User talk:Jitse Niesen/Archive16

Proposed deletion of Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * No assertion or sources for notability (we have but one ref, which I'm guessing which is where the concept arose); doesn't sound particularly non-trivial either. See my concerns in more details at Talk:Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oli Filth(talk 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
re: deletion of "Evolutionary Vector". Nope, it wasn't used in Lenski et al (2008), though the concept was and when discussed with he and other specialists in this area, the term has now often come up to explain the observations of real life. I'll do a search for it; if it's not to be found, voila, I can talk to the subject quite knowledgeably myself and perhaps it's about time to get back to actively publishing, eh?

My intent was to broaden the meaning to beyond what I see as a VERY theoretical (and narrowly defined) useage currently reserved for mathematical modelling It falls well beyond my stale and now useless understanding of such stuff (engineering math in 1968 was a long long time ago, and I'm pretty sure they had little use for Evolutionary Vectors; the math even then!).

Since those days of old, I've moved on beyond strict interpretatinos and daily use of math (can one really?) to a far more detailed understanding of ecology, biology, and Evolution. That branch of science is always open to ways to better explain, or summarize, some key new (evolved?) explanations.

The very real and observed differentials in an organism's rate of accumulated changes (through chance transcription errors reproduced and "recorded" in that species' DNA genome map) is a direct result of the facilitation that one benchmark mutation (one that does impart some newfound advantage) imbues on further evolution, as regards both it's direction and the "velocity" of the subsequent changes. Hence, by mathematical definition, it could be represented by a Vector, at least as I recall it from my physics days, now mixed in with my understandings and thoughts on evolution processes and understandings.

Thx to you and Gandalf61 for my enhanced understanding of The wiki-process. It's my own Educational Vector ramping up!

(Thotful1 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Local parameter
Hello there Jitse! Thank you so much for helping me to set up the References part in the article cited above. As this is my first contribution, I was so eager to get it published that I skipped the tutorial, but I am finding that editing in Wiki is like working with LaTeX or HTML. Well, back to work! Have a nice day! Cristhian Garay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriega (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Atiyah: Please take a look
at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Square root of two
Thanks for fixing my mistake! I guess I wasn't really thinking too hard when I was editing, even after previewing the edit twice. I guess my logic was that $$x^{-1} = 1/x$$ and $$2^{1/2} = \sqrt{2}$$, so therefore $$2^{-2}$$ must somehow equal $$\sqrt{2}$$ for x = 2. Just goes to show why we should be rigorous in defining and solving mathematical equations! — Kortaggio   Proclamations   Declarations  00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial derivatives
Hi! This is about our reverting/not reverting in notation about Taylor's theorem. I self-revert because I realized that I (and everyone) write(s)


 * $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}$$

but not


 * $$\frac{\partial^{1, 1} f}{\partial x\partial y}.$$

So I don't know what to think! With best wishes --Bdmy (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, so I looked in a few books, but none use this notation. I only saw
 * $$\partial_\alpha f \quad\text{and}\quad D^\alpha f. $$
 * Now I also don't know what to think. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to write
 * $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\,\partial y}$$
 * $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\,\partial y}$$

rather than
 * $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}$$
 * $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}$$

But maybe I pay more attention to these small style issues than most people do. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup
A reminder that the Manchester meetup is this Saturday. Hope to see you there!  Majorly  talk  18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup/Manchester 5
Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No current activity?
Once again WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity show no new article for several days. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit more time
Hi there, I just read your comment on the "Fahad Shiftra" talk page. In it you mentioned that it could be deleted. I accept that, all I'm asking for is a bit of time to make the changes. It's the first wiki page I've written. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm not in a hurry. I appreciate that it takes time to understand how things work here. I saw that you added that one of the papers is published in the May 2005 issue of the Turkish Journal of Physics. Thanks for that, but I cannot find it. I think May 2005 is volume 29, issue 3, but the paper is not mentioned in the table of contents for that issue. Could you please add the volume number, issue number and page numbers for the papers? That would help a lot. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Circle charts.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circle charts.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Interpolation example spline.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Interpolation example spline.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series
I have nominated Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oli Filth(talk 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mess with energy drift and numerical integration
Thanks for fixing the mess with links with energy drift and numerical integration. I stumbled across the article when fixing a link for an article I merged and I couldn't resist trying to help an orphan I am afraid. TStein (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing I added the energy drift to the see also of Numerical ordinary differential equations the way you suggested in your edit summary.  I hope that is ok.  TStein (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Arabic numerals to Hindu-Arabic numerals move
Hi, I noticed that you also think that the article needs to be moved back to its original title. It seems that there are some people that refuse to accept the evidence. I suspect there is a political or personal agenda behind this opposition. The "discussion" was closed without coming to a consensus. This is a very good example of why I detest this process on Wikipedia. Someone moved this article without gaining consensus to that effect, now we can't rectify the error without a consensus. It's ludicrous. I definitely want to see this error corrected. What is our next step? Mediation? Do you have any experience with this? Could you help? Rapparee71 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Naming conventions, we should use the most common name by which a thing is known in the English language. "Arabic numerals" is a more common name than "Hindu-Arabic numerals". The priority of the Hindus is recognized in the text of the article (see the link to Indian numerals). JRSpriggs (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is highly arguable that it is more common. That's the whole point. What do you do when "most common" can't be decidedly ascertained? What do you do when "most common" flies in the face of reason? What do you do when "most common" is clearly incorrect? Rapparee71 (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Westerners are only aware of a single distinction in numerals &mdash; between Arabic numerals and Roman numerals. Changing the name and making it longer would only confuse them. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. I don't know where you, JRSpriggs, and these other people that think that "Arabic numerals" is the more correct or more common is coming from, but it's bullocks.Rapparee71 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I never heard it called anything but "Arabic numerals" until I began editing Wikipedia. Please do not use harsh language. Perhaps in India, it is mainly called the other name because of national pride, but I doubt that that is so anywhere in the West. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I've never read or heard anything but Hindu-Arabic numerals. Every math book, history book, anthropology book, and encyclopaedia I've seen over the past 30 years has said "Hindu-Arabic numerasl."  This shift to "Arabic" must be recent.  I've lived in the United States my whole life and Hindu-Arabic" is the name given.  It's not a matter of national pride, it's a matter of being historically correct. The name "Hindu-Arabic" reflects the history of the development of the numerals. "Arabic" neglects a very important portion of that historical development. If anything, NOT including "Hindu" in the name smacks of violating the NPOV policy and furthering an Arabic-centric view.Rapparee71 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I checked my two old printed dictionaries and they both define "Arabic numerals" without any mention in that definition of "Hindu" or "India". Under "Hindu-Arabic" or "Hindu-Arabic numerals", both say "See Arabic numerals". One has a "Number table" which lists two columns with headers "Arabic numerals" and "Roman numerals". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're basing your whole argument on two old dictionaries? Sorry, but more authoritative works prefer "Hindu-Arabic numerals".  The article should be moved to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" for correctness sake and a redirect created to point from "Arabic numerals" to "Hindu-Arabic numerals". Rapparee71 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think his point is that your argument was that this "shift [to Arabic numeral] must be recent", as evidenced by our (and your) checks to all the recent dictionaries (although this doesn't really explain OED's entry, which takes its usual historical approach). So he then went and checked two old dictionaries.  Your personal experience is obviously flawed.  It's a hard thing to accept that something you accepted as natural as the air you breathe isn't so, but it can hardly discount the personal experience of everybody else over the same time period, right?  By the way, I did archive searches on a couple major newspapers (New York Times, which lets you go back to 1851, and Washington Post which lets you go back to 1876) and I found the usage has been "Arabic numeral" not "Hindu-Arabic numeral".  I guess you don't read those newspapers.  --C S (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when are newspapers considered authoritative sources? Oh, and actually I do peruse those Yankee papers from time to time ;-)  Rapparee71 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)