Jump to content

User talk:David Eppstein/2024c

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dehn invariant of a cube

The article Dehn invariant is somewhat technical and puzzled me whenever I'm trying to calculate the Dehn invariant of a cube. However, I could find a source 233–234, different than the article. Also, is there any meaning when the Dehn invariant of a cube is ? Does it tells something about its characteristics when being dissected? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Dehn invariant of a cube is zero regardless of basis. Because its dihedral angles, 90°, are rational multiples of π, they are eliminated from the calculation of the Dehn invariant and nothing is left. In the basis used for the Platonic solids described in the examples of the Dehn invariant article, it is (0,0,0). In other bases it would still be a zero vector but with a length equal to the number of basis elements used. Being zero means that it can be dissected to a cube, but it already is a cube! So the dissection has one piece. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Icosian game

The article Icosian game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Icosian game for comments about the article, and Talk:Icosian game/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Move protection request

Can we get a move protection on Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh and its talk page? Every time I look up, or am about to look at something to discuss with the creator, it's moved again, and it doesn't belong in Drafts at this point in time due to WP:DRAFTNO as you had stated.
To be clear, Requesting a temporary Move protection only until the completion of the AFD discussion. Not seeking any edit protection level, as none is needed. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Kleetope

Thanks again for reminding me about the usage of [citation needed]. To be honest, the tag was used to remind readers that the source does not mention another fact, or probably needs to complete the fact from the previous one. In the case of Kleetope, I put [citation needed] to indicate other than Kleetope of regular icosahedron is not supported by the citation, so I hopefully ask for readers to find more sources, if they want to. Well, sadly, I have no idea about some alternative tags other than [citation needed] to do my action. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the tag you want is {{failed verification}} or maybe in this case {{verify source}} (because the source did actually mention all the facts attributed to it). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

ancient math problems - i do not agree

it is about PROBLEMS. read article first there is category Mathematical problem-->s<-- and i created category for ancient math problems. what is the problem with my edit? Ivan191navi (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

in school we solve problems. in uni we solve problems. i added ancient math problems. they are not unsolved problems but they are problems Ivan191navi (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
over 200 words "problem" included in those 3 article why do you think "article is not about proble" . of course it is not about one problme it is about multiple problems. Ivan191navi (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It is a bad category, badly named, and you should feel bad for making it. The articles you added it to were about ancient mathematics documents, not about the problems they describe. Also, "math" should have been spelled out as "mathematics", for one thing because the abbreviation is different in many other English-speaking countries than it is in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
ok. fair enough. Ivan191navi (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
but would i approve if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
but would you approve it if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ancient mathematics problems might be an acceptable category name for article whose main topic is a problem, and whose study is ancient, such as doubling the cube. It is not an appropriate category name for an article about a document. Replacing words by their synonyms does nothing to change this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"for an article about a document" - ok
but for GOOGLE company article we have category "2004 initial public offerings" BUT the article is not about IPO. the google artcile contains information about IPO but article is not about IPO... the same in my case. my article is about a document but it contains information about problems(problems = IPO in google) Ivan191navi (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
there are over 200 problems there! it is a huge piece of information. how would you name the category? Ivan191navi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cube

By the way, thanks for supplying some sources in the article Cube. While I have managed this article to promote to B-class, I wonder whether we could add some more facts about the polyhedron in its appearances. I have some couple things: popular culture, science, and architecture. The architecture has been discussed in WT:WPM, some of our members mentioned that we should not add them, but some other otherwise. Jacobolus' opinion seems gives good idea IMO—I have no idea about yours next—and this gives me one problem: should the architectural buildings merge into popular culture, or should they have own section but split them by their location? We have cubical buildings in Europe and Arabic countries, but I cannot put those Arabic buildings in popular culture. Science like cGh physics and cubic crystal system should be mentioned, but I'm aware that would probably been reverted. Daily life things such as sugar cube and ice cube can also be included as well, because I would also focus on the audience, especially for the kids or elementary school students; you know, the cube is a common thing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

re: Constructible number

re: your comment to me in your edit after my edit to constructible number, I was following {{sfnp}}/{{harvp}} Template documentation guidance (specifically section Template:Harvp#Adding additional comments or quotes.

I appreciate you reaching out to me. But in the future, please be polite, and don't rudely assume I'm just blindly reformatting, as you insinuated in the comment.  — sbb (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. The things you formatted as "additional comments or quotes" were not additional comments or quotes. They were section titles and should have been kept as part of the location parameters of the citation, not formatted as additional comments or quotes. If you had read the references you were reformatting (meaning, gone back to the original source, not merely read the Wikipedia citation) you should have noticed this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

No sources ever mentioned about the elongated tetragonal disphenoid, supposedly known as the dual polyhedron of gyrobifastigium. I prefer to delete the redirect (as well as its talk page), but I think I need your assistance. RfD is somewhat complicated for beginners like me. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mir Publishers

Often, what is not collected becomes lost or at least unappreciated. More so for esoteric academic disciplines such as math and esoteric countries such as the former superpower Soviet Union. (Generally it is one of the least understood parts of mathematics history of the twentieth century, to quote Charles Matthews). Since you are the author of many math textbook Wikipedia articles I wonder if you have any thoughts on this and you are willingly to expand the Mir Publishers article to include its published books similar to our article Springer's Graduate Texts in Mathematics. It can be of interest to high school students while preparing for the International Mathematical Olympiad. Solomon7968 12:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aspersions on your behaviour

FWIW: I don't think that comment was casting aspersions on your behaviour. I now think it was just a (more or less rhetorical) reply to your comment on sharing a block. I honestly don't think anyone wanted you, David Eppstein, to be blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but Thebiguglyalien has had plenty of time to respond on their own, has been active editing other things in the meantime, and has not responded. And, not to discourage your laudable show of good faith, but what Thebiguglyalien was specifically complaining about was editors coming to other editors' defense, as you kind of just did. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

  • TBD

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mathematics on stamps

Thanks for reviewing the new article Mathematics on stamps and adding the unsourced section tags. I have done some further research and have added ten more sources, doubling the original number of references. If you have time please take another look. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Piper Kelly

On 5 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Piper Kelly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Piper Kelly secured her position as a competitor in speed climbing at the 2024 Olympics by reaching the final race at the 2023 Pan American Games, before winning the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Piper Kelly. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Piper Kelly), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mariesa Crow

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariesa Crow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that electrical engineering professor Mariesa Crow raises alpacas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mariesa Crow), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Jenya Kazbekova

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jenya Kazbekova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenya Kazbekova, a competition climber on the Ukraine's 2024 Olympic team, is the daughter and granddaughter of competition climbing medalists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jenya Kazbekova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jenya Kazbekova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

continued cruft-pushing brigading

Stop. Your edit summary "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is a personal attack. I am not cruft pushing. You're just not listening. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was also coming to this page to comment on the use of that term in edit summaries, which I saw as they were going by as well as seeing Polyamorph's complaints about them.
Wikipedia:Tag team has some good advice: "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."
In the vast majority of cases, multiple editors support a certain version of an article not because they are coordinating off-wiki in an attempt to force a change, but because they happen to agree on the merits of that version. It's possible to change minds by discussing the merits for and against in more detail than edit summaries that amount to "I changed it back". Especially in a complex case like this one, it's likely that editors who appear to constitute a monolithic faction when simply flipping an article back and forth actually have heterogeneous ideas, and some of them might end up being your allies on certain points in a new consensus if you break down the dispute in more detail.
Accusing certain editors of tag-teaming when they are independently coming to the same conclusions only makes it more difficult for them to hear reasonable arguments and thus to change minds. It may actually contribute to creating a unified faction when there wasn't one before by giving them a common enemy who appears to them to be acting unreasonably (by being conspiratorial instead of open to discourse).
I'm sure the question of what level of detail should be in number articles is tractable, and I hope that a more nuanced discussion can answer it to nearly everyone's satisfaction. -- Beland (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I am certainly on the same side as everyone else that wants to ensure we have good quality articles on integers, without pointless trivia and so-called "cruft". My reversions were not because I am "pro-cruft", but because of the damage that was done to genuine quality content. I have removed entire sections in integer articles myself. But I did so individually and justified each removal to ensure I was not removing quality policy-compliant encyclopaedic content. I have no issue if much of what was removed from those integer articles is removed again, provided sufficient care is actually taken. There is strong opposition at the numbers wikiproject for the manner in which the mass removal of content was undertaken. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this tag-team haranguing fully justifies my edit summary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
How do Polyamorph and I constitute a tag-team? I haven't added any material to math articles, so I'm pretty clearly not in any sort of alleged inclusionary-integer-coverage conspiracy. I've actually been slowing removing explanatory footnotes from a small number of math articles where they seem to be drifting off topic, which only started because I happened to come across an article where the footnotes were longer than the prose. But mostly I'm depending on people who are interested in and experts in math to decide what is and isn't pertinent, because I am neither of those things. I spoke up here because I thought it might be helpful for a relatively neutral person to help mediate your dispute.
In general, I tend to assume the more editors who disagree with me, the more likely it is that they collectively have a point, or at least represent a significant alternative point of view. If I assume that more people expressing the same POV means they are less legitimate, and even worse that they are conspiring against me, I don't see how I could be rationally convinced of anything. Perhaps the problem with these recent edits is that the reverts on both sides have been largely unexplained and undiscussed in any detail, so to both sides it feels more like an enemy raid than a disagreement among rational people. -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about your behavior on mathematics articles. The behavior I was commenting on here was your and Polamorph's commenting here. That's why I used the word "haranguing" rather than some other verb. As for "feels like an enemy": let the record note that you are the one bringing the WP:BATTLEGROUND descriptions to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It's possible I've misunderstood, and if so, I apologize. What about the fact that two people have commented on your use of the word "brigading" in your mind justifies your previous use of the edit summary "continued cruft-pushing brigading"? I interpreted that to mean "I correctly labeled the group a brigade because they have now engaged in brigading conduct on my talk page", to which my logical rebuttal was that I'm not one of the editors that edit summary was labeling.
I don't particularly want anyone to feel like they're being scolded; I just noticed the resolution of this dispute was not going well. Given that everyone involved seems pretty smart, we should be able to engage in some meta-cognition and think about why things are going poorly and come up with actionable ways in which things can proceed more smoothly. Being battlegroundy is exactly the opposite of my intention, and I'm scratching my head a bit about that because I don't actually have a dispute with anyone on this topic. If there's something specific I've said that comes across that way, please let me know because I'd want to do better in the future. You may have noticed I've also pointed out some comments of Polyamorph that have been unhelpful, and I'm trying to encourage everyone to talk about content guidelines instead of each other, which seems like the only way to resolve this nicely. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Your first comment here, lecturing me on good faith assumptions in a thread here started by Polyamorph, followed quite soon after my deliberate attempts at good-faith interpretation of editors disagreeing with me was met by Polyamorph with repeated attempts by Polyamorph to explain to me that my opinion is wrong. (I tried several times pointing out that it was merely a differing opinion, but the response was the same.)
So when you came here to lecture me, it came across as having the intent of backing up Polyamorph in telling me that my opinion is wrong. Perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the appearance you created. And now when you dig in and continue to lecture me about good faith, it comes across a bit sourly. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That's certainly helpful to know for future situations where people are strongly polarized - it might help for me to be very explicit that I'm not taking sides, if in fact I'm not. When I have taken sides, though, I kind of have to rely on people to be rational and not dismiss everything I'm saying just because we disagree on some other relatively independent issue. (Not that a lot of people don't resort to baseless personal attacks if they feel they've been disrespected, which can easily happen in content disputes whether or not that's intended.) -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry for disrupting. But what are some facts or writings that may considered as cruft? I mean, I do not even know what is the background behind this, but "maybe" this can be discussed again in WT:WPM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, let's take the long version of 744. I think the moonshine part is non-cruft; it relates in a significant way to some very serious mathematics, even if it is presented as a sequence of unrelated calculations. So if I had been the one taking a machete to the article, I would probably have kept at least some of that. But stuff like being the 31st number to have 16 divisors is cruft. You could write such a fact about every positive integer, replacing 31 and 16 by something else. This property says nothing special or distinctive about 744. It is not useful when 744 comes up in a calculation and you are trying to find related properties that might explain why. It is just filler. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
So, if I'm trying to understand here, to put it plainly, you are saying the cruft is off-topic writing and it has nothing to do with such a number? From my perspective, the content of the article "744" describes something related to graph theory, following unrelated topics. Moonshine is also a good topic for another interesting property list, but the rest is GEEZ GEEZ GEEZ GEEZ... (I have no idea again what am I reading at, so maybe I just skipped in the case of TLDR and incomprehensible technical facts). The Riemann zeta function section is good as well. The "other properties" section is another interesting property, though I have no clue whether they are cruft or not. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Putting it another way. @Beland, @David Eppstein, @Polyamorph. I think we should find another perspective on whether the content is potentially cruft from which they are instantaneously being removed. For example, do you think the sandbox I made before implementing to 1729 (number) is cruft content? Content here is in fact trimmed by finding reliable sources and removing facts with unsourced or unreliable sources. Since there is no explicit state about its different system numbers, the infobox can be trimmed as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Several editors are collaborating to define consensus on what is and isn't "cruft" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines. I invite you to contribute and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#A concrete proposal. Hopefully after that is complete it will be clear how to scope individual articles like 1729.-- Beland (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The current state of 744 (number) is... mind-boggling. It goes beyond irrelevance into free-association. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Except that there are powers here: not all indexes are of equal magnitude in mathematics, in the grand "calculus of the Multiverse", as Dr Strange puts it. Radlrb (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
To paraphrase a famous saying...: One man's cruft is another man's treasure. (just throwing oil in the fire here...) Dhrm77 (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There are infinitely many formulas and properties that one could state about any number. Only finitely many of them are WP:DUE. WP:ILIKEIT is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bad faith

This is pure bad faith and completely disruptive [1]. Please revert yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

20 edits fucking around with a bot to deliberately break a citation that you have been told would be broken, immediately overriding a deliberate exclusion of the bot from the page, is not bad faith and disruptive? Look in a mirror. You are fortunate not to be taken to ANI with this behavior but there is still time. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @David Eppstein Apart from the issue of WP:CIV and empty threats (as an admin you will know that ANI is not there to resolve content disputes), you've restored incorrect references. (1) "APL 79 Conference Proceedings", "APL 81 Conference Proceedings", etc., are not separate academic journals – they are each a standalone publication, and the original citations were correct; (2) Removing correct DOI and journal title from "DOMINO: An APL Primitive Function for Matrix Inversion – – Its Implementation and Applications" is of no help to anyone. (3) The correct journal title is "SHARP APL Technical Note", not "SATN 40, I. P. Sharp Associates", "SATN 41, I. P. Sharp Associates", etc.
Overall, I'm restoring the edit by Headbomb, thanking them a lot for their excellent bot which has saved editors millions of hours. — kashmīrī TALK 11:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
When the bot is deliberately excluded for making bad edits, and then forced back in by Headbomb to make test edits that better belong in a sandbox, the other good changes cannot be a valid excuse for reintroducing the exact same bad edits. And a bot that often polishes minor stuff, often misses major problems like duplicated citations, and often wastes human editor time by breaking citations and forcing human fixes, is not an unalloyed positive. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Notable?

Good morning (where I am at least). I found this academic doing a notability-tag-patrol. It looks thin but obviously not updated, and I'm unfamiliar with his academic field. Feel free to give an opinion if inclined. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to steer clear of biomed because I also am not very familiar with what is enough for strong research in that area. User:JoelleJay might know better for this one, although her standards tend to be stricter than mine. JoelleJay? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. From his Scopus citations (~1800) and h-index (23) I wouldn't expect him to be notable in biochemistry, but since he has surprisingly few coauthors his subfield might be lower-citation than normal. I'll see how he compares to coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok his Scopus metrics compared to the 50 coauthors with 10+ papers are: total citations: avg: 4921, med: 2888, Norbeck: 1778; total papers: 80, 54, 39; h-index: 29, 27, 23; top 5 papers: 1st: 739, 316, 195; 2nd: 318, 221, 180; 3rd: 251, 181, 174; 4th: 210, 153, 137; 5th: 179, 137, 102.
So below the median across the board in this subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
What course of action would you recommend then? It has already been notability-tagged long enough, 8 years. Geschichte (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Take it to AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Reuleaux tetrahedron

Ah, yes. I remember that polyhedron is a flat sided. I thought it is part of WP3TOPE because it is the part of tetrahedron as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

TMA is a reliable source

TMA has all the characteristics of a reliable source and none of a predatory or vanity publication (as defined by Wikipedia). TMA is peer-reviewed, published in both print and online format, has ISSN numbers 1792-9687 (print) and 1792-9709 (online), detailed instructions for authors, indexed & abstracted by 7 services (American Mathematical Society, Genamics JournalSeek, Google Scholar, JournalTOCs, Norway’s National Scientific Database, Sherpa/Romeo, TOC Premier), international editorial board with affiliations (18 mathematicians), modest publication fee, and outlined publication ethics [2].

I looked into the significance of the journal not being indexed by Math Reviews and zbMATH. It appears to be more a matter that the journal is small rather than an indication of the quality. Additionally, Beall’s List has been shown (Wikipedia Page) to be biased and includes publishers which are not predatory.

Norway’s National Scientific Database Theoretical Mathematics and Applications Bibliographic Information International Title: Theoretical Mathematics and Applications p-ISSN: 1792-9687 Period: [2011 .. ] e-ISSN: 1792-9709 Period: [ .. ] Language: English Country of publication: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scienpress.com/journal_focus.asp?Ma[..] Publisher: Scienpress Ltd ITAR Code: 1024459 NPI Scientific Field: Mathematics

Minimum Criteria ✅ Scientific editorial board ✅ Peer reviewed ✅ International authorship ✅ Approved ISSN

Scientific level placements

Year Scientific Level 2024 1 2023 1 2022 1 2021 1 2020 1 2019 1 2018 1 2017 1 2016 1 2015 1 2014 1

Level 1 are publication channels considered to satisfy the minimum requirement to be counted as scientific (external peer review, scientific editorial board and minimum national authorship).

The objective evidence shows TMA to be a reliable source. I am asking you to remove the block on the talk page (if you blocked the page) or tell the person who blocked the page to remove it. 45.50.231.56 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, the context is Talk:Collatz conjecture § I am proposing a major edit to this page., which includes more of the same + the author completely blowing off my reasoned criticism of their paper. They have also been haranguing me by email. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 45.50.231.56 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture

Is the unregistered editor claiming that the Collatz conjecture has been proved, by the paper in question in TMA? If a real mathematician had developed a real proof, or what appeared on its face to other mathematicians to be a proof (and therefore in need of detailed examination), why would they leave it only in a questionable journal?

This appears to be comparable to Fermat's last conjecture in terms of being easy to state, extremely difficult, and a target for quackery (until Wiles). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that FLT had a long history of spinning off significant advances in mathematics through attempts to prove it, culminating in the modularity theorem. There are some applications of Collatz to the busy beaver problem but not much beyond that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, when we get to the advances in mathematics from efforts to prove FLT/FLC, you get to mathematics that I haven't forgotten because I didn't learn it. I think that I have forgotten all of the higher math that I learned in college, and I remember first-year calculus, which I learned in high school. I will comment that FLT/FLC was around for a little more than three centuries and the Collatz conjecture has been around for a little less than one century. However, my question was whether the unregistered editor was indeed claiming to have proved the Collatz conjecture. It appears that they are actually saying that the proof is right there on the talk page, collapsed. If I knew the right sort of math, I might actually look at the alleged proof to see what is wrong with it. There is nothing disgraceful about publishing a flawed proof. Wiles' first proof of FLT/FLC had a flaw that was corrected by Taylor. There is something wrong with being a crackpot. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The alleged proof is online at https://doi.org/10.47260/tma/1411
First line of its abstract: "A proof of the Collatz Conjecture is presented."
Why I don't believe it: Special:Diff/1240318869
—David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Composite polyhedron

Thanks for copyediting in Composite polyhedron. But for some reason, I might need to find a way to get rid of the orphan tag. So it might be added to your article Triaugmented triangular prism. Or do you have an alternative idea? I think Polyhedra is a good one, although it is still messed up and you have most edits on that article as well. Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Should not be difficult to de-orphan. There are lots of articles on individual composite polyhedra in which it might be mentioned. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI

WT:Manual_of_Style#We_and_first-person_pronouns. EEng 23:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Little question

Hi, what is the meaning of {{CS1 config|mode=cs2}} ? Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It means to use Citation Style 2 for the citations (the format generated by the {{citation}} series of templates, where parts of the citation are separated from each other by commas, not periods). The alternative is Citation Style 1. The format. Generated by the {{cite}} series of templates. Where parts of the citation are separated. From each other. By periods. Not commas. For details of both formats, see Help:Citation Style 1. The CS1 config template means that even if you use the wrong citation template, the template will still format it in a consistent style with the other citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

What is considered to be applications in mathematics?

Hi. Sorry for asking here. I am literally having an issue of adding the applications of a mathematical object. Usually, the applications mean the operation to do something. When I discussed this the more applications in Johnson's cupolas, the other reply that it is best to add something that is encyclopedia instead of theoretical physicists game. Take another example that I have taken in doi:10.3390/ma10040361 (I actually have this one) so that your article Triaugmented triangular prism can include another related Thomson problem application. Apparently, the doi also includes the clusters on polyhedral's edges, so I have merely a trouble presumption if you disagree after having this included in yours.

So, in your view, what are considered to be applications in an encyclopedic way? How do I know if they are not? Do we even have MOS or other guidelines speaking about these? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, when something is used for something else? I don't think there is a formal definition or rules for when and when not to use it. Although you will find some people who will tell you the something else has to actually be real-world useful. If you just use some piece of mathematics as part of another piece of mathematics it might not count as an application to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Universal vertex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Universal vertex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Universal vertex

The article Universal vertex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Universal vertex for comments about the article, and Talk:Universal vertex/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Publishing dates incorrect

Hi, I've never done this before so please excuse my ignorance. This is in regards to Adventures Among the Toroids (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adventures_Among_the_Toroids&diff=1241565912&oldid=1142597153). The dates you've used as publishing dates appear to be the dates of the reviews of the book . I own the book and it notes the 1st edition date as 1952 and the 2nd edition as 1964. Thanks Hopalongcass (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The MathSciNet and zbMATH reviews of the books clearly state the dates of the book's publication as 1970 (first ed.) and 1980 (2nd ed.) I also have a copy but it's in my office and I'm home today so I can't check what it says. Are you sure you're not maybe confusing the dates with Stewart's other book, Theory of Numbers, which did indeed have dates 1952 and 1964? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Questions about history of Sherry Gong page

I noticed that you participated in the Women in Red October 2018 Women in STEM MeetUp. The Sherry Gong page was updated at that time. I see you put the WIR-96 template tag on the Sherry Gong talk page and made one edit on the main article page on 28 October 2018‎, presumably as part of this effort. I can't see what you did on the article page because there are strikethroughs/WP:REVDEL on all revisions before 19 April 2021‎ - do you know why these entries might have been removed? You "unstubbed" the page on 3 January 2019. I'm trying to understand why this page was up for so long, presumably because enough editors felt it passed WP:GNG for Gong's math olympiad accomplishments as one of only three girls ever to compete on US Teams in the IMO and also win medals, for it to be now conflated with WP:NACADEMIC with such strong arguments to delete it based on a rigid reading of WP:Notability guidelines. You have the right to change your mind but I'm just trying to understand what's changed for you in the intervening years. Note during the past six months I've been reading AfD discussions I don't directly participate in and see that you give thoughtful responses and I've learned more about Wikipedia policies from your answers. Nnev66 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Nnev66: The revdel'ed content is due to copyright violations present from the beginning of the article, and therefore throughout the stricken edits. David Eppstein's edit during that time primarily organized information on the page chronologically and added section headers. BD2412 T 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The originally created version of the article, in 2011, copied some sentences entirely from https://web.archive.org/web/20120511053020/http://claymath.org/news/olympiad2005.php and from https://web.archive.org/web/20101215160207/http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/10/math-gong-hristov-gongs/, among others. This wasn't noticed until 2021 and when it was noticed, the remedy was to suppress visibility of all the copyright-violating versions. (Sometimes instead the whole article is deleted but in this case there was judged to be enough non-violating content to avoid that more draconian outcome.)
My general philosophy on this general topic area (women in STEM) is that there are many women in STEM whose accomplishments are more significant, more well-established, and more clearly recognized, and yet who do not already have articles; we should focus on articles for them first. I recognize that some people see people who appear to be on their way to success and think a Wikipedia article might help them along, but that's not what Wikipedia is for and it may well not have the intended effect, instead making the subject feel unsuccessful when their career does not immediately take them to stardom.
As for why I might have added to the article in 2019 but argued for deletion now: because I did not feel strongly enough that the article should not be there to initiate deletion proceedings myself, and if we were going to have an article I felt that it should be a better one than what was previously there. But once the deletion proceedings began, I felt it necessary to give my honest opinion of how the subject stacks up against our notability criteria. These proceedings are supposed to be evaluative and dispassionate evaluations of that, not a forum for advocacy where editors grasp for excuses to achieve their preferred outcomes.
Also, although I have participated in WIR for a long time, I have never attended any meetups. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If you know of any notable women in STEM who you think should have Wikipedia articles, I’m happy to help write a couple soon, though I have some non-science ones in my queue. I’ve seen suggested lists on WikiProjects, and while I’ve worked on a few, the list of names can be overwhelming and hard to narrow down... I agree that Wikipedia's goal for biographies isn’t to promote individuals on their way to success but to document notable accomplishments supported by reliable independent sources. What’s notable for a woman might differ from a man due to the additional obstacles she may have overcome, e.g. the first female rabbi ordained by a given Jewish movement having an article, while other rabbis with similar achievements not having one. The accomplishment in the Gong article feels similar and my arguments are based on the guidelines as best I understand them - in this case there were nuances I didn't fully understand when I first presented my reasoning but hope as my understanding evolved I still made a coherent argument that this was an edge case that should tip in favor of Keep. Another editor summarized the point well after the AfD discussion was relisted. Frankly, I think the guidelines could be revisited to explicitly allow for non-trivial one sentence equivalent mentions in multiple respected independent reliable sources to have greater weight. I'll admit I'm not feeling dispassionate about this one but am not sure explaining more here will be helpful. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Nnev66 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want a list of a few thousand, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. Most (but not all) of the listings on that page are for fellowships in major scholarly societies that should pass WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this list and it's better curated than some others I've seen but still overwhelming. I've gone to the AAAS and National Academy of Sciences sites directly and found names that way.... I'm sorry I brought any of this up. Nnev66 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, the overwhelming number of women at this level of seniority and accomplishment for whom we have no article is part of why I'm unenthusiastic about trying to improve our coverage of women in STEM through subjects who are up-and-coming but much more junior. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that there are academic women (and men) who have the notability for Wikipages. Your list got me thinking of doing tutorials for high schools students to learn how to create and edit Wikipedia pages towards writing Start class pages for them. I spend time trying to improve scientist articles in AFC often created by people taking Wikipedia classes taught by college professors. But I'm pretty demoralized around the determination of you and the other math professor to take down a page for a woman whose notability is for math olympiad accomplishments as a middle and high school student, not as a professor. I don't see why the Puerto Rican newspaper articles and the MAA/Clay Math articles aren't enough to keep the page, but so many people respect you and say, "delete because of what David Epstein said" rather than writing in their own words why they think a page should be deleted. The consensus process works IMO (in my opinion not international math olympiad) best when people actually explain their reasoning because it seems like people are arguing "delete" due to WP:NACADEMIC, a much weaker argument than for WP:GNG IMO. More articles won't be created for notable academics by deleting (or redirecting) the article. Nnev66 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
You are still arguing as if this decision should be based on advocacy and strength of belief, not on a neutral evaluation of our criteria. See WP:SOAPBOX. When you make decisions on that basis, even for what you think is a good cause, you make Wikipedia into a vehicle for promotionalism rather than a trustworthy information resource. You also risk triggering a backlash from the many devoted Wikipedia editors who feel strongly that promotionalism, even for a good cause, should have no place here, and will react against perceived promotionalism with negative opinions on deletion discussions even when a more neutrally-presented case might have found some notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I wrote to you rather than the AfD discussion page in question because I understood I'd already written a lot over there, but I still wanted to understand why an article that indeed has independent reliable secondary sources has so many people who say it doesn't. What I hear you say is that you disagree (with what I underlined), you argued your points already on the discussion page, it's time to move on, and talking more about it is promotionalism/soapbox. I also wanted to better understand your motivations and perspectives, and I do feel like I have some insight there. Thank you for your time. Nnev66 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can have a word ...

... with a certain editor re [3] and [4] and [5]? They've now gone to work on yet another Harvard article [6]. As seen here [7] they simply don't discuss anything, ever.

In other news, I see from higher up on this page that's you too have had an encounter with the civility hypocrites. EEng 21:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a good time for me to be active in disputes, unfortunately; I'm traveling this week and my Wikipedia editing time may be quite patchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Understood. But don't worry, I'll do my best to keep the embers of controversy burning until you're ready to be drawn in. EEng 04:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Solid transitive

Sorry for asking in this day, but Cundy says in [8] that "a set of vertices is said to be of the same type if there are subgroups of the symmetry group of the solid transitive on the set." Is the "solid transitive" refer to the three kinds of symmetry as in isogonal, isohedral, and isotoxal? Or is it about the symmetry group having a property of transitivity on the set? I'm trying to understand about the non-convex deltahedron. Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here, speaking up partly because David says above that he's traveling. Unless I am mistaken, this is "symmetry group of the solid", and this group should have the property of transitivity on the set. I don't think that "solid transitive" has any meaning. (It is possible that I am missing some uncommon use of language, but I don't think it is likely.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dedhert.Jr: Your confusion is grammatical. (symmetry group of the solid) = the group of all symmetries of the polyhedron. (transitive on the set) = for every two vertices u and v there is a symmetry that takes u to v. Taking "solid transitive" out of these two phrases makes no sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Ooohhh... I knew it something was wrong with me. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Other topics: Primary and secondary sources; the deltahedral graph

Sorry for bothering you about a somewhat off-topic but related topic in the article Deltahedron. According to WP:PSTS, primary sources are used to cite people's original work of the material, whereas secondary sources reflect the primary sources based on their evaluation and analysis. What happens when I use these both in citing their original work because of no access to verify, for example, Cundy (1952) and Olshevsky are the primary sources, whereas Tsuruta et al. (2015) are the secondary marking their work?

Speaking of the deltahedral graph, I hopefully can expand this topic, but looks like those are outside my boundary. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root

It popped into my head today, 20~ years ago I remember through slashdot and elsewhere following this intriguing story about this suspiciously short Quake 3 function. The original comments were a massive part of the mystery and intrigue, even those Q3 devs couldn't understand where this wizardry came from.

I went onto the talk page and saw there had been endless problems from people removing the original code comments. Thought to myself, I absolutely have to look at the history. I know this might sound cruel, but reading your reverts from many years back going from simple "original language" to overwhelming and overflowing frustration was absolutely hilarious. I'm still struggling to contain my laughter from "what part of "The original source code includes "fuck" in the comments. This is a direct quote. See WP:CENSOR." do you not understand?".

Having been there at the time, the original source code with comments is the central part of the story, it drove everything else. While I'm laughing at your frustration know that I'd still like to thank you for maintaining the source despite all the rage inducing aggravation it has caused you over the years.

Wishing you all the best in your evil floating point bit level hacking future. BeardedChimp (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! For a nice recent example of evil (integer) bit level hacking, see https://mathstodon.xyz/@JordiGH/113087203873987695 —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

One-step method

I just approved this at AfC, but noted a prior reviewer critique that it reads like a textbook. It seems like a clearly notable topic covered in sources beyond the rather inaccessible ones on the page. Can you cast a quick eye over this and confirm this impression? Cheers! BD2412 T 02:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein/2024c&oldid=1250229730"