User talk:Ozob

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

Minor edit to Volume of n-ball[edit]

Perhaps I have misunderstood something, I'm not sure why the surface area of a n-sphere would be proportional to r^n as opposed to r^(n-1). I'm new to Wikipedia and apologize for any errors in formatting.Nelumbo1894 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The n-sphere is an n-dimensional object which naturally lives in Rn + 1. So, for example, S1 is the unit circle in R2 and S2 is the unit sphere in R3. The area of such a sphere can be proved to be proportional to the nth power of the radius in the same way that the volume of an n-ball is proportional to the nth power of its radius. Specifically, if An is that area, then
because slicing Sn with the hyperplane x = x0 results in a sphere of one lower dimension and radius . By induction, a factor of R can be pulled out of the integrand to get
Perform the substitution t = x / R.
precisely as claimed. Ozob (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Computational Anatomy[edit]

High Ozob. Michael Miller.

I dont think appropriate for anatomists, just like computational linguistics was not really what linguists were about originally. Now there are many computational linguists.

Conncerning making it appropriate for undergraduate mathematicians, what would be required from your point of view.

Thank-you Mim.cis (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing to remember is that undergraduates don't really know anything yet, so, as much as possible, you have to convey ideas in intuitive terms instead of precise ones. In one sense this is hard, because we're used to writing for other professional mathematicians, and they expect rigor. But in another sense this ought to be easy, because it's rare that we think directly in rigorous terms. E.g., when I think of a manifold, I imagine a smooth surface in R3, not a metrizable topological space with an atlas, because I can picture the former and not the latter. An undergraduate can visualize a smooth surface in R3; he will be flummoxed by a metrizable topological space with an atlas, and without assistance, he will not recognize the former as an instance of the latter.
With that in mind, here is what I think you need to do to get what you've written into Wikipedia. First, the word "anatomy" appears in the article title. It must be absolutely clear how the mathematics is related to anatomy. The surest way to do this is to provide examples. For example, can CA describe a shoulder joint? The beating of the heart? The firing of neurons? There must be some classic examples that led to the current formalism of orbits under diffeomorphism group actions. These should be examined both to give historical perspective and because they place the general framework in context. They don't need a comprehensive treatment (that would be too detailed for Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia), but without them, most readers will have no idea how what you're doing relates to anatomy. Myself, if I didn't know that the subject was anatomy, I would guess that it was actually differential geometry.
Second, because you can't assume that the reader knows anything, you have to be willing to describe things loosely. When you talk to another professional, you can say (for example) "Sobolev space", and your fellow professional will know what you're talking about, even if he's in an entirely different field like combinatorics or algebraic number theory. But the target undergraduate, if he's completed the basic analysis sequence at all, knows little beyond differentiation and integration. So you can't start by saying "Sobolev space". Nor can you start with "Lie bracket", "geodesic", or even "diffeomorphism". You must first give the reader an intuitive picture. Then, once the undergraduate reader has some context, you can go beyond him. The article should progress from easy to hard, from general to precise, and from loose to rigorous.
Third, the article you've written has a large number of topics. From what I can tell, all these topics are appropriate for Wikipedia. But the article is quite large, and if you take the route I described above and include more descriptions and more examples, the article will get even larger. The solution that Wikipedia has adopted is called "summary style" (see WP:SS). A topic that outgrows its article is trimmed to a brief paragraph or two that mentions only some highlights. The remaining material is put into a new article. This new article is more specialized (just as Riemannian geometry is more specialized than smooth manifold) and must be capable of standing alone (you can't say, "notation is the same as in the computational anatomy article", for instance). You've already started on this with some of the subpages you've created (like User:Mim.cis/sandbox/Group-Actions-Manifolds-CA and User:Mim.cis/sandbox/Sobolev-RKHS-CA). If you want Wikipedia to be a really thorough resource for CA, you will have to do this more extensively, and it will be a big project.
Good luck! I'm happy to give more advice if you need it. Ozob (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Response from Michael Miller at Johns Hopkins to CA Review[edit]

Ozob, Thank-you so much for the feedback.

OK, I understand I think I can absorb much of the extra extensions that I have added. I will be parsimonious about it so that we try to use sparingly the equations except whennecessary.

Also for the extra backround sections I will examine those and see if they can be minimized as well. I think I understand your comments.

Then I will check it in.

Mim.cis (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Michael Miller

FTC Proof[edit]

What is "wrong" with the proof? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverLordGoldDragon (talkcontribs) 02:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article talk page. Ozob (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft "Extended mathematical programming"[edit]

Hi Ozob,

You reviewed my draft two weeks ago and recommended comprehensive revision. This is the first time I attempted to write a Wikipedia article and the draft was modeled on the Wikipedia article on SAMPL. I request more details about what should be changed. Is it too long? Too much detail? Too many examples? I'd very much appreciate your input on this. Thank you.

Talomar (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Feb 19, 2016

Hi Talomar,
There are two major problems. The first is that all Wikipedia articles must meet the general notability guideline. Depending upon the situation, the GNG has been interpreted in many different ways, but it always expresses the basic principle that Wikipedia should not itself be a source for anything. Wikipedia does not do original research, textbook discussions or tutorials, program manuals, or literature reviews; it does encyclopedia articles. In order to show that EMP is notable you will have to find some secondary sources. The article by Ferris et al., "An Extended Mathematical Programming Framework", looks to be a primary source. As far as I can tell, the other citations in the article are not about EMP (but are rather used as examples of EMP's capabilities). Since the article appears to cite no secondary sources at all, it fails to establish the notability of EMP. (To be honest, I feel like the SAMPL article does not establish its notability, either.) It is still possible that EMP is notable, but that needs to be demonstrated.
The second is stylistic. As I said in my review, it sounds like it's been cut-and-pasted from documentation. There's nothing wrong with a dry, formal style; but in its present state, the article doesn't sound encyclopedic, it sounds instructional, and the goal of a Wikipedia is not to instruct. The goal of the article should be to tell the reader what EMP is rather than how to use it. A potential user can always look at documentation or a tutorial. Ozob (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ozob,
Thank you for your reply, it was very helpful. In the meantime, I found secondary sources that will serve to establish notability and I will rewrite the article. Thanks again. Talomar (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Divergence theorem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I cleaned it up for you. Links to dab pages are not ok. Next time, put your ego away and take two seconds to just solve the problem with your article, instead of repeatedly, lazily, and unproductively reverting to a version that is even more wrong. And please don't bother replying to me, here or anywhere else, to satisfy your ego further; I won't read it any more than I read your last time-wasting message. If you can't start working with others, you don't belong here. —swpbT 13:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the behavior of user:swpb. Why delete the correct message from Ozob? And why blame Ozob being at least equally edit-warring? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
To Tsirel: Ozob's behavior is the failure here. He 3RR'd, I did not, unless you want to revise history, or simply lie. Could I have done the fix earlier? Yes, but I wanted the apparent subject-matter expert to do it, so the target could be appropriately chosen. I also wanted to see if Ozob would take any measure of responsibility, or continue to let his ego rule. We saw the result. He can remove the warning as I removed his comment to me (you should be well aware that there is no problem with that, if you're going to start pronouncing on other people's disputes). I just hope he absorbs it first, or he'll have a bad time. As with Ozob, I really don't need any more replies from you. —swpbT 14:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How do you decide that his ego is the problem and yours is not? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, my ego probably is a problem. But I can follow rules. When I 3RR, we can talk. Are you really defending Ozob's indefensible actions, or just trying to spread the blame? —swpbT 14:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit war is punishable also in the absence of 3RR violation (see your message above!). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
And I do not see why his actions are more indefensible than yours. No one of the two was polite. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
My goodness, this is not what I expected at all. Swpb, all I wanted was for you to select a correct disambiguation target or to leave an appropriate tag. My usual practice is to read diffs, and when I read yours, I saw "flow (that is, flux) of a vector field through a surface integral". I said, "No way that's right," and reverted. Since you didn't leave an edit summary, I didn't realize the original link was to a disambiguation page, nor did I know you were trying to fix it. I wanted to assume good faith, and I thought you were merely misguided. After all, inserting incorrect links damages the encyclopedia in a much worse way than links to disambiguation pages do: A reader linked to a disambiguation page can search for the correct target, and the link can eventually be repaired; whereas an incorrect link can make it impossible for a reader to find the content they want, and if it's not immediately removed by those watching the page, it's likely to go unnoticed for a long time.
Then you reverted me, and your edit summary told me to clean up your mess. Well, no. I'm not going to clean up your mess. If you can't be bothered to find appropriate link targets, you shouldn't be disambiguating. I quoted this to you on your talk page, and it's still appropriate: "Do not guess how to fix the link; if you have trouble, tag the link with {{disambiguation needed}}." (WP:WPDAB) Your reverts disrupted Wikipedia far more than any link to a disambiguation page ever did. I stand by my actions and advise you to reread WP:COMPETENCE. Ozob (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Right foot[edit]

Given a day, I have to say I'm not proud of my reaction to your reverts, and I apologize for my contribution to the escalation. Cleaning up ambiguous links is a "best guess" game with often large numbers of pages to deal with, but that doesn't excuse what followed in this case. Let's assume we both know how we should act, and that we don't always live up to that. We cool? —swpbT 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this wasn't handled in the best way. Let's do better next time. Ozob (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semigroup#Identity_and_zero: Identity element[edit]

Hello, I don’t understand why you reverted my edit of the following sentence:

If it has both a left identity and a right identity, a semigroup (and indeed magma) has at most one identity element, which is then two-sided.

First, is it not true that any magma has at most one two-sided identity element? If e and f are such elements, then e = ef = f. If it is true of any magma, why restrict the sentence of the article to magmas having both a left identity and a right identity?

Second, is it not true that if a magma has a left identity and a right identity, then there is exactly one two-sided identity element?

  1. Let M be a magma.
  2. Assume that b is a left identity of M (for all x in M, bx = x).
  3. Assume that o is a right identity of M (for all x in M, xo = x).
  4. By (3), b = bo.
  5. By (2), bo = o.
  6. By (4) and (5), b = o.
  7. By (3) and (6), b is a right identity of M.
  8. By (2) and (7), b is a two-sided identity element of M.

I may misunderstand these things, in which case I would be thankful if you explained them to me. --Anareth (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Both your statements are correct. When I looked at your edit, I misunderstood the article. I've expanded the article so that hopefully it's more clear now; please take a look and make any further edits you deem necessary. Ozob (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you return my edit in Park Geun-hye?[edit]

I showed a evidence! 211.200.180.250 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit violated WP:BLP. Ozob (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I AfD Calculus I[edit]

OK. I am not familiar with procedure here. How do I complete the process of AfD-ing my own article?--Samantha9798 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ozob. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)