I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I knew there was something I forgot. Grika Ⓣ 01:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse. I've voted keep, but I have just realized that both wikilinked authors on book (graph theory) point to the wrong people. I'll fix it.
best wishes, Robinh 07:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see and comment on Talk:Quantum indeterminacy#Dispute status of this article. Thanks -- CSTAR 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Your edits to No Day/No Night alerted me to the fact that I'd forgotten to remove the AfD header from the article when I closed the AfD discussion. Thanks for fixing this! -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 17:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I closed the debate and deleted Nonnacris. Interesting how a well-timed blanking can disrupt the AfD process. Let me think whether this can be fixed. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for the comments on my talk page, as soon as I finish the article I am working on I will go back and add sources where neccesary Robbjedi 23:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Ah, you fixed it for me, at the risk of being redundant thanks. Robbjedi 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, If you read the context carefully, you'll see that that n refers to the n in S^n and R^n, not where the circle is embedded. -- Tong 23:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse. I could do with some help keeping the ranting out of Blatcherism. Charles Matthews 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Now a 3RR violation. Please revert and block. Charles Matthews 13:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeg, niet om het een of ander, maar die grapjas op de SSRI-pagina heeft geen hart onder de riem nodig. Sommige mensen zijn nou eenmaal niet gevoelig voor normale argumenten. Groetjes. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Nee, onschuldig ben ik niet. Helaas gaan de POV-pushers zelden vanzelf weg, zeker als ze erg zeker zijn van hun zaak. Op Talk:Myocardial infarction heb ik twee zulke leukerds die denken dat ze hartaanvallen kunnen genezen met behulp van een onbekende theorie en ouderwetse (en gevaarlijke) medicijnen. Soms is sarcasme helaas het enige wat werkt...
Een boek over het menselijk brein... ik moet je een antwoord schuldig blijven. Human brain heeft niet eens een aardig werk in de aanbeveling. Je zou de reference desk kunnen proberen. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the Markov number graph. It's good, it has the right depth (enough to illustrate the paragraph but not so many as to overwhelm). PrimeFan 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
To recap the article: The method finds an optimum solution to a problem with N variables when the solution varies smoothly from one point in the N-dimensional solution space to the neighboring points. For example, a 2-dimensional map showing the elevation of a piece of land or the depth of a pool of oil, or optimizing the outcome of an experiment where many conditions are varied over some known range. With an elevation map, simple inspection shows the answer to the question of the highest elevations; thus illustrating that the usefulness of the simplex method lies in cases where the value at various points is hard to come by, and an exhaustive search is infeasible.
A computer program to use the simplex method to automatically find an optimum is typically of the form: (1) choose N + 1 points, (2) find the values (if unknown) at those points (the elevation, depth, speed, cost, execution time ... whatever is being optimized), (3) stop if we found a good enough value (by any of several criteria), else choose a new point closer to the other points (typically by half) in place of the worst valued point (creating a new smaller simplex), (4) go to step (2).
Many variations exist depending on the actual nature of problem being solved. The most common, perhaps, is to use a constant size small simplex that climbs local gradients to local maximums. Visualize a small triangle on an elevation map flip flopping its way up a hill to a local peak.
To recap my comment: The method used in a simplistic fashion produces local optimums, but used in a sophisticated fashion finds absolute optimums within the criteria the article describes.
On to your questions:
What is the "sophisticated fashion" to use Nelder-Mead? The simplexes can grow and shrink and can be seeded at multiple places (both in accordance with the nature of the problem space being investigated) until what is sought is found (usually a good enough maximum). There is nothing stopping the technique from being used until the actual maximum is found, not just a good enough maximum is found. (But why bother? The point of the technique is that the data is expensive to obtain and the solution is going to bring a profit; why waste money on a solution that will yield negligible additional profits? - more on this non-math point of view below)
Perhaps you are thinking of the technique used in a simplistic fashion where only one seed is used and the simplex does not change in size, as indicated in the article: The most common, perhaps, is to use a constant size small simplex that climbs local gradients to local maximums. Visualize a small triangle on an elevation map flip flopping its way up a hill to a local peak.
What do you mean with an "absolute optimum"; is this the same as a global optimum (see Optimization)? I mean the optimum within the solution space being investigated by the technique. Any part of the solution space not investigated by the technique may contain a better optimum. The "vary smoothly" part is critical here as arbitrarily abrupt variation invalidates the usefulness of this technique (which may be what you are thinking of. Note that I come at this from a programming solutions for petroleum investigations standpoint; not a pure math point of view. Physical and practical limits rather than math theory. The investigation of the physical world rather than mathematical entities.)
Which criteria are you refering to? "a problem with N variables when the solution varies smoothly from one point in the N-dimensional solution space to the neighboring points."
I'm sorry to bother you with these questions. No bother at all. I programmed this stuff in the 1980s and I knew it only as "the simplex method". If you know more than I do about this, I'm all ears. Learning more about stuff is a main reason I'm here at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 14:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw your question about why people want to delete that philosophy of QM article, and I was going to answer directly below your posting. While I was writing, somebody posted a similar question and so I put my reply at the bottom. I probably won't say it in the discussion regarding deletion of the article, but I have stopped trying to make it better because Ingham will not respond to any of my questions that try to get at what he is really trying to say. He also won't tell me the location of the stuff that he is drawing upon, other than claiming that it's in Messiah's textbook somewhere. I've spent many hours trying to figure out what he is trying to convey and trying to dig out his sources. Not knowing what he is trying to say, I am unable to determine what to do about it. For instance, I cannot say that it is wrong. I've tried to fill in the margins of the discussion, suspecting that what I have included is at odds with what he is trying to say, but he seems perfectly happy with what I've added. So, I am baffled and also frustrated. P0M 03:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I may have found the place in Messiah's textbook that Ingham has been talking about. If only Ingham wrote as clearly as Messiah I would save myself much trouble. The segment I am concerned about in the "philosophy" article is the section on measurement. I just started to paraphrase it and then realized that however I paraphrase it I will end up cleaning it up but in some way that may or may not have anything to do with what he is really trying to say. Whatever it is that he is trying to say, it doesn't map onto anything that is in the passage I found in Messiah, which is pretty much a description of Heisenberg's microscope without mention of Heisenberg. I wouldn't have found it except that I recently learned that measuring an electron with protons is the nub of the HM thought experiment so I flipped through looking for "microscope". I may not be examining enough text around the microscope discussion in Messiah, but it looks to me to be a standard treatment. It may be that Ingham's argument is that if given exact values for all parameters of the experiment then one could write one Ψ function, compute its values for some later time t, and get a determinative answer for the location, velocity, etc. of the electron... Big "if." But given the unclarity of that section, I could be totally off the track.
I've communicated briefly with the person who put up the rfd. He got all the way through a physics major and seems to be clear in his thinking. He contributed to the discussion of the argument but didn't get any responsive communications I guess. P0M 22:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse,
Thanks for your useful comments on my Kuramoto model page. I've changed the wording a bit in response to several of the ambiguities that you pointed out. There is definitely quite a bit still lacking, including applications (as you suggested). I've vaguely heard things about Kuramoto models & epilepsy, but there are other more concrete applications that I could put in.
About line numbers, I meant to say equation numbers. It's tough to refer to equations without being able to insert those. It's doable with the level of detail that I included in the Kuramoto page, but if I ever wanted to show a real calculation I think it would be next to impossible. Is it frowned upon to put a lot of math into Wikipedia pages? I don't see any real drawbacks to it as long as the introduction is clear to non-math people...
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. Feel free to correct me when my contributions are unclear.
Dannya222 05:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
...his year of death is indeed 1998, but he had a severe stroke in 1996 (which was the main cause of his death in 1998). The wording might have caused some confusion. Thank you for the other stuff as well. I'll take a look at them. Aucaman 02:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want, have a look at User_talk:Kompik#Limits_and_AC. We have discussed about these things already, I've changed the page once more, now it should be already correct.
Hi Jitse,
I've not encountered the use of eigenvectors relating to nonlinear transformations in my own studies. I was just taking Vb's word for it. -- MarSch 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Please edit the other paragraphs that also begin with "pi". I just checked with the Chicago Manual of Style online and they responded accordingly: Rephrase, don't start with a symbol, it's ackward. Jclerman 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the &isin. Learning Wikipedia math conventions is like learning LaTeX all over again, but without a nicely designed manual. Sadly, the tables in Wikipedia:Markup#Character_formatting don't exactly catch the eye, although I did check these before my edit to Differential_operator#Coordinate-independent_description. Anyway, I hope you agree that my edit was in good faith.
Hi, I got your message. You're right, I was being hasty. I thought I was making the definition more clear - but i was making it incorrect. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for catching me. Fresheneesz 06:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Jitse, can you add a few sentances about n^2+n to prime number theorem? I just skimmed that and saw nothing. Acutally, I'm surprised, since I would have thought the exponential integral bound would have been not square-rooty like that ... but whatever. linas 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it will go somewhere. If you don't like it then put it on hte VfD page and let the community decide. -- Member 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Jitse, thanks for your note about how long to block vandals. Ordinarily, yes 24 or 48 hours is an appropriate length of time to initially block a vandal IP address, however in the case of User:216.11.82.82 there was no sign of the vandal learning their lesson after the initial warnings and indeed from their edit to Science [1] it seems plain that they weren't going to stop quickly "How do you know that i am deleting things from this website? Ar you stalking me? i'll will find out You guys need to get real lives and contribute to society in a real manner", therefore a salutory lesson is in order rather than wasting time allowing them to vandalise multiple articles and revert each of them individually. If it's a multiple-user address, then they can ask for the block to be lifted after a few days. -- Arwel ( talk) 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse, I'm sorry for my english and wikipedia could be a useful way to improve my english. Anyway thanks for your advices.
P.S. Have I to write here for talk? Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frag ( talk • contribs)
On the talk page Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 anonymous IP User:158.35.225.229 said the following:
this because it annoys little boys like *you*) write, I can tell you are some immature young punk who has nothing better to do with his time. Have you not heard the saying?
The "signature" IP does not match the true IP, and aside from deliberately provocative remarks on the cited talk page the only other edit from this IP was vandalism. This latest remark crosses a line of civility and becomes not only derogatory but a highly offensive ethnic slur (spoken in the manner of addressing a slave). I have not been a party to the conversation and do not wish to become one. But perhaps now would be a good time for an admin (hint, hint) to have a word with this user. -- KSmrq T 21:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I will check this shortly (Wikipedia is being very slow at the moment), but I beleive that I have not signed the section endorsing the initial summary by the complainants, only sections endorsing (or not endorsing) summaries by other users. As far as I am aware (and I'm not completely au fait with all the procedures) this is allowed. If I have made a mistake and signed to endorse teh initial summary and the section of trying and failing (this is not allowed) then I will correct it. Thryduulf 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there
I've took the liberty of creating a separate Jordan block article because I felt that the subject would benefit from a dedicated article. My line of reasoning was that if an interested wikipedian browsed the Jordan normal form article and felt the need to read a bit of information regarding solely jordan block matrices, the wikipedian would have an article which would fulfill that. Besides, having a dedicated article makes some actions possible, like the listing of that type of matrix in Category:Matrices, which can be another path for a user to find himself on the jordan normal form article.
Regarding the translation issue, that article isn't a translation. I created the article from scratch and I opted for that summary because I do my fair share of translations. So, instead of figuring out an original summary, I shamefully opted for the type of summary I usually use :)
I now see that maybe the best way of doing things would be to discuss this first. But now that the damage is done (I created an article without consulting anyone), what are your views on this subject? I suspect that you don't feel that this article has any merit.
Best regards
--
Mecanismo
18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Jitse, some time back I noticed that when I sign comments with ~~~~, the link to my talk page is broken. It looks as though someone edited the script and broke this feature. I tried asking about this in the Village Pump but got no response. Do you know happened and/or how to fix it? --- CH talk 23:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Just to be clear, I manually fixed my signature above to what I used to get with ~~~~, but I won't manually fix my signature for this postscript, so that you can see the difference! --- CH [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Just saw your post on my talk page. I will check my email now and respond shortly, I hope. Paul August ☎ 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's fine with me. Me? I've always known this as simply the method of differences (I haven't heard of the former).
Nevertheless, you can merge it - I will simply redirect method of differencing and fix the disambiguation links.
Cheers. x42bn6 Talk 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a note that in your delete summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Keller you misstated that I voted to Keep and to Delete. Peyna 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to express my thanks for the careful and thoughtful work you put into closing this AfD. -- RoySmith 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You ARE the administrator, so I won't challenge your decision. However, I would like to point out the following: Google results for "Shalom Keller" - as per my comment on AfD - reveals quite a number of sourced articles with more credibility than random blogs. [2] DayKart 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that my RfA is finally and properly completed, I want to thank you for your support. I'm not sure if physics knowledge will help me block vandals, but it couldn't hurt. ;-) -- SCZenz 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the Signpost. While we frown upon adding new stories or making major changes, fixing something like a bad link is fine, and I appreciate you doing so. Ral315 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding User talk:208.62.252.66, please don't delete prior vandalism warnings when adding a new, higher-level warning. By leaving the complete history of warnings on the user's talk page, it's easier for admins to determine whether and for how long to block a user. Thanks. | Klaw Talk 18:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Jitse -
I'm not sure what to do with the broken category links. They don't work because the cateogries no longer exist. I think that the red helps to emphsize that. If you have a suggestion then you can present it, but perhaps you should have read all of the evidence first.
BTW - I am happy to see that others also finally working on this case. For working on it, I thank you. -- EMS | Talk 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I mostly copied them from my lecture notes (equations are not applicable to copyright laws, and they are available in the Internet in many forms anyway). I hope I managed to write them understandably enough. Regular point means that the gradients of the active inequality constraints and the gradients of the equality constraints are linearly independent on that point.-- Jyril 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jitse, thanks for your message. Actually, I am still writing the article on Galerkin methods and the article on weak formulations, which is closely connected. I hope, things will be clearer in a few days. Guido Kanschat 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you want to look at Galerkin mathod again and send me your comments? Guido Kanschat 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Hi Karol. I'm a bit uncomfortable with your entry on irregular matrix. I'm sure they exist and are useful, but I feel they shouldn't be described as matrices; how about something like "An irregular matrix is a generalization of the concept of a matrix"? Or perhaps it's better to link them to two-dimensional arrays (my experience is that "array" is more a computing term and "matrix" more a maths term). Furthermore, they are not just "inconvenient", but not studied at all in linear algebra (as far as I am aware). For this reason, I'd also like to remove Category:Matrix theory. However, I realize that I have a slanted point of view as a numerical analyst, so I wanted to check with you before editing the article. Cheers, Jitse Niesen ( talk) 12:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Making up a logo was a bit lower down on my priority list, but you inspired me:
So now blahtex has its very own logo (which isn't related to mediawiki). Dmharvey 03:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a fairly green admin and noticed the backlog on RFD when looking at another matter. I thought I'd take my crack at clearing it. Your comments on each of the entries you left were clear and I decided to resolve them (explanations at the talk page). Thanks for your note! Demi T/ C 07:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent summary: well structured and sharp. --- Charles Stewart 00:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion ( AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help at User_talk:Charles_Matthews#TeX_on_Envelope_theorem. I'm always nervous when I write tEx that others will see. there are usually different ways to do things in tEX, and you always want to be elegant in front of a crowd. Smmurphy( Talk) 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. I have now done a couple of more edits in the ANN types section. This is also a quite weak section. The problem with ANNs is that the community has been conflating models with learning algorithms and it's a bit difficult to make a clean categorisation. So I don't know how I would go about doing it... more on the talk page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Olethros ( talk • contribs)
I'm glad someone could some use for what was basically a frustrated growl;) I hope that this can put to a successful end without too much waste of your, or other editors valuable time. I wish I could be more help in this matter, but I stopped dealing with Carl's activities at that point. Had I not I would have probably followed CSTAR into the night. DV8 2XL 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded Image:Isar example.png in the sandbox just to see how it will look like for a Wikipedia user in a browser. It looked bad. I would remove it, but I read somewhere in the documentation that only admins can remove uploaded stuff. I do need help with what I want to do. My plan is to include a link to the proof as an internal link in the Isabelle entry. The point is that the example Isabelle proof there is somewhat misleading as it shows the old, "apply" command based style. Many Isabelle users still use it, but most would use the newer "declarative" style that is easier to follow for a casual reader. The file at [3] is in pdf format and I can not find any reference in the documentation how to include an internal link to a file that is not a (jpeg or png) image. -- Slawekk 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We have yet another anonymous IP editing Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1, but this time we had vandalism, deleting an entire section of more productive discussion. Looks like User:Shanel was right on top of it, and left a comment on the IP talk page. If you're not still keeping a eye out, you might want to.
The events there do make me curious about Wikipedia conventions. One question is, what is an appropriate response if an identified party in article talk continues to not indent, not sign, insist on original research, show no interest in improving the article, and perhaps sling insults? And what is the response if the sources are multiple anonymous IPs? It's not obvious to me what would be productive and fair (other than not feeding the troll). -- KSmrq T 05:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
well..I feel flattered. Thanks :). I have two younger brothers, so I've gotten used to try and always be the mature one. And about my accent, nice to hear that it's improving..although I speak way too fast (and I mumble at times) in those spoken article-sounds. That recommendation of the sandbox was also a nice move. Cya around.. -- SoothingR( pour) 14:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I have searched for this term and found conflicting results, which support the conclusion that "choad" can mean " penis" (seems to be the most common usage), " scrotum" (the definition I learned in my deformative years), and even " perineum" [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. However, it's worth noting that the sources I found are not exactly what I'd consider reputable in an encyclopedic sense, but they do demonstrate a variety of meanings. Also another source makes an (again, uncited) assertion about the word's origin [11]. Try googling it and see what you come up with. So, as for how to encyclopedically handle choad/chode I count six options, in my own descending order of preference:
— FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 15:00, Dec. 19, 2005
Greetings:
Just wanted to let you know that I've responded to you on the talk page for RFD. The short version is: The archiving will be done by the admins who close the debates, as it is with all the other xFD pages. It will not fall upon the nominators to do anything more than what they're doing now.
All the best.
→
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak
18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I will look for a paper source.
But the order can be easily derived.
Lets take the first six members of the Tailor series of at time t=Nk+1/2
we can find the second derivative over x, then find first derivative over time from the heat transfer equation, then find the second derivative over space over df/dt and find the second derivative over time etc.
Thus the Tailor decomposition over x and t will look like:
where D is the thermal diffusivity.
if we substitute the obtained equation for x=-h,0,+h and t=-k/2 +k/2 into Crank Nicholson scheme, we will see all the terms written are cancelled and the Crank-Nicholson scheme is exact. Thus, the errors came from the terms for x^6 and t^3 and so they are proportional to h^4 and k^2 (we take 2nd order derivative over x and the first over t).
Obviously, to get the fourth order over h we should take care over the boundary conditions. E.g. maintaining the adiabatic b.c as would destroy the 4th order instantly, but the scheme itself is 4th order (if the coefficients are constant).
BTW for the explicit scheme for the special case of r=1/6, we a getting the quadratic error over t and fourth orders over x. I am not sure if we should mention it. abakharev 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll see you over in History of Mathematics, I hope. Rick Norwood 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse. It seems that there is good support at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Proposed renaming for moving List of mathematical topics and its subarticles to List of mathematics articles, and same for List of lists of mathematical topics. I plan to do the moves one of these days, but I need to coordinate with you, since your snaky script has its tail into some of those lists.
So, one late evening, Los Angeles time, I will do the moves and patch my scripts, with you having to do the same by next evening (UK time) when your own scripts run (besides the current activity, there is also the one which touches List of mathematical topics (A-C)). Would it work for you if I do the move on December 22 (tomorrow night), and you fixing your scripts on December 23? Any other day is fine, as long as we agree on when. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jitse. One remark. Your bot updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity page does not count the new items my bot has been adding to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. I understand why you don't like me, but why doesn't your bot like my bot? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, the article was in really terrible shape. I've been working on it, but would appreciate some help. Rick Norwood 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)