User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive4

Ropelength

Dear Michael, I think the article about ropelength still deserves the stub mark simply because there is much more to ropelength that was left unstated. What do you think? Iswyn 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Trig Identities (Linear Combinations)

Hi Michael, I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia. I made an edit to Wikipedia:Trig Identities which you promptly reverted. I don't know much about editing Wikipedia (for example, I don't know whether this page or the article talk page is the appropriate place for this comment). I erroneously didn't leave a summary of my changes. You have obviously had much experience and made many contributions to wikipedia, but could you please explain your revert? The text talks about a linear combination of any phase-shifted sine wave being a sine wave, but the maths only gives the equation for a pi/2 shifted wave (cosine). My edit generalised the equation for the linear combination of sine waves with arbitrary phase-shifts. I may have made some mistakes with my edit (if so, please correct them or let me know) but I don't understand the need for the revert (see Help:Reverting). Thanks in advance for helping out a newbie. PhysOz 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit appeared hasty and not as clear as what was there, so I may have leapt to the conclusion that you were just experimenting. But let's look at it more closely:

$a\sin x+b\sin(x+y)=\alpha \sin(x+\beta )\,$

where

$\alpha ={\sqrt {a^{2}+b^{2}+2ab\cos y}},$

and

$\beta =\tan ^{-1}\left({\frac {b\sin y}{a+b\cos y}}\right).$

One thing that irritates me is using the Latin letter y for the phase shift on the left and the Greek letter β for the phase shift on the right, and I think notational inconsistency makes me suspicious, and accordingly I didn't look that closely. I now think that it would be a good idea to leave the original as the first example because of the simplicity resulting from orthogonality of sin and cos (in particular, the amplitude is just the square root of the sum of the squares of the separate amplitudes, and everyone's familiar with that pattern from the Pythagorean theorem). This would occasion some rephrasing of the paragraph before the initial example and then between that and the next one. (On a less important issue, the final period and the final comma should be inside the math environment; otherwise they get aligned badly on many browsers.) Michael Hardy 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LaTeX to Wikicode

I did not understand your request for \scriptstyle in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#LaTeX to Wikicode translation, please explain. Jmath666 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He means that instead of $x_{1}^{2}\,$ the script should output $\scriptstyle x_{1}^{2}\,$ (edit this section to see exactly what I mean). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inline" as opposed to "displayed" TeX, on Wikipedia at least, should use \scriptstyle, since otherwise it gets set as if in \displaystyle even when it's inline, and also on many browers it's comically gigantic. Michael Hardy 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. But I think the opposite of \displaystyle and the default in TeX for inline formulas is \textstyle, not \scriptstyle. \scriptstyle is small type mode used for subscripts and superscripts (hence the name) and in my browser indeed tiny, 1/2 the size of normal text (I use force all PNG). Check it out: default: $x_{1}^{2}\,$, with \textstyle: $\textstyle x_{1}^{2}\,$, \scriptstyle: $\scriptstyle x_{1}^{2}\,$. I think \textstyle is the correct mode at least if this was TeX and it looks best, at least in this example and in my browser. So I think I should make it emit \textstyle for inline formulas. Thanks for bringing this up. Jmath666 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of messed-up vertical position of inline formulas is separate - PlanetMath seems to me got it right, why not Wikipedia... Jmath666 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

TeX inline will rarely look good with Wikipedia's current technical capabilities. For my viewing configuration, default and textstyle are the same size, with the former slightly bolder; scriptstyle is distinctly smaller, approximately the same size as the surrounding text. And, no, PlanetMath has problems, too. If you would like something better, lobby for blahtex to be incorporated into MediaWiki. It supports much more of TeX, and also can generate MathML output for those who can benefit. --KSmrq^T 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does not look good to me either. PlanetMath looks better on my screen but I believe you that it has some problems, too. I would like to take a long term view: In time, Wikipedia will improve to the point that correctly written TeX will also display correctly. Then creating pages with intentionally incorrect TeX now is liable to create problems in the long run. Jmath666 03:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Polya enumeration theorem

Hello there, someone marked the above article as needing attention from an expert, but did not say why. I have received positive feedback on this article, giving the impression that it is a competent piece of work. Could you maybe recrute such an expert to resolve this issue. I don't know whom I should consult on this. Thanks. -Zahlentheorie 10:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just glanced at it. I don't see any obvious reason why it would be flagged that way. I'm not an expert in that area of combinatorial mathematics, but I'll look it over a bit. Ideally, the person who flagged it like that should comment on the discussion page; if he didn't do that, maybe you (or I) could ask him to clarify. Michael Hardy 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree (thanks BTW for fixing the obsolete format). Maybe you could ask him, since you are a key Wikipedian mathematician and have the necessary authority. -Zahlentheorie 10:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any "authority" is necessary (unless that's meant in some psychological sense?). Michael Hardy 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign languages ... I only meant that someone with your extensive edit record is perhaps more likely to get a well thought-out response when he/she asks a question. Anyhow, let's stick to PET. I am in software development and not at a university. I don't know whom to ask for a review. Please help. -Zahlentheorie 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pólya enumeration theorem

commented. `'mikka 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Elegant = Slang

It's not a technical term for sure.

Of all those ordinary words oddly used in mathematics in a technical sense, such as transcendental, surreal, complex, real, imaginary, ring, group, field, category, type, class, relation, bound, etc., "elegant" is not one of them.

It's a subjective definition for what is aestheticly attractive regarding mathematics.

In some contexts it more or less means "simple". In that case, you just may go ahead and say "simple". It's way more elegant. :-P

The fact that it's not a technical term does not make it slang. Michael Hardy 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But makes it a weasel word. The article goes extremely well without it, still with the benefit that the reader never has to mind what the fuck this "elegance" was supposed to mean nor why does it matter (actually, it doesn't at all). This is an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud... assessing the "elegance" (what the fuck might that be) of complex numbers' properties is too fucking irrelevant and subjective, don't you think? To me, at least, it's as though the article said "it's just amazing how pretty and cool they are", and makes me feel just as embarassed as if I was reading that. Just appeal to reason and you'll see I am right.

Some aspects of your style of expression seem to indicate an undue and ruthless impatience with discussion of this issue, as if you're going to simply be dogmatic about it. Even with subjective esthetic judgments, if a large proportion of those interested in the subject regard it as esthetically pleasing, that fact can be reported as an objective fact. In some cases it may only mean "simple", but that's extrememly far from the whole story, to say the least. Michael Hardy 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my sassy and irreverent ways never fail to dazzle people at first sight. But there's an actual logic underlying my thought. Also, I am not gonna insist on it (I noticed you reverted my edits), thus proving I'm not dogmatic, still I hold firmly that this word is fucking superfluous and should be removed. But, with that surname, I know you're gonna stick with the "elegance" assessment. I just hope you don't regard "uselessness" as an "elegant" aspect in mathematics too, like G.H. Hardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.164.220.194 (talk • contribs)

Mathematics tends to be messy first and over time it becomes more elegant as it is filtered through many minds and connected into the whole. I'd think that just simpler is not enough, arguments called "elegant" are simpler usually because they take advantage of more powerful tools from elsewhere in mathematics. Are you referring/objecting to the use of the word "elegant" in Estimation of covariance matrices? Jmath666 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Confuse

Template:Confuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — jnestorius^(talk) 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

List of wave topics isn't up for AfD. As to what I think you're referring to, then "unsourced" and "potentially infinite" are completely reasons to delete something. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for the other points you made? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In a topics list, the sources should be in the articles linked to, not in the list. Are you really suggesting that the list of mathematics articles is "crap"? Or that lists of mathematics topics, by consensus a Wikipedia featured list chosen to represent Wikipedia's best work, is "crap"? It is absurd to sugest "potentially infinite" is a reason to delete. ALL Wikipedia articles are "potentially infinite". And all reasonable topics lists are potentially infinite. I cite two of Wikipedia's most respected articles and you call them "crap". Should I be impressed? Michael Hardy 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said you had to be impressed? Anyway, I don't see as list of mathematics articles is potentially infinite: all that is a list of mathematics articles in Wikipedia, which is going to be finite at some point and is easy to keep up to date. Nor that lists of mathematics topics is potentially infinite either: again, it's easy enough to keep a track of maths coverage within Wikipedia. Self-referentiality may be considered evil, BTW, but that's another discussion. Both of those are easily maintainable: you've yet to convince me that List of cycles is maintainable, because I don't think it is. Should I be impressed? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 23:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was actually referring to list of cycles. As far as list of wave topics is concerned, that is quite uncontroversially a worthwhile list of scientific topics; if anyone proposed its deletion the proposal would be overwhelmed quickly. Did you mean I have yet to convince you that list of cycles is maintainable? Michael Hardy 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, my bad. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Derivative

I wonder if you have any views on the article Derivative (which I believe you have edited in the past). They would be very welcome (at least by me) on the talk page. Geometry guy 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

V. K. Ratliff

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article V. K. Ratliff, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zazzer 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical independence

Hi there, you wrote The last edit missed the point: It says these are DEPENDENT, not that these are INdependent in reference to the statement

By contrast, the event of getting a "6" the first time a die is rolled and the event that the sum of the numbers seen on the first and second trials is "12" are dependent.

Can you, please, elaborate? Most assuredly, if A is the event of getting 6 the first time and B is the event of getting 12 after 2 rolls, then B implies A, so that conditional probability P(A|B) is 1, not 1/6, which is P(A). Actually, I don't particularly care for 8 or 12, but I was trying to relate the second sentence with an example of dependence to the first sentence with an example of independence: if the resuls of rolling twice are 6 and 6 in the first sentence, why are they 6 and 8-6=2 in the second sentence? Of course, you can simply change the first sentence to 6 and 2, but the dependence is harder to see in 6,8 scenario. Best, Arcfrk 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Absent-mindedness---I leapt all the way to the conclusion that it's the same as the two events of getting a six twice. I should have paid more attention. But I still prefer 8 to 12 because 12 may give the impression that dependence requires the logical entailment that you mention: the second event need not actually entail the first, as in your example, in order that the two events be independent. Michael Hardy 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean need not entail...in order that the two events be inDEpendent". I personally see nothing wrong with using the extreme form of dependency, what you call "entailment", to illustrate the difference between dependent and indenpedent events. In any case, an explanation of these introductory examples later in the text seems to be justified. Arcfrk 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle

Is there some programming language that interprets "+ e" and "+e" differently?

Belated thanks for your help on Fishers method, Sample size, Mallow's Cp, Stepwise regression, and others in the last year. --MBHiii 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Faulhaber's formula

I recently made a comment on the discussion page of Faulhaber's formula, and was hoping that someone would express an opinion as to whether I am right or wrong. Regards Crackling 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'll take a look at this soon. Michael Hardy 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment has recently been acted on by Oleg Alexandrov. Crackling 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with evaluating vandalism study

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [1]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Thanks. Remember 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess your not interested. Well, let me know if you are, in the meantime I will be asking other statisticians for their assistance. Remember 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've looked at it a bit; I may be back within the next couple of days. Michael Hardy 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IMA

Surely the deletion of a small page, which is easily restored, is not a good reason to make personal comments about the user who tagged it for deletion. CMummert · talk 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That user has a history... Michael Hardy 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a history of doing Recent Creation patrols to tag articles that appear inappropriate. Sometimes articles about legitimately notable subjects are so poorly done that they get tagged for deletion along with the garbage. The Kinslayer 11:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: IMA

Please be civil. The deleted version did not assert notability, but the recreated version does. Also, I see no reason to believe that the original speedy tag was added in bad faith. If you have a problem with the user, seek dispute resolution, but I'm not going to take action for non-existent offenses. --Coredesat 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain, since it escapes me, just what it is in the present version of the article that asserts notability that was not in the version that "The Kinslayer" marked for deletion? The article was stubby, but it was not "so poorly done" ("The Kinslayer's" words) that it would be reasonable to tag it for deletion along with "garbage" ("The Kinslayer's" term). And so tagging it was patently unreasonable; under the circumstances it was what I would expect only of someone who picks articles more-or-less at random at nominates them for deletion without reading them. Michael Hardy 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was uncivil? Really? I don't see that. The deleted version did not contain anything about it having received the largest grant ever awarded by the National Science Foundation. If something doesn't have an assertion of notability, I don't have to find one. I'm done talking about this, if you still have a problem, take it elsewhere, otherwise stop posting tirades on my user talk page. It was a valid A7. --Coredesat 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is uncivil to make decisions of this kind about matters that you don't understand. Michael Hardy 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you're walking a thin line. Further personal attacks against me or anyone else (such as calling other editors "idiots" will result in you being blocked (though not by me). Also, read WP:CIV - that is not incivility. In fact, that happens a lot here. --Coredesat 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's a "valid A7", then the definition needs to change. A large NSF grant is not the only thing that could be taken to be an assertion of notability; affiliation with the University of Minnesota could similarly be so taken. As soon as you've said a $19.5 million NSF grant constitutes an assertion of notability, you've said that what is an what is not an assertion of notability depends on familiarity with the topic. Nothing in the present article says "The $19.5 million grant is why it's notable", so nothing needed to say "affiliation with the University of Minnesota is why it's notable", in order for that to be a valid assertion of notability. Besides, this is an obvious case in which the advice of people familiar with the subject was needed before you could tell what constitutes and assertion of notability. Michael Hardy 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a case for WT:CSD, not on my talk page. Being affiliated with a university is not an assertion of notability. Most college newspapers don't get their own articles because they're generally not considered notable on their own. --Coredesat 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some time allowed for the editor to work on the article before it gets tagged and then time to improve the article or to dispute the suggested deletion? That would take care of this kind of problem and one-liners created by someone at random who never comes back would still go away in a while. From CSD: The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created. Besides, the template for speedy deletion suggests that some reasonable time be allowed for the editor to fix the page before it is deleted. (I do not know how long it was in the case of IMA before it was deleted because the deletion does not show in history and I do not know how to find such records. ) Jmath666 23:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged at 09:37 on December 1st. I deleted it at 01:15 on December 2nd. The tag was there for about 18 hours, and the article had been around since 2004, which is quite a while for most speedy deletions. --Coredesat 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The timing sounds reasonable. And with no links to it from the main space, I can see how it may look like a good CSD to someone from out of the area. Oh well. Jmath666 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable? 18 hours? During which no one was notified? In view of the fact that when an article on one's watchlist is deleted, the deletion does not appear on one's watchlist, it was essentially done secretly. And does not the fact of WHO edited the article suggest that persons qualified in this area do consider it notable? And what do you mean by "no links from the main space"? Are you suggesting that no other articles linked to it? Michael Hardy 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure only the List of mathematics articles (I) linked to it at the time of deletion, but that's not really a criterion for deletion. Also, it's not a matter of who edits it, because the people who edit any article tend to think it's worthy of spending their time editing, even if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. Leebo ^T/C 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. All people who edit an article think it's worthy of their time, but not all such people are known to haev expertise in the field on which they're writing. But these ones were. Michael Hardy 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand. Are you saying we should be using Internet personas' credentials to determine the notability of the articles? Leebo ^T/C 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm saying we should take into account their known abilities when deciding whose advice to seek as to whether something is notable. It's more about competence than about credentials. If I find an article about the medieval Pope Metasphosphorus III, I don't add a statement that he had six nuns burned at the stake if that's a fiction I made up, but I may add it if it's something I know, regardless of my lack of credentials. I judge according to what I know rather than according to what I am officially certified as knowing. Michael Hardy 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" means "worthy of notice", and Wikipedia takes it to be something that has been written about or discussed in multiple reliable publications. If the article does not contain those, it's not asserting that it is worthy of notice. The Kinslayer has a caustic and abrasive attitude with every person that takes issue with his tags (believe me, I've taken issue with past tags of his), but calling it vandalism or calling him an idiot is entirely inappropriate. The Kinslayer's incivility toward you only began after it was brought up on his talk page, not when he placed the tag. Leebo ^T/C 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To be precise I could not find any link to it at present other than from talk pages and mentioned list (generated automatically by a bot). No link from an actual article made by a human. True, 18 hours is not much, but if someone had it on the watch list and happen to check in those 18 hours the tag would show. Noone did so it fell between the cracks. Well nothing is perfect even if everyone acts in good faith. It is a fact of Wikipedia life (it seems by design) that editors and admins will act without expert knowledge. The philosophy as I understand it is that the system is meant to be self-correcting. Perhaps there should be some minimal period from tag to deletion set by policy as I suggested on math talk; then we can argue how long it should be and once this is settled live with the result. Jmath666 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not correct, since Bernd Sturmfels links to it, and did before the present version was created; it was a red link. Michael Hardy 00:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Which reminds me, someone might want to do an article on Doug but after the recent experience with stubs it won't be me. Jmath666 01:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And of course I agree that before a speedy deletion tag is placed and before the article is deleted the people who do that should check the history and that should be interpreted to include who the editors are and if they seem to know what they are doing based on their contributions. In fact CSD says something along those lines. Again, in this case, history of a deleted article does not show, so this is a purely theoretical comment - I do not know who the editors were. Jmath666 03:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the history. I'm sticking behind my warnings - if something like this happens again, either to me, The Kinslayer, or someone else, you will be reported to WP:ANI for incivility and failure to assume good faith, and you may be blocked. --Coredesat 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether, if someone blanked the page on William Shakespeare, you would assume good faith and cordially disagree with that edit, or would you hit the rollback button and, if you found it to be a repeated offense, warn that user about vandalism? This appears similar because in this case deletion could only have been done by someone who lacks sufficient competence in the field to judge whether the article did or did not assert notability. Michael Hardy 23:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how you have taken this deletion as some kind of personal slant against mathematicians, and initiated your response by making personal attacks instead of going to deletion review. It's hardly the conspiracy or scandal you're making it out to be. Leebo ^T/C 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are done secretly. If an article on your watchlist is deleted, you don't see it. If you look at the edit history of someone who's deleted 100 articles and done two minor edits, all in one hour, you see only the two minor edits. They shouldn't be done so hastily with no notice to those who've edited and may know whether something is notable or what constitutes notability in the particular field. Michael Hardy 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A word

Howdy. Well, I've been there; I know how aggravating it can be to deal with folks like those responsible for the dust-up above. So I stuck my neck out and said a word or two to the deleting admin. Will it help? Who knows. Remarks to the tagger seem pointless given the attitude we see.

If you can manage, try to tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. That may make it easier and more comfortable for others to intervene on your behalf. Besides, in my experience with the cocky and the clueless, pointing out their condition doesn't cure it. (It can give temporary emotional satisfaction, but at a cost.) As you may have noticed, I speak bluntly myself on occasion; so I'm not claiming any moral high ground, just relevant experience. :-\ --KSmrq^T 05:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your help with this matter. Michael Hardy 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Elegant and subtle estimation of covariance matrices

I have removed statement regarding elegant and subtle in Estimation of covariance matrices after explaining reasons at Talk:Estimation of covariance matrices and waiting for 5 days. If you wish to revert I will let go. Jmath666 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MIT undergraduate acceptance rates

I am tempted to revert the newly added table "MIT Undergraduate Acceptance Rates" on the basis that it seems to be Soapboxing about how it is more difficult for a man to get into MIT than a woman. Admissions in the context of affirmative action vs. meritocracy and such is a touchy subject and broaching the topic with this ostensibly irrefutable data demeans its inherent complexities (the chart doesn't reveal that more men apply and are admitted in greater numbers). I suspect that breaking admissions numbers down by race/ethnicity would reveal similar disparities between "underrepresented minorities" and whites/asians/indians. Moreover, I don't know what the chart adds in the context of this section. However, I don't want to be accused of white-washing the page as this is a topic that should certainly be discussed either on this page or used as an example elsewhere. Madcoverboy 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

proofs

You just edited my user talk to change a proof regarding standard deviation and it reminded me of one of the reasons that I think Wikipedia should include proofs. Have you seen CompuChip's proposal for a proofs page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs?

BTW, what made you think to make a minor correction on a talk page you last edited over a year ago? Pdbailey 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An edit to your talk page made me want to remind myself why I had it on my watchlist. Then I more-or-less reflexively fixed an obvious typo.

Certainly proofs should be here, and some are. Proofs are often a lot more work that bare statement, so of course they'll always be slower in arriving here. Michael Hardy 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but wikipedia policy is to not include proofs. That's why I'm asking you to weigh in. Pdbailey 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Since when? Where do you find this policy? Michael Hardy 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You certainly are right, they are not excluded by policy, but I'm basing this on a discussion I had with Jitse Niesen over at Projection (linear algebra) regarding including the proof that the only eigenvalues of a projector are zero and one. The discussion is still there on the talk page. At the time I understood the situation to be that the policy (as on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Proofs) to be that proofs should be used rarely (how often is the proofs inclusion standard actually met?) and not as evidence of the correctness of a statement. Frankly, I don't care much for references to math text books that I don't know well and so there is almost zero usefulness to references to these books. I think most claims that can be,should be supported by proofs, I like the idea of adding a proofs page that is linked to after the claim, as in the proposal that I linked to above.

I realize upon re-reading the section of the manual of style that I over stated the claim. It was a misunderstanding on my part, and I'm sorry for that. Pdbailey 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Logistic regression

Could you comment on Wikipedia_talk:Modelling_Wikipedia's growth#Logistic growth model. HenkvD 19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

Hello. Does Minneapolis, Minnesota look all right to you? Please pardon this form letter that is going to about a dozen people whose user name I recognize from some Wikipedia edit (could have been recent or in the past year). I expect to close peer review by nominating Minneapolis to featured article candidate in a day or two unless other editors have more work they'd like to do. In case the links help, places to make a difference are to edit in place, comment in the peer review, comment on the talk page, support or oppose when and if it gets to featured article candidate, or work on a child article linked from the following template. -Susanlesch 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Acacia oerfota

Hello. You recently posted a comment on my talk page regarding my request for the speedy deletion of Acacia oerfota. I would like to explain to you that the article was empty when I requested its speedy deletion. The information that appears on the current version of the article was added after my request. Please forgive me if I am wrong. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But it was not empty; it included a template that had some information. That's all that was there before I got this message on my talk page from you. Michael Hardy 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is a reply for a comment you recently posted on my talk page. I realize I made a mistake when choosing a reason for the article's speedy deletion. It was just that I, the first time I saw the article, I found it (relatively) empty. I am sorry for my mistake and if I caused you any trouble. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:64.213.188.94

Um... why would you indefinitely block an IP address, especially one that does not appear to be a private one? Cbrown1023 talk 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not block that address. Michael Hardy 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:64.213.188.94 Cbrown1023 talk 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking this not to scold you, but to request information since I shortened the block to one week (on 16 april). Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems this happened more than a year ago. I don't remember the details. Michael Hardy 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

woah, I overlooked that detail. :) So you do not object to my shortening of the block, then? Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No---clearly it's been a while; if someone was misusing Wikipedia from that address, they are likely to have gone away by now. Michael Hardy 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More on random effects

Hi Michael, I don't want to be pedantic, and I don't claim my edits were excellent, but from what I know about these models, random effects models incorporate all assumptions of fixed effects models, with the additional assumption that the individual effects (which are still fixed for each individual) are drawn from a specific random distribution, rather than no restrictions being placed on these values. According to this understanding, there are some models that conform to the fixed effects assumptions but not to the random effects assumptions, and thus random effects are a special case of the fixed effects model. This is of course very much out of what the names of these models seem to imply, which is why I have discussed this with several people, and this is still my belief. Torfason 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fixed-effects model is just the random-effects model with the additional assumption that the variance of the random effect is zero. Michael Hardy 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on special cases and logic rules on my own talk page. However, our disagreement does not stem from problems with such rules, but from a fundamental disagreement about what fixed and random effects estimation involves. I believe quite firmly that a "random-effects model with the additional assumption that the variance of the random effect is zero" results in a regular OLS model, not in a fixed-effects model. This disagreement could originate in me being wrong, you being wrong, or there being more than one definition of fixed-effects and random-effects models floating around out there. I will not be editing the corresponding web pages further, but hope that someone will be able to clarify this with a third opinion, in a clear and convincing manner. -- Torfason 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Explicit derivation of mean and variance" in page "Binomial Distribution"

Hi Michael,
Thank you for your comments and copy-edits in my recent contribution to said page. I'm totally new to being an "editor". I've studied your edits, I like them all, and I'll imitate them in future. I'll do the variance part soon.
Question: my sum_ signs (cap. sigma) are larger and/or bolder than in the section above and I don't know why. So are terms such as (1-p) etc. It's no biggie but in my view it's not necessary. I think it's also preferable that the page style be consistent. Do you know what's happenning? Can you edit it away?
Thanks. Love Wikipedia. Gerald Tros 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Institute Professors

You had participated in a AfD on Institute Professor back in 2006. I wanted to let you know that List of Institute Professors was promoted to Featured list today, so thanks for bringing it to our attention and saving it from the brink! :) Madcoverboy 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Law of Large Numbers

Please take a look at this [2]. Thanks, JS 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Morera's theorem

Hey, I was looking over the article and I think that Morera's Theorem states the converse to Cauchy's theorem. Cauchy: a complex differentiable function is holomorphic. Morera: a holomorphic function is complex differentiable. I believe that the current article does not reflect this relation and actually states the opposite. Any input you have would be appreciated. Cronholm144 09:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have understod "holomorphic" to mean "complex-differentiable in a neighborhood", i.e. that a function is holomorphic at a point means that it is complex-differentiable in some open neighborhood of that point. That's what I have long taken to be the definition, although I think conventions may vary somewhat. Morera's theorem, however, is a sort of converse of Cauchy's theorem. It certainly wouldn't hurt to be explicit about that and to be precise about the sense in which it is true. Michael Hardy 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Polya enumeration theorem

We've recently had some radical surgery on the PET page, where some examples were removed that I thought quite useful. What's your opinion on this? Having several examples from different domains helps the reader get to the central concepts of the theorem, I think, by seeing them in different contexts. Moreover, the one example that remains is the one that is found in most textbooks. Would it be appropriate to create a separate page with PET examples to prevent clutter on the main page, yet give the interested reader the opportunity to study different applications of PET? -Zahlentheorie 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can LLN be done better?

Your edits through the 27th focused on technical perfection but I think they make the article less accessible to a generalist reader. And making it accessible to the average untrained reader has been a long-term goal. For example, your edit starts out talking weak and strong. That is a detail I think should be left to later in the article rather than jumping right in. As a general concept I think it would be better to start out with a simple explanation and example and getting more technical and harder as you go into the article. I also think that the issues that JS has with the binomial nature of all individual probabilities is a distracting complication without benefit to the article. In the last day and a half edits have been even more technical and have made the article more dense.

Is there no way to write an accessible introduction? I think it is a worthy goal to do that, but it seems illusive. Every effort to simplify at the start in order to help make the article more accessible gets objections on technical grounds. In my mind, I do not see the need to be technically perfect at the start if you handle it somewhere in the introduction. But I could be wrong. I would hate to think that the article just cannot be made accessible to an untrained reader.

Can you find a way to do it? --Blue Tie 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the introduction should be written in such a way as to be comprehensible to non-mathematicians who read it. You refer to the "untrained reader", and I think that's the intelligent high-school pupil. You seem to have an unduly low opinion of the intelligent high-school pupil. Keeping tecnicalities out of the introductory paragraph is just what I did. Saying I focused on "technical perfection" is absurd; I didn't edit any of the parts of the article to which such a comment should apply. Michael Hardy 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reaction is surprising to me. I feel as though you were somehow insulted -- your response is a bit harsh. I did not mean any insult.

We are both in agreement that the untrained reader is the high school student or graduate. I am not sure about "intelligent" or that my opinion of such individuals is "unduly low". What constitutes either "undue" or "low" to you may not be the same for me. I believe that all High School students are intelligent to varying degrees. The degree of intelligence that I am assuming is approximately "average". I am not sure if you agree with that, but anyway, intelligence was less the issue than education or training -- even a High School Drop-out can be intelligent and a graduate can have a very low IQ score.

With regard to training, my overall sense of the average high school student's mathematical abilities is colored by my wide-ranging, nation-wide working with employers attempting to hire new employees. They are generally unimpressed by the candidate pool. (And very few of these employers are themselves aware of the Law of Large Numbers.) My own personal view is confirmed by studies. Are you aware that in in 2000, 83% of US 12th-grade students were below the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)? Or that between 1974 and 2004, the scores had not changed? What is more, this test, which only 17% passed as proficient, never asks about probability theorems of any sort. (Here is the list of mathematics type questions asked.) I would hope I could be forgiven for imagining that fewer than 17% would have training to appreciate probability theorems.

Yet the article opens with the strong and weak laws -- a level of detail not even mentioned in basic but comprehensive, top-selling, first year college level Applied Statistics text books in the US. That level of detail is an example of what I considered to be dense content.

Maybe my terminology was not to your liking when I referred to the technical depth of the opening paragraph. You seem to consider the equations and proofs as the technical content. Because of my background, I do not feel that equations and proofs are the only measures of technical content. If we do not exactly agree on what constitutes "technical", that is ok with me; I did not mean for it to be an area of disagreement. I would hope to focus on the density of the opening paragraphs, regardless of what terminology you would prefer to apply to that concept.

Possibly you feel that I am trying to compromise wikipedia. At least by my view, I am not. I would like to find a way to make it easier to understand for the untrained reader. I suspect that a great many of those looking up "Law of Large Numbers" will be people who only recently heard of the term and are now trying to understand it. They will not have a College math background (graduate math students probably have their own sources anyway). Given that the average person is not a graduate level reader -- or even fully proficient at a 12th grade level of math, isn't there some way to make the article more accessible to the person who would tend to look this up? It seems to me that there must be some way to achieve this. Do you object to the goal as I put it forward or do you think it has been achieved even given the well documented limits on math skills of the average high school graduate?

Maybe, a different matter is at issue here. Perhaps you somehow feel personally offended by my critique. Nothing could be further from the truth. I brought it to your attention because I respect your edits. I apologize if my wording or approach or statements in any way conveyed some sort of bad attitude on my part -- it was unintentional and I feel badly if I came across that way. I apologize. I did not mean to accuse you of anything bad. I did not mean to be absurd. I again apologize for any error on my part.

Is there an ability to work together toward what I have described or are you just in complete disagreement with me and my purposes? --Blue Tie 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael has made changes to the introduction, please check it out. I agree the introduction should be understandable to the (average) lay reader, and believe the current introduction by Michael qualifies. We can only simplify LLN to an extent, it is not something that may be accessible to everybody. It cannot be wrongly stated, nor a version of it applicable to specific rvs be presented as the LLN. A statement like "LLN says that as sample size increases the average of the sample gets closer and closer to the average of the population" should be understandable by most. It may not be understandable by everybody, but I can't think of a simpler version that is both correct and captures the essence of LLN. JS 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An admirable job. --Blue Tie 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request about the 72 names on the Eiffel tower

You asked me to help move the names category. Why? what is wrong with the capitalization as it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcent1234 (talk • contribs)

It conflicts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and for that matter, even in such things as book titles, where the conventions favor capitalization more than Wikipedia's style manual does, those three initials would be set in lower case. When these conventions are neglected, it can lead to links failing to work, duplications of article, and other miscommunications. Michael Hardy 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Michael, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Radius dab page

As I respect your track record in math edits, I thought I'd drop a note to say I reverted your changes to Radius (disambiguation) to a version more consistent with WP:MOSDAB. I'll adjust it some more to reflect some of the ideas you added. If you don't understand why I've done things after reading the Mos, let me know. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you did:

• Radius, a measure of the curvature of a stringed instrument's fingerboard
• Radius (computer), a computer hardware firm
• Radius of curvature, a measure of curvature in advanced mathematics.

That is absurd! The one about musical instruments and the one in "advanced mathematics" are the SAME concept. Yet you've decided to but the computer firm between them, making it look as if those three are just disparate senses of the word. Michael Hardy 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply reverted to a previous version and said I would incorporate some of your ideas - I hadn't gotten back to that part yet. Looks like you have adjusted it so it takes care of this and still matches WP:MOSDAB. I'm going to adjust the keyboarding link to go directly to the pertinent section. Otherwise, it seems fine to me now. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help with the MoM re yagi problems...

Michael, I see you have worked on the Method of Moments, and I wonder if you could guide me through a simple problem in which I work through how, say, a 2-element Yagi-Uda set of elements interact with each others and change the directivity and impedance.

I am hoping to understand *why* the Yagi antenna works, now just "how" to follow some cookie-cutter pattern and make one.

Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please don't make links so complicated

Thanks for your comments, and all the help and cleanup you provide on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I have to disagree with you as to what makes links simple or complicated. I'm having a hard time seeing how [[article|alternate]] is complicated, whereas [[hav]]ing [[squa]]re [[bracket]]s at [[so]]me [[sem]]i-[[rand]]om [[poi]]nt in the [[mid]]dle of a [[wo]]rd is simple, but that's just me. The brackets inside the word certainly make it harder to search the source for a particular word. And when a slipshod link like "He spoke [[Egypt]]ian fluently" eventually gets properly disambiguated to "He spoke [[Egyptian language|Egyptian]] fluently", then the scheme is out the window anyways. This being Wikipedia, of course you are welcome to update them as you like. -Amillar 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just read some of the discussion above on Elegant=Slang. I find [[article|alternate]] to be elegant because it is universally applicable, while [[part]]ial [[link]]s are side-effects of selected grammatical rules in English which do not work with all aritcles, words, nor other languages. That's inelegant :-) -Amillar 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning out the additional logarithm topics article

Hello! I noticed you were a contributor to the Additional logarithm topics article and I've posted on the talk page a suggestion that I believe would help clean up the encyclopedia. Currently it's just a hodgepodge of subjects, many of them covered elsewhere. Would you mind checking it out and adding your comments or suggestions on the talk page? Thanks. Ed H | talk 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

geometric distribution

You're right. I've responded on the talk page. digfarenough (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Secondary measure

Hello Mr Michael Hardy, great thanks for all you changes on this article. Excuse all the mistakes of a french teacher beginning on english wikipedia. Have a good day. ENRGO 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Hi, Excuse me for the bad place of my first message, for these sandbox mistakes and again great thanks). ENRGO 06:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk links in List of mathematical examples

Is there are reason for the talk page links in [3] and [4]? PrimeHunter 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's the same reason they're in list of mathematics articles. The primary reason (if I understand correctly) is so that when you click on "related changes" the talk pages will be included. I think they may also serve other purposes, but I'm not very clear on that point. Michael Hardy 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have fixed [5] the bad link but not added talk links to the other sections. PrimeHunter 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

Hey Michael, I saw your recent interaction with G-guy. I just wanted to drop by and let you know that he is doing his best. If he makes a mistake correct it, I don't think he will mind. In fact, we discussed this a while back User_talk:Geometry_guy#Your_mathematical_antithesis and I think that you might be the perfect one for the job :) Cheers. --Cronholm144 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doutta Stars Football Club

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Doutta Stars Football Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Garrie 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle

Before reading this, please note that I have no experience with TeX yet.

Is the difference have to do with in one the code says "plus" and the other code says "+"?

L theo 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. One WHAT and the other WHAT? The difference between WHAT? Michael Hardy 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Antiisomorphism

You moved this page to a different name but didn't remove the prod tag, which seems strange to me, so I thought I should point it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Complex adaptive system

Fireproeng 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gambling odds versus true probabilities

Thanks for cleaning it up. I'm new to this. I'll try to get references for these claims.

- The actual true probability of an uncertain event occurring is never truly knowable or calculable with infinite precision. (fundamental aspect of uncertain events; true probabilities can only be estimated, not known; no counter-example exists where an event probability can be calculated with infinite precision; even a coin flip is not 50/50, as all coins are infinitesimally different from each other in their weightings.)

- However, in a free market under perfect information, the odds of paying tend to drift to the true probability odds. (concept of arbitrage and efficient markets)

Edcarrochio

Hello. I may address these points tomorrow.... Michael Hardy 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Martingale (probability) vs. martingale on cantor space (effective dimension)

First, thanks for cleaning up my various TeX abuses. I'm slowly improving.

The two notions of martingale (probability theory and the one used by computability theorists) are, in fact, different. See, e.g., the paper Why computational complexity requires stricter martingales (John M. Hitchcock and Jack H. Lutz. Theory of Computing Systems, 2006.) They write:

A curious thing about these two paths of research is that they interpret the word "martingale" differently. In computational complexity and algorithmic information theory, a martingale is typically a real-valued function d on $\{0,1\}^{*}$ such that

${\text{E}}[d(wb)|w]=d(w){\text{ (1.1)}}$

for all strings w, where the expectation is conditioned on the bit history w (the string seen thus far) and computed over the two possible values of the next bit b. When the underlying probability measure is uniform (0 and 1 equally likely, independent of prior history), equation (1.1) becomes the familiar identity

$d(w)={\frac {d(w0)+d(w1)}{2}}{\text{ (1.2)}}$

Intuitively, a martingale d is a strategy for betting on the successive bits of an in binary sequence, and d(w) is the amount of capital that a gambler using d will have after w if the sequence starts with w. Thus d(λ) is the initial capital, and equation (1.1) says that the payoffs are fair. On the other hand, in probability theory, a martingale is typically a sequence $\xi _{0},\xi _{1},\xi _{2},...$ of random variables such that

${\text{E}}[\xi _{n+1}|\xi _{0},...,\xi _{n}]=\xi _{n}{\text{ (1.3)}}$

for all $n\in \mathbb {N}$. Such a sequence is also called a martingale sequence or a martingale process, and we exclusively use the latter term here in order to distinguish the two notions under discussion.

So there is a difference, and the difference is more or less exactly what I wrote, as we think of the values of the random variables ξ_n as being the capital after n bets:

"That definition of martingale has a similar fairness condition, which also states that the expected value after some observation is the same as the value before the observation, given the prior history of observations. The difference is that in probability theory, the prior history of observations just refers to the capital history, whereas here the history refers to the exact sequence of 0s and 1s in the string."

I think the difference should be noted, as the two notions, while similar, are not the same despite sharing the same name. However, if you found my comment to be "confused nonsense", perhaps you have some suggestion on improving it to be more clear? skeptical scientist (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Plea for gentleness

Normally I have a thicker skin, but I'll confess that my feelings were a little stung by your first edit to Liouville dynamical system, an article that I created today. It would've been briefer and better to have left out the "absurd", don't you agree? Please take the effort to show more courtesy to Wikipedians with fewer edits than you have. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a convention in the Math WikiProject whereby the varphi should be preferred over the normal Greek letter phi? If you could point me to that, I'd appreciate it! :)

So the stub notice was there intentionally? I thought it was one of those cases where someone put a stub notice there when the article was one or two lines and then it got forgotten about after the article was half as long as War and Peace.

I don't think it's considered compulsory to prefer \varphi, but I think it looks better and is less likely to be mistaken for \varnothing. Michael Hardy 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

explaining little errors

I am very grateful for your careful work on style and grammar, because I know they are important, and wish I were more inclined to pay attention. But perhaps you could do this even more effectively if you did not always explain in detail as to a grammar class: it took me some while to figure out that "("Giraffe in zoology refers to an animal with a long neck" ---> "In zoology, a giraffe is an animal with a long neck") was intended as an illustration of the form of a sentence that had gotten out of control; or, in a simpler case, why you needed to explain that "there's no reason to capitalize the initial "d" in "delayed" in the middle of a sentence." (I recall that it was once an article title, and got left behind when the title was changed, but just the fix would be perhaps more time-efficient and less schoolmasterly.) If I were to find errors in your writing, and if I examined enough I am sure i could, I'd fix them and go on. This is meant as a friendly comment, not the beginning of a quarrel. DGG 08:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Shallow water waves.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Joe 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(The image ultimately promoted is a larger version of that you nominated; upon closing the first nomination as unsuccessful, Raven4x4x formally nominated the full-size animination.) Cheers, Joe 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

neglects conventions

(cur) (last) 18:22, 14 June 2007 Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs) (13,834 bytes) (this article neglects Wikipedia conventions that exist for good reaons; what the reasons are can be illustrated by this article) Cumulative frequency
PLease explain in more detail.
R.J.Oosterbaan 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Pincherle

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pincherle, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pincherle is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pincherle, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Pincherle itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Res publica

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Res publica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WHEELER 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Limitations.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Limitations.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Fourier analysis topics

wrt to your recent change to List of Fourier analysis topics, there's no "discussion at enormous length over several years" as you mention in your edit summary at all on the Talk:List of Fourier analysis topics - please could you add a link it on the talk page? It doesn't look as though there has been any significant discussion, and if there was, it would make sense to let people know in case anyone marks it for deletion again!

Thanks! Nuwewsco 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

		The Original Barnstar
		To Michael Hardy, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks -Susanlesch 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

Standard British-English punctuation places full stops after abbreviations only when the word has been cut at that point; thus it's "St" for "Saint" but "St." for Street", etc. "Mr", "Mrs", "Dr", etc., are all stopless. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Isoperimetric inequality

Dear Michael,

I am rather inexperienced in wiki and was unable to find your explanation for deleting the link to the isoperimetric inequality in the list of mathematical inequalities. Did you delete it because it is not a "named" inequality? A number of other inequalities that are not named also appear on the list, and the isoperimetric inequality is no less famous.

I also added a link to Gromov's inequality for complex projective space. This inequality, while less famous than the isoperimetric one, is well-known in geometric circles, and is also rather exceptional, as recent reseach shows. Did you delete it intentionally? Katzmik 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know I did not delete isoperimetric inequality. Can you give me a link to an edit showing that? Michael Hardy 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is [6] . Jmath666 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be confusion due to the fact that there are two such lists, one under category:inequalities, and the other at "list of inequalities". I am not sure what the purpose of having two very similar lists, albeit in slightly different formats. At any rate, if nobody objects, I will make sure there are links to both the isoperimetric inequality and Gromov's inequality, in both lists. I will wait for a day to see if there are any objections before reintroducing the link. Katzmik 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a rather bad idea for Michael to revert a well-meaning edit without a summary, and twice as bad to do it with the rollback button. It is as if you are walking on the street, a policeman goes by and punches you in the face, then moves on without saying anything. Manners help a lot in communicating, especially with newer users. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember adding some articles on inequalities that Katzmik wrote to the list; I certainly don't remember reverting any edit of his. Michael Hardy 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have added Category:inequalities to isoperimetric inequality so now it is listed there. Like Katzmik, I am not sure what is the purpose of human maintained list of inequalities when such list is already generated automatically by the category mechanism. I go further and say that the human maintained list will be always out of date and a source of confusion so it should be deleted. Jmath666 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alpha recursion

Cheers for the more experienced copy edit! Barnaby dawson 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Filling area conjecture

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your interest in the filling area conjecture page. I noticed you introduced a link to "Riemannian circle". However, such an article does not seem to exist. What did you have in mind? Katzmik 11:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Prime counting function

I see "prime counting function" more often than "prime-counting function". I just did a Google scholar search where the former was also more common. I think this name change is controversial and should be discussed first. PrimeHunter 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something I said about hyphens on the discussion page of another article I moved:

This article's title, Guyou hemisphere in a square projecction, sounded as if it was about something called a Guyou hemisphere that was in something called a square projection. After reading a bit, I realized that was not what was meant. That's why I added the hyphens. Yet another case of how hyphens can be magnificently efficient in conveying information, and why it is to be regretted that their use is often no longer taught. Michael Hardy 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's also the only reason the hyphen was omitted in this case. Michael Hardy 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors could often argue a lot about what is the "best" name by their own preference. I think we should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things. I just looked at the online references in prime-counting function and didn't find a single hyphen. Wikipedia is here to report what sources say and not to promote an agenda - not even an apparantly harmless one like increasing the use of hyphens. PrimeHunter 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens are something everyone's accustomed to seeing since they're still used in the traditional way in newspapers, magazines, and books, and this particular hyphen, like many hyphens, aids understanding. "Prime counting funnction" could be taken by the reader to mean one of many "counting functions", singled out as the "prime" one. But that is not what is meant. The hyphen makes that clear. Michael Hardy 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested to move back at Talk:Prime-counting function#Requested move. PrimeHunter 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Sorry if I caused any problems in my attempt to disambiguate those pages. I apologize if I used the wrong ones or whatever else. I was trying to help, and it is quite possible that I did more harm than good. I'm sorry. I promise that I won't make edits like those again unless I'm absolutely sure that I'm piping it to the correct article. Again, I apologize. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I certainly didn't mean to imply you shouldn't be working on things like that. Only that those particular cases seemed to choose the wrong target. (In this case there's some overlap between topics, but if the article is on a general philosophhical topic, then that would seem to indicate which choice is better.) Michael Hardy 12:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about a thing at all, sir. I assume you are a "sir" based on your name, "Michael." I think the problem is that the case that I chose, the page I chose to disambiguate, the two choices were too closely related to each other, and that made it somewhat difficult to make a decision. Personally, the two definitions seemed almost too much the same to me to be split up into two different pages, itself; I felt that Personal identity (philosophy) and Identity (social science) were too closely related that I didn't see why they needed to be separate articles. But that's just my opinion. But the definitions were too close for me to make a decision, and that is probably what caused me to accidentally pipe them to the wrong ones. ––Ksy92003(talk) 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't imply that. But you should be able to understand that when you're doing a lot of edits like that, you're bound to get confused and make several mistakes. You can't bat 1.000 in baseball and you can't shoot 100% in basketball. No matter how good you are, you're always destined to screw up a couple times. And yes, sometimes you will get confused if you do something a long time. A personal experience: I am a soccer referee (linesman) in my local area for AYSO. During the 3rd and 4th quarters, you're tired and want the game to end. And sometimes, you'll accidentally point the flag in the wrong direction because you forget that the teams switch sides at halftime. If you do things for a long time, you'll get both sides mixed up and do things exactly the opposite of the way you should do them.

Now, back to reality. Perhaps the reason why I made some minor errors in judgement was because I only read a small portion of the article, the part that had the link in it. Perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes if I paid more attention, which if that's the case, is an easy issue to correct. I will take a short break on Disambiguating links now so I can work on my other project, which is fixing re-directs, as evidence by my contributions. Thank you for your support. ––Ksy92003(talk) 06:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wirtinger inequality

There is no reason to refer to the Wirtinger inequality for 2-forms in the plural. The only reason I created a website with the title in the plural is because wiki would not let me to create one in the singular, given that there is already another article with the same name. Katzmik 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge space

I've suggested that the page be deleted. Banno 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanning Function

I noticed the comment "This was apparently written by someone entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conventions" in your edit. Did that make you feel better about yourself? Very professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkircher (talk • contribs)

It's simply a terse summary of what I did. Your comment above, on the other hand, is utterly cryptic. Michael Hardy 23:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only cryptic if you have an autism spectrum disorder. The tone of your comment is pretentious and condescending, which has no place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkircher (talk • contribs)

OK, doing something unpleasant but necessary should make me feel better. I don't understand that, but the answer to you initial question is "no". My edit summary explains what I did to anyone who wants to know, and if the person who initially created the article reads it, it tells them they ought to try to follow Wikipedia's conventions, many of which could be followed simply by emulating a few articles that they've seen. So it serves two useful purposes. Michael Hardy 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor's point can be summarized as "focus on the issue, not on the person", I guess. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not what he's doing. His point seems more like guilty-until-proven-innocent. Michael Hardy 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this could have been avoided by quietly fixing the style and perhaps notifying the editor in question on his talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Tkircher 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

et al. Usage

Thanks for pointing that out Michael. I wasn't fully aware about its usage so I went and read all about it. ash 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Humour

It seems that we were all young once.

"This is a test -- don't read it. Michael Hardy 17:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

"Damn. Too late. -- Fropuff 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"

:)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poisson distribution CDF

Hi Michael, following my edit mentioning the incomplete gamma function in the CDF of the Poisson distribution article, you added the note "${\mbox{ for }}k\geq -1$". But k! is in the denominator. Isn't (-1)! undefined? Shouldn't we put "${\mbox{ for }}k\geq 0$" or am I missing something? [User: count_ludwig (not registered yet)] 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)