User talk:Limit-theorem/Archive 1

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.

Hello, Limit-theorem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your change to the intro of Stochastic volatility is spot on. Keep going, I'm sure you can help with the rest of the article. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Tarantola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read

20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Càdlàg 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

math>. In other words, the semi-interval of concern for a two-tailed distribution <math>(-\infty, r]</math> is right-closed. and, for {{nowrap|''δ'' > 0}}, define the '''càdlàg modulus''' to be \varpi'_{f} (\delta) := \inf_{\Pi} \max_{1 \leq i \leq k} w_{f} ([t_{i - 1}, t_{i})), where the [[infimum]] runs over all partitions {{nowrap|Π {{=}} {0 {{=}} ''t''<sub>0</sub> < ''t''<sub>1</sub> < … < ''t<sub>k</sub> {{=}} T''}}}, {{nowrap|''k'' ∈ '''N'''}}, with {{nowrap| Let <math> E=[0,2) </math> be the unit interval and take <math>f_n = \chi_{[1-1/n,2)} \in D</math> to be a sequence of characteristic functions. Despite the fact that <math> f_n \rightarrow \chi_{[1,2)} </math> in the Skorokhod topology, the sequence <math> f_n - \chi_{[1,2)} </math> does not converge to 0.

• For a semi-open interval, brackets "(" and "]" do not necessarily match. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

) 12:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(a) Please could you correct your "califate" misspelling; (b) no other source calls it this and the group does not call itself this either; (c) please convert your footnote from a bare URL to the customary Wikipedia format using the cite-web or cite-news template (see [1] at 3.1). --

) 20:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

how is the characteristic generator defined in your opionen? Br Shuozi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.63.80.164 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It has very specific properties, best presentation in a paper by Sam Kotz ... I will integrate it when I have time.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, a friend was looking through some statistics articles on Wikipedia and noticed that probability is denoted by \Pr in some cases and \mathbb{P} in others. I noticed that you had changed those symbols in the Markov's inequality article in this edit. I wanted to ask how you decide which symbol is appropriate in which case.

I looked at the WikiProject Mathematics Manual of Style, which reads "An article may use either boldface type or blackboard bold for objects traditionally printed in boldface. As with all such choices, the article should be consistent. Editors should not change articles from one choice of typeface to another except for consistency." But that doesn't answer the question as fully as I'd like, so I figured I'd ask you. How do you decide which one to use?

Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate it!

) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your request. The tendency in mathematics (Springer) over the past decade, thanks to to LaTeX is to write \mathbb{E} for expectation, \mathbb{P} for probability, and \mathbb{1} for indicator functions. It makes the probability easier to spot and is much, much more elegant. See here: [2]. The problem is that when you go on google scholar most great probability texts precede LaTeX. So I would opt for \mathbb{P} for probability throughout. Limit-theorem (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance on this issue. LaTeX really is a game-changer; I'm getting more proficient with it myself too!

talk

) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is addictive, we are getting so used to it that a mathematics text written without it looks hideous.Limit-theorem (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Stephen_V._Cameron

(second request)

) 06:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be advised I will

…at the time of your next unexplained reversion, where you revert edits that at aimed at correcting violations of clear WP policies, take your actions/reversions to administrative arbitration.

I will try one last time to remove SELF-PUBLISHED material from the Taleb article. If you return material that violates

WP:SELFPUBLISH

again, after today, I will not war with you, but instead take the matter to venues that will ensure that the Taleb site is not again populated with the Taleb website as a source.

NOTE: I explained in great detail IN TALK, HERE, [3], WHAT I HAD DONE IN THE EDITING, AND WHY. In addition to your violating WP:VERIFY policies by returning self-published material, you violated AGF and other respect-orented policies by making changes—hard work by a a clearly thoughtful and well-trained individual—without any glance or response at Talk.

Please review these policies, and reply here, BUT DO NOT JUST REVERT AGAIN WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE POLICIES BEING VIOLATED THROUGH USE OF THE TALEB PERSONAL WEB PAGE AS A SOURCE AT THE TALEB ARTICLE. Le Prof (the bizarre citation editing professor) Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for misconstruing your edits as those of another. And for my coming across so vociferously, above. I was responding to coming back on to the article, and seeing many hours of work destroyed, including much work completing incomplete citations, and removing redundancies. I see now that your edits were not the issue, and that the reverting that immediately began was another, far less thoughtful editor.

On the matter of a career summary section, I can only say, let's wait until the matter of using Taleb's personal webpage is settled, and lets look again at that question. Lay readers—the type of students we would wish to inform through an online encyclopedia—need overarching bird's eye view material early, and in this case, the lede and early sections do not accomplish this (instead, becoming far too complicated, far too quickly). Going too quickly into details only of concern to specialists ensures we will not reach our broad, general audiences.

Otherwise, I still stand by my call to look to the Talk section… because no one, since I left my Talk message conincicent with my editing, bothered to discuss my edits before reverting or markedly rejecting them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Limit-theorem: Can you please read my Talk entry at the article, before you revert me again? PLEASE. As I note, (i) the citations that were in the lede appear complete in the main body, (ii) the edits have nothing to do with the ANI matter, (iii) reverting me reintroduces at leas one deadlink, (iv) etc. PLEASE, reconsider. This is separate form the ANI matter! Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrigible. Now, to muddy matters, you are removing the dead link. You have lost all my respect as a fair-minded fellow editor. Have your way, enjoy your article. I am done. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

what objection do you exactly have on my edit?? Leenaa.cath445 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

we can discuss over tell me your issues i will improve my text . don't just undid my revision before discussing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leenaa.cath445 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not write on my talk page. Use the topic talk page. And the last reversion wasn't mine although I would have reverted. Limit-theorem (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your revert at Binary Options

L-T;

I removed all the Black-Scholes stuff at binary options because it is overkill and window dressing. Those formulas should be available at the Black-Scholes page, but they are entirely theoretical here - nobody would use them in this context in a practical situation. They'd just use the probability of ending up in the money, discounted and perhaps risk-adjusted.

It looks to me like this is being used to convince readers that there is some sort of fancy calculation that justifies the use of these pure bets, so can be misleading. BTW, the equations were not fully defined, e.g. D1 and D2.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Should be" but if you google binary options here is where they are found. And d1 and d2 are defined. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM. I don't see this edit as constructive. The comment has nothing to do with the subject, but a round of gibberish. It is meant to provoke, for those who don't understand.--Zoupan 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is Indian who use British English. Please see wikt:centred Leave or restore as you wish. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't notice (US-centric wasn't aware of this specific spelling). The spelling on Wiki appears to default to American. But the rule recommends British spelling for Indian pages. Limit-theorem (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. After changing British, Australian, and American spellings back and forth, I can no longer spell. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Limit-theorem. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

) 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! I just re-launched the

.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject . There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You endorse the definition of scientism as 'the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.' As someone who studied the philosophy of science at University College London I must tell you that this definition is quite wrong and that the former definition (to which I reverted) is more accurate and borne out by conventional academic sources. Would you mind providing an authoritative academic source to support your assertion? 82.27.90.157 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Look up Hayek's "Hayek defined "scientism" or the "scientistic prejudice" as"slavish imitation of the method and language of Science". Scientism represents "a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed, and as such is "not an unprejudiced but a very prejudiced approach which, before it has considered its subject, claims to know what is the most appropriate way of investigating it." (Hayek's Economica essays on scientism were collected in his 1952 Counter-Revolution of Science and reprinted in volume 13 of the Collected Works.)"Limit-theorem (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Hayek's personal definition of scientism per se but his approach (as an economist) reflects a somewhat subjective and idiosyncratic definition that does not include or encompass many widely held definitions of scientism that go well beyond Hayek's narrow purview. According to these other definitions, scientism is not merely the application of the scientific method where it is inappropriate but represents, rather, a worldview in which the natural sciences are held as the most authoritative paradigm of human knowledge and therefore should take precedence over other less qualified domains such as the humanities or other 'pseudo-scientific' claims to knowledge. Scientism is the privileging of the natural sciences (not merely the scientific method) as the ultimate authority and arbiter of truth claims regarding the nature of reality. This may sound common-sense to those who hold this view but to others (including such eminent philosophers of science as Paul Feyerabend) this represents not merely dogmatic pretension (akin to the claims of traditional religion - see the work of British philosopher Mary Midgley) but a rather dangerous form of intellectual tyranny in which contemporary science is exalted as unassailable as the ultimate authority in society. The truth is, however, human knowledge changes over time and what was thought to be true a hundred years ago turns out to be false. However we don't consider that in a hundred years from now what we take today as commonly known scientific truths will turn out to be quite erroneous. Therefore your claim that scientism is the 'cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations' doesn't do justice to many equally valid definitions of this term. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a scientist and a professor in the hard sciences and we informally go by the above. Wikipedia is not just a philosophy of science manual. Sorry, your arguments fail to convince. And please write on the subject page not on my talk.Limit-theorem (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is something called

) 09:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Howdy and thanks for all the work. Do make sure to follow the

) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Taleb Article

Hi. I don't think you responded to the concern about that link at Taleb. Quantitative Finance is an important finance journal as we all know. But this article is about Political Science and as with any WP content, we need to establish that it is noteworthy. An editor who likes a freshly published article and thinks its the bee's knees can not establish

20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But I looked at the article and it is not a political science article but a mathematical one with very interesting properties for forecasting binaries with stochastic processes. It is worth leaving as "representative". Many people have almost all their articles on the wiki page and this one goes along with the "forecasting" difficulties. In general I agree we should focus on "representative". Limit-theorem (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback - "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Limit-Theorem. I see that you removed the article improvement template "primary" that I placed on this page. The purpose of these tags is to encourage and notify editors to help us find better sources for truly noteworthy information and create good encyclopedic text about NNT. It appears to me that you are significantly under-counting the number of primary, self-published, and promotional sources in this article. Please review

which all discuss aspects of sourcing, due weight, and noteworthy article content. The problem with this article is that it spends most of its time relating information from Taleb's own publications or information provided directly by him to various media, interviews, or websites, without the independent editorial judgment of a Reliable Source publisher. These don't give us a way to judge the noteworthiness of this content for the encyclopedia. I have discussed these issues on the article talk page, and the template -- which is designed to speed improvement of the article -- should not be removed before the problems are addressed. Your quick dismissal and removal is not helpful in this regard. Please see Help:Maintenance_template_removal. Please review the pages at the links I've cited here. I hope you will then reinstate the template message and help to find independent RS references that we can all use to improve this article. Thanks. @Alison: FYI. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please use talk page of the article for other editors to see and judge. This article is no different from other such articles in BLP for authors.Limit-theorem (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, You reverted the edits of IP 77.177.155.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on data mining (and on cluster analysis, both of which I frequently patrol for spam), but these seem reasonable to me.

A google search for "global data mining" does not yield any meaningful results, and the added text seems to be largely redundant to the existing text, does not fit in too well (in particular, using this non standard term), and seems to originate from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/Introduction to Information and Society (Fall 2018) - unfortunately, WikiEd additions to larger, older articles are usually problematic because they lack experience. I do not think it should be kept. Mind having another look? It's not "spam" which is what I usually focus on, but I do not think it is improving the article either. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It was a false positive as I mistook him for the other IP that was posting the references to an 2018 article. Limit-theorem (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Limit-theorem. Your comment about 'the same WP:SelfCite' suggests that you have noticed the same material being added previously. Can you say where that was? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It looks like the same IP address (163.1.37.109) is trying to post the following recent reference across related pages: Abu-Jamous, Basel; Kelly, Steven (2018). "Clust: automatic extraction of optimal co-expressed gene clusters from gene expression data". Genome Biology. 19: 172.

PMID 30359297.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). I was alerted by the user User:HelpUsStopSpam (see comment above) upon my reverting a blanking out by another IP that was referencing self-citation. Limit-theorem (talk

) 14:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello both. The older edit by the same IP address did not include a citation to a peer-reviewed published work. Please compare both edits carefully. Thanks Basel1988 (talk)

Dear Limit-theorem

I understand the motivation behind your removal of my added paragraph on clustering methods used in bioinformatics. However, I am an experienced researcher in this very particular topic. I added this paragraph in a professional objective manner listing some of the clustering methods that are used in the field, and classifying them into methods designed for this application and methods designed for other applications but borrowed to bioinformatics. By the way, the previous shorter sentence listing clustering methods in the field is my edit few years ago as well. The new paragraph makes it a deeper read than the older naive statement. The fact that one of the methods within the list of methods is a self-publication does not reduce from the objectiveness of the paragraph for few reasons; (1) the paragraph includes many other methods with their proper citations, which fits the purpose of Wikipedia in being a reference for students, (2) the methods are published in peer-reviewed renowned journals and therefore are from reliable sources independent of their authors, and (3) every expert in the field who is suitable to edit will have some level of conflict of interest as they will have contributions in the field. Having said that, if you could, please, revise your undoing of this edit, it would benefit this Wikipedia article on bioinformatics and would be a fair thing to do.

Reminder: there is no self-citation to any self-blog or self-website or to an unpublished work or to a work not in a

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basel1988 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: following few days of no discussion, I've reverted the undone changes by Limit-theorem. Basel1988 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use my talk page, rather the talk page of the subject. Limit-theorem (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. I studied the

) 02:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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.