapse" bit doesn't change that that's what you've implied) isn't an acceptable rhetorical technique - it's simply an insult, and is not likely to enhance the discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    Hi fluffernutter!
    Ironholds responded to my comment, more accurately than you, and so I cannot redact it. I don't believe that you are adding anything to Ironholds's comment, which I have already read and, per policy, implicitly acknowledged.
    Please review the civility policy about feigning incomprehension and Arbcom's civility enforcement case's statement about baiting, along with the pattern of the user's contributions on that page.
    Have you redacted your insults and BS allegations against BadgerDrink? Stay away at least until after you have.
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, you're still able to redact it - a strikethrough would work, for example, to indicate that you've reconsidered your words. But if you've taken Ironholds's and/or my comments on board and, while not redacting, don't intend to pursue the line of argument that other editors may be brain damaged, I'll settle for that. As for your commentary about me, "insults and BS allegations", "baiting", etc aren't my style and are something I do my best to avoid, but if you feel that there are issues in that regard, please feel free to pursue dispute resolution through the usual channels. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    This is the channel. You signed numerous personal attacks against BD, and you are an administrator or sysop (whatever that is). You need to remove your signature from them, or otherwise make amends.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    Hi again!
    I struck through the brain-damaged comment on brain-damage, per your and Ironholds's wisdom.
    I did not say that you were baiting. You are straightforward, I am happy to write. However, you did sign some statements that including discussions of BD's psychology, etc., which were inappropriate. I wrote that somebody at the WMF-survey discussion seemed to be writing especially obtusely!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

    The Signpost: 05 March 2012

    Extended content

    Talkback

    Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
    Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at JayJay's talk page.
    Message added 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

    JayJayTalk to me 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

    Mathematical shop talk

    Confessions of non-sober categorizations

    I resisted not the temptation to include category-theorist Colin McLarty in "Category:Category-theoretic categories, which is my favorite Wikipedia category.

    A sober mathematician, not necessarily Dana Scott,[1] removed McLarty with only silent remonstration.

    1. ^ Author: Johnstone, Peter Editor: Banaschewski, Bernhard Editor: Hoffmann, Rudolf-Eberhard Primary Title: Scott is not always sober Book Title: Continuous Lattices Book Series Title: Lecture Notes in Mathematics Copyright: 1981 Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg Isbn: 978-3-540-10848-1 Subject: Mathematics and Statistics Start Page: 282 End Page: 283 Volume: 871 Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0089911 Doi: 10.1007/BFb0089911

     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Categories: de Finetti's theorem, Choquet simplices, and (measure) convexity

    Hi K.,

    Brad7777 and me probably did not quite understand your remark at User_talk:Brad7777#de_Finetti. Could you please comment?

    Thanks, Sasha (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, my friend! I was even more cryptic than usual, perhaps because I have lost most disagreements with Brad, and so feared to offer more than token resistance! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    I saw the edit summary for this thread and of course rushed here, but needlessly it seemed. Posting here nonetheless in Brad Cabal solidarity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    I am flattered, Brad2, that you noticed! :)
    Bradleys of the world should stick together. An injury to one Bradley is an injury to all Bradleys. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Hilbert Space

    Your version of the article states that Hilbert spaces are vector spaces. This is a (minor) mistake that is commonly made. Perhaps their intuitions are mutually applicable; however, factually speaking, based on definitions, Hilbert spaces are not necessarily vector spaces. Please review basic definitions: note that "linear combinations" in the vector space sense are must be combinations of a finite number of basis vectors. The finite restriction is lifted when speaking about hilbert bases for hilbert spaces. --Liuyipei (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    I replied at the Hilbert space article. Briefly, in the definition of a vector space, finite linear-combinations appear in the algebraic-closure axioms (linear combinations of elements in a vector space remain in the vector space). There is no negation of the existence of infinite linear-combinations. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

    Optimization talk

    edits to Template:Optimization_algorithms

    Hi KW, I saw that you are very interested in the Optimization algorithms template, and reverted some of the changes I made. Since you seem familiar with the template, I won't edit it more, but I have the following requests:

    1. right now, linear and quadratic programming are listed as categories, but semi-definite programming (SDP) is not. I think it would be very useful to add it somewhere (if not, then I don't see how to justify keeping linear and quadratic programming); I think in my edit I may have put SDP where I meant to put IPM. For the same reason, I had added conic methods as a category (of course conic problems are not methods, but nor are linear programs).
    2. the link to 'Interior point method' goes to the section on IPM at the linear programming page, but of course IPM are much more general. They are also one of the best results from the past 25 years, so I think interior point method should show up somewhere on the template.

    Thanks for your work on wikipedia! Lavaka (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Lavaka!
    Welcome to the neighborhood!
    Your suggestions were very thoughtful, but the template is currently focused on methods, algorithms, and heuristics. You are correct that the left-hand side categories are problem classes, but the difference is that existing problem-classes contain at least a few start-class articles.
    As I understand it, for SDP and more generally conic problems, WP seems to have a shortage of articles on associated methods: There was a young guy, probably now middle aged, at Carnegie Mellon (Pataki?) who was doing (a) pivoting algorithms for SDP; otherwise, we have (b) interior point methods for SDP of various stripes. Perhaps one could throw in problem-classes having (c) self-concordant or (d) self-regular barrier functions, since such properties are near essential for good complexity results. Leonid Fayobish (sic) at Notre Dame may have some fancy results, also. But I don't know of any articles on a, b, c, d, which would fill a conic-sdp category. Prove me wrong!
    Cheers,
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's a good point, there's not much on SDP on wikipedia. So for now, I'm happy to leave it off. But there should be more SDP on wikipedia! In the past 5 years, there's been a lot of work on SDP via non-IPM methods, mainly by first-order methods. Here are a few I can think of:
    1. Row by row methods for semidefinite programming. I haven't read this for a while, and not sure how to categorize it, but I think it's fairly uniuqe
    2. There's been a lot of interest in matrix completion problems using the nuclear norm, so this is an SDP. For example, Don Goldfarb has fixed point continuation (FPC) to solve the nuclear norm problem. FPC is just the forward-backward algorithm, which works in this case since the proximity function of the nuclear norm is computable with a SVD. Many SDP can be solved by the forward-backward or proximal point algorithm (usually under the name of ADMM or Split-Bregman), and so there have been much recent work. It would be great to add the classic splitting algorithms to wikipedia (forward-backward (not the same one that is currently on wikipedia), Douglas-Rachford, backward-backward, Peaceman Rachford). Some of these are on here, but without much connection to optimization.
    3. Martin Jaggi and coauthors (and some earlier authors) have applied the Frank-Wolfe algorithm to various SDP, e.g. [1], and the Hazan paper from a few years ago (cited in that arxiv paper)
    4. Lewis and Overton have a review of eigenvalue optimization from the mid-90s; I haven't read this for a while, but I think it contains several strategies for specific SDP.
    5. For conic problems in particular, I don't know of applications that have cones any fancier than the PSD cone, but if one can project onto the cone efficiently, then it can be solved by methods like forward backward (or to get around problems when there is a linear term that makes it difficult, there are dual formulations --- such as my own method [2] --- and some new primal-dual formulations such as [3] ).
    Anyhow, just a few things I was thinking of. Of course, no one has time to put this all on wikipedia soon, but I would like to start adding some major things, such as the forward backward algorithm. If I do, I'll let you know! Lavaka (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    You know a lot more than me! :)
    Yes, the problem is time....
    Conic problems do have a lot of research, but nothing has emerged as a core algorithm or iterative method, I'm afraid. I think that the other areas are rather settled; I am surprised to learn that Frank-Wolfe lives again, like a vampire improperly staked, for IPMs even outside of network problems! ;) (Even worse are cutting-plan methods for convex minimization, but terrible methods continue to generate insight and heuristics and sometimes algorithms.)
    I have written on mathematical economics and (since deleted by a fundamentalist) the Perron-Frobenius theorem on the von Neumann model of an expanding economy, which has spurred methods by the mighty Robinson, Nemirovskii & Nesterov (in their off-cited but little read book), Ye, Anstreicher (or maybe he just has an interest in it)---no doubt more since I was "in the game".
    You should join the computer science, mathematics, or systems WikiProjects. You can see associated user-boxes and links on my user page.
    Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

    Business Optimization subsection

    regarding "remove book. These others are classics and core references (maybe not Lee). Let this book win an award or two. A lot of business-oriented books have appeared."

    Dear Kiefer, I wasn't aware of other business books about Optimization and its applications. I believe a subsection for such reading, from credible publishing houses, might be of interest to less mathematically inclined individuals who are investigating Optimization. To my knowledge, there no awards for Optimization-related books, so that seems an awfully high hurdle for the subject of my post to attain. A fair number of the current, Classic references on the page are 25-30 years old and I submit that the page would benefit from a selection of more recent work. In that spirit, I'd like you to reconsider the removal my post. Centathlete (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Centathlete (Mike)

    Hi Mike!
    It was nice of you to write.
    I am sorry for not writing you directly, following my removal of the book, because I usually explain myself (besides the edit summary you quote) again on the talk page of a new (or new to me) editor. So I am doubly glad that you wrote me.
    There are many awards in optimization, e.g., the Lancaster prize awarded by INFORMS is usually given for a book, while there are various awards given by the Mathematical Optimization Society and related societies, often for papers (some of which becomes books).
    I am unaware of any award to the author of the book you championed since the last MOS international symposium. What has the author done that makes his work exceptional? Has he won an INFORMS award for practical OR, for example? Did this book get rave reviews in the journals of optimization, or by an especially non-venial giant of the field? (For example, a blurb from Stephen Robinson can be trusted.) Do you have a review of recent books in optimization for economists or business that highlights this book? Is the book used at MIT or Stanford or CORE or Cambridge or Paris 6?
    The graduate-level comprehensive books in mathematical programming (Minoux, which has another French edition, however) and Shapiro are older, I agree; however their contents are still core, apart from the group-theoretic approaches to integer optimization. Nobody has suggested removing them, and I know of no replacements. Lasdon's book has long been recognized as before its time, and seems even more appreciated now than in the 1970s. (Lemaréchal at least has long acknowledged its influence.)
    For applied books, the book of Magnanti et alia is dated and weaker on nonlinear optimization, I agree. I suppose that Woolsey's collection, apart from its excessive pricing, would be hilarious, wise, and useful for applications. H. P. William's modeling book is strong on integer programming.
    If we disagree, you can ask for a second opinion at WikiProject Mathematics or Computer Science or Systems. Users Isheden is especially active in writing about convex minimization, and user Ruud K. is knowledgeable about computer science and not a bigot (for example, teaching me to look more kindly upon heuristics).
    Sincerely and with best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    Hi!
    I looked at Google Books. I suppose that Wayne Whinston's books are the standard books for managment or business, because they use MS Excel. I've also heard of him.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Hi Kiefer,
    I guess I would argue simply that there should be on this page, because there is no other as appropriate elsewhere on wikipedia, a small subsection of books, from credible publishers, that examine real-world applications of mathematical optimization in the private and public sectors. I found that Sashihara's book did, and I certainly would want to see recommended titles from others. As you know, business books are read and judged differently from academic ones, so they typically don't have awards or easily validated canon-like status at Business Schools. If a book presents compelling case studies about optimization in action, it should be referenced here, in my opinion. I think such references would augment this page without diluting or commercializing it--and in a tiny way help the greater cause of applied optimization!
    Centathlete (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Centathlete (Mike)
    Hi Centathlete!
    I am sorry but I don't think I was setting the bar too high. This is the flagship article of optimization (MSC2010 90), and so its references should be only the highest quality, most reliable sources---for fairness to excluded authors and to help readers (per WP:MOS and WP:RS).
    I haven't looked at Whinston or others' books on Excel and Optimization, but that is definitely what future Bus.Adm. students want. I would be very surprised if such books do not present case studies that (only mildly) insult the reader's intelligence, like other self-help books (e.g. Ronald A. Fisher's books in statistics or Dr. Phil's in psychology)! ;)
    I would suggest that you write an article on the Edelman Prize or Interfaces, focusing on articles from the Interfaces's Edelman-Prize issue (yearly) that you can find publicly available. Those articles are extremely well written and carefully edited, at least when they were edited by a guildmaster who e.g. showed up in Sweden wearing a uniform of the South African Army (under Apartheid). There were articles on the design of the Optimizer of Excel and on Welch's Grape Jelly (a cooperative of farmers, btw) and by Bertsimas on sparse financial portfolios c. 2000, for example. There was a nice article from Google in American Statistician a year or so ago, which described Google's use of designed experiments. These are all well done, publicly recognized examples of optimization.
    I do not "own" any pages, even when I have been the only editor of an article. I previously suggested your asking for a second opinion from 2 reasonable editors, whom I respect, partly because each has no problem with correcting my errors. Again, you can ask for another opinion at one of the relevant WikiProjects I mentioned. I would suggest also your asking User:Thomas Meeks who has greatly expanded the discussion of economics in optimization, with whom I've been disagreeing a lot lately.
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)