User talk:David Eppstein/2011a
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dating of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus
David I refer to your reverting my change to the possible timing of when the ancient Egyptian scribe Ahmes copied down his version of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. I assume you changed my date back to 1650 BC as this is the date mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. However, while you reverted my change because you considered it "original research", I made the change because I was concerned that the date that originally appears in both Ahmes and Rhind Mathematical Papyrus articles seems to be quite inconsistent with the dating of the various Egyptian dynasties, pharaohs and kings which are also mentioned in both articles. For example, in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus Wikipedia article, it is stated that the Papyrus document “is dated to Year 33 of the Hyksos king Apophis and also contains a separate later Year 11 on its verso likely from his successor, Khamudi”. Now the Wikipedia articles dealing with Apophis (Apepi) and Khamudi date both kings to the early to mid 16th century BC. They are also both considered to be contemporaries of Kamose (from the 17th dynasty) and Ahmose I (the founder of the 18th dynasty) both of whom were pharaohs in the mid-16th century BC (according to the relevant Wikipedia articles). I am not familiar as to whether the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus has been carbon dated or some other information is available that means that there is some confidence that it dates from around 1650 BC (ie mid-17th century BC rather than mid-16th century BC). I also recognise that the calculation of the dates when various ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were alive is subject to a great deal of controversy amongst Egyptologists. However, for the sake of consistency with the dates used in related Wikipedia articles, I made the change to the date that you have reverted. I would appreciate your thoughts on my reasoning for the change. Thanks Chewings72 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- See reliable sources indicating that your modified dating is accepted by Egyptologists (or, iof it is not, first get them to accept it), and use those sources to justify the change. Of course, the 1650 date in our existing article also needs justification from reliable sources, just as much, but that's the date given in the sources we already have. By the way, you should also not be using the "this is a minor edit" checkbox to mark significant factual changes such as this. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback and advice. Chewings72 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
12th Planet Page
Dear David-
I am not sure how editing the 12th Planet page on Wikipedia to the biography and discography of the well known dubstep producer and DJ is soapboxing. If you search "12th Planet" on Google you will find that the first results are related to the dubstep DJ and not the author Zacharais Stitchin. The biography and discography I placed on the page were from 12th Planets official biography on his website, and all his releases from beatport.com. There is nothing false or opinionated in the article I provided. I am not 12th Planet, and am therefore not promoting myself. He has toured globally under that alias, and is a significant part of the dubstep movement in the USA. Therefore, I see no reason for his page to be deleted or considered "unworthy" so to speak.
Thanks, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dambuleff (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see disambiguated article is correct, even if the other problems are fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
12th Planet
You're right, but do you think you should stop reverting now? I'll warn him myself.
- Ok, I'll let you take over. Thanks for the reminder. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Turning Ten
On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle. Tinkermen (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
RE: edit, did you read the message I put on the prod? Jeepday (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Duh, yes, it was at the top of the discussion I posted to. But to me that phrasing indicates that you did *not* have difficulty finding sources; what you had difficulty with is your lack of mathematical expertise, which prevented you from incorporating those sources into the article or using them to verify the article. It is not expected or reasonable to expect that random non-mathematically-educated editors can understand the more technical of our mathematics articles. So your prod constitutes a lack of awareness of your own abilities rather than an actual valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the response, was not sure if it was just another venting as your comment seems very similar to others. I would point out WP:OWN has conflict with your statement "our mathematics articles". I will just leave it at that. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- By "our" I meant Wikipedia's, rather than mathematics articles on some other site; I was not intending any more restrictive meaning than that. But I do think that one should have some understanding of what one is editing, and in mathematics that understanding is not easily come by. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the response, was not sure if it was just another venting as your comment seems very similar to others. I would point out
Eleonore von Trapp
The prod was due to a lack of individual notability. Did you see anything in the article that indicated she was notable outside of the Von Trapp Singers? MSJapan (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the von Trapps are notable enough that individuals among them are also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is
- So take it to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is
Shapley–Folkman lemma: GA Review
Hi David!
Our article is being reviewed for good-article status. I've made a number of revisions in the last week, and your feedback would be most valuable now.
I just asked Michael Hardy for advice about Wiki-markup formatting of summations, and you may be able to offer suggestions, too, of course.
- I LaTeXed the equations formerly troubling the WikiMarkup language. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
Act(s) of violence
Hej David,
My writing that a plane "has the form of" a coordinatized plane was simply a popular way of saying "linearly isomorphic to R2". I agree with your revisions, although your edit summaries chafe a bit! ;)
Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Pruning
Hi again. I agree that some material can be removed. (I expanded the material on convex sets, and convex hulls this weekend.) Please delete boldly! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Splitting-off Starr's corollary
I suggested that we split-off a separate article on the metric results, which stimulated the blue-joy response "WP:Summary style" from Geometry Guy. Would you welcome such a splitting?
I would suggest one of the following titles for the article:
- Starr's theorem (shortest, and doesn't create confusion with SF lemma, which precedes it.)
- Starr's corollary to the Shapley–Folkman theorem (most accurate but least popular)
- Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem(most popular)
For simplicity, I would favor the first title, particularly since it would be the second part of the SF lemma article. Otherwise, a disambiguation page may be needed, which would be rather unhelpful, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the third one. The most accurate one is too long and cumbersome, and "Starr's theorem" is too ambiguous — it can also refer to something about sequences of positive contractions in σ-finite measure spaces. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was afraid that you would favor the third!
- I was too ignorant to fear that you would dislike the second!
- Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed the definition and discussion of conformal hypergraphs to match the references given, which do not require the hypergraph to be a downward-closed set system. The original text was yours, so you might want to review my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clique_complex&action=historysubmit&diff=408013817&oldid=374829906
Regards, Ott2 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Monotone Boolean function; Permutohedron
Hi David,
I've just created , based on your . I think the hypercubes add some helpful information. So if you don't object, I'd replace your version by the hypercube version. That's what I've just done in Monotonic function, because I wanted to add the easy definition, referring to the hypercubes.
I'd also recommend, to replace
- I don't mind the replacement for monotone functions (see also Dedekind number), but I don't think the replacement should be done in the permutohedron article. A permutohedron is not just the Cayley graph of the symmetric group, it is a geometric object (a convex polytope), and your figure doesn't show it with its proper geometry. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I thought of the permutohedron only as a graph, not as a solid.
So I will create a
- Okay. I thought of the permutohedron only as a graph, not as a solid.
P versus NP problem
Hello! I undid your removal in this article because /. has a long history with wikipedia (please see History of Wikipedia) and is both verifiable and mainstream. I am happy to discuss this further if you like, but since /. articles are reviewed (it's not a self-published site), I see no reason not to be able to cite it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see little to distinguish this from the entries in Woeginger's collection of 67 supposed solutions to the problem, some of which have received considerably more attention (from sources with a little more knowledge and experience of complexity theory) than this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but OTOH plastic is only one molecule removed from margarine. :-) Which entry(ies?) do you think match? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Paolo Padovani
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I think Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) deserves most of the credit for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edits on the Wikipedia List of Ukrainians
David Eppstein, thank you for clarifying your position. David Eppstein, Wikipedia is NOT a milieu for promoting one's ethnic hatred towards the things Ukrainian - Ukrainian history, culture or politics. Your mentioning of the
Hi, David. I appreciate the timely note you added to this discussion. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed: both SPAs User:Timelesstune and User:Xayyam have uploaded to the Commons and added to the article images, which they've licensed
I suppose I could ask about a "close connection" to the subject without running afoul of
- My default reaction would be just to trust the closing admin to see through the socking and make an appropriate decision. The {{not a vote}} notice should be enough warning to the closing admin to look more carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess you never read the trail. This article has been repeatedly put for deletion by one user who everytime has refused any justification, and when he tried this time he just made some facts, besides failing to discuss the relevance of the article in the discussion pages even when asked.
— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- So make the case that it's a bad-faith nomination, within the AfD, and wait for an admin to believe you and close it. Removing the AfD notice doesn't actually help anything; it just makes it harder for people interested in the article to find out that there's a deletion discussion going on. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Andreu Mas-Colell and Graciela Chichilnisky
I nominated your handiwork from the 18th. I may also nominate Ohio-State number theorist and statistician Herbert Mann in a day or so. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks — it's always good to see some mathematical content in DYK. Um, the Herbert Mann link you give is to a football player — I think you mean Henry Mann? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I meant the sum-setting Atlantic-crossing late-blooming statistician of Ohio (State U.), whom I never met but for whom I feel some spiritual kinship. Speaking of OHIO, I nominated Mann's article with a DYK that may be declared heretical by higher initiates of the mystery cult of Ronald A. Fisher! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Topological sorting
I would appreciate your opinion here:
DYK for Graciela Chichilnisky
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Math formatting
Hi, you are currently brushing over prime number and replacing every(?) occurrence of n by . Please stop doing so, this is not in accordance with
- I am doing no such thing. I am replacing them by {{math}}. It is very different from <math>: for one thing, it does not use png. What it actually does is to prevent line breaks and use a serif font. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you meant by this. I undid Cyclopia's revert of my good faith edit (together with an explanatory note at the talk page). Did I undo one of your formatting changes? If so, I apologize--it was an edit conflict; since I was editing the whole article, I could not save it, so I pasted the paragraph I had edited (in the first section) where it belonged.
- P.S. I sincerely hope we don't get angry at each other about formatting issues. I had one such discussion recently and I'm much more happy to ignore my aesthetical sensibilities than to waste time with such discussions. If you feel like changing all the formatting, go ahead, I'm just noting that this is unusual and, I believe, prone to cause irritation. Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Spacing
Nowrap may be interesting indeed, but the question is not of non-break spaces having the same width as normal ones: ðere are quite some situations where þin spaces are required, such as as þousands separators, between numbers and SI abbreviations and the such. Nor is the þin non-break space nonstandard, in fact it is ðe typographical standard for such situations, and a part of ðe Unicode standard.
— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Andreu Mas-Colell
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Heather Woodfield"
How is Heather Woodfield notable?The subjects' links are all websites.One reference describes Woodfield as a voter,nothing more.Please nominate Heather Woodfield for deletion.(Ny proof reader (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC))
Partial cube article created
Hi, David. I just reached my 30,000-edit mark, so to celebrate I wrote a little article about partial cubes. I noticed it was on a to-do list of yours, so I thought I'd let you know; hopefully you have some things you can add to expand it beyond the little bit I was able to say. —Bkell (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've already added some material. But it involved some self-reference, and there's more to add that will likely also involve self-reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)