User talk:HenningThielemann

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Remark on categories
I renamed Category:Continuous wavelet to Category:Continuous wavelets, as I think plural is more acceptable for a category, and the same for Category:Orthogonal wavelet, to Category:Orthogonal wavelets.

By the way, any articles showing up in these two specific categories should not show up in Category:Wavelets anymore I think, as having an article both in Category:Orthogonal wavelets and Category:Wavelets is reduntant I think. If you agree, you may want to remove the less specific category. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Same for Category:Biorthogonal Wavelet --> Category:Biorthogonal wavelets. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks fr refinable function. You might be interested in following the conversations on the talk pages of WikiProject Mathematics. linas 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maths on Wikipedia
The edit summary of your last edit to Matrix function makes me wonder whether you have read Manual of Style (mathematics), which suggests to use italics and all that for maths typesetting. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quotation from that page: "Either form is acceptable [math or italics], but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable." My article was consistently type set in math mode, because I follow the LaTeX philosophy of writing code with respect to intention (it's math) not with respect to appearence (I don't care whether math is presented italics or not). Admittedly, LaTeX itself breaks this philosophy especially within math type setting, but that's another issue. I see no reason why you changed my math typeset to italics. HenningThielemann 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Histogram - This edit of your seems wrong
I've finally commented out the material that you added in this edit. Histograms are usually thought of as being for continuous data, so to speak of "generalizing" to continuous data is silly. You also neglected to define your notation and you never answered my comments at talk:Histogram, which have been there for a long time. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not aware, that there are other notions of histogram outside image processing. I moved my paragraph to Color histogram. HenningThielemann (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CORDIC and logs
You added a section about using CORDIC algorithms to compute logs. It is unclear to me whether this is notable enough to be included, could you comment at the article talk page? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Battleship (game)/Combinatorics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battleship (game)/Combinatorics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Battleship (game)/Combinatorics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Benea (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Proofs related to the Digamma function for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proofs related to the Digamma function is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Proofs related to the Digamma function until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mean of circular quantities
Hello! In the article Mean of circular quantities, the formulas contain a division by n that could be omitted. (The angle of the sum of unit vectors will be the same as the angle of the mean of unit vectors). Any particular reason you chose to include the division by n? Thanks. --Amble (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Digamma asymptotic series
Hello. In this edit] you imply that there is an asymptotic series, mentioned higher up, for $$\psi(x+\tfrac 12)$$ that does not include a 1/(2x) term. But there is no such series higher up in the article. Can you explain? (Please start your reply with .) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no asymptotic series for $$\psi(x+\tfrac 12)$$ in the article. However, the asymptotic series of $$\exp(\psi(x+\tfrac 12))$$ is especially practical because the even terms vanish. For large $$x$$, $$\exp(\psi(x+\tfrac 12))$$ approaches $$x$$. If you give me your e-mail address I can send you the deleted proof page, that contains the code to compute the asymptotic series for $$\exp(\psi(x+\tfrac 12))$$. HenningThielemann (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I do not want to give my e-mail in public, but you can go to User:Eric Kvaalen and click on "Email this user". (You have to be logged in.) Send me a note and I will answer, and that way you will have my address. I have modified the article on the digamma function. You can check it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adjoint filter


The article Adjoint filter has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Dicdef, untouched since 2006."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Adjoint filter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adjoint filter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Adjoint filter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Assampler


The article Assampler has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article was created by the author of the software in 2010. Since then, there have been no references to establish notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)