User talk:Linas/Archive12

Trouble on Afshar experiment page ...again!
Dear Linas, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER
 * Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself.  I shall have to be blunt, I see.  Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity.  There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims.  Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum).  Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article.  Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment.  Why is  Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery?  The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me).  I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem.  --Michael C. Price talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL
 * Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have trouble following your clear, polite and concise diatribes on Afshar. But I do look forward to a clear, polite and concise critique of the experiment. And you'll find I'll be far more supportive if and when that occurs. CL.

I'll take a look.linas 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Linas, two things: (1) Why did you remove the sentence regarding my rebuttals and the links for it? If my critics are allowed to have their views reflected in the article, at the very least you should mention that I have responded to them and provide the link. (2) The decoherence, and the Schrodinger equation issue has not been addressed by Michael Price. He needs to explain why they are criticisms of the experiment and its interpretation, and the best way to do that is by writing a paper or two on the topic. Until then these "critiques" should be removed. Even AFTER Michael writes the paper(s), my response should be mentioned. As way of doing this, I am willing to start a new talk page on the issue of addressing Michael's views on decoherence and the Schrodinger equation, given an admin. like you monitors the discussion and makes sure it does not descend to the type of insults dished out by Michael. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, now fixed. I was skimming a bit too quick. Its not clear to me if your rebuttals address the specific issues brough up by Motl, Drezet, etc. If they do, then links should be added to the specific bullets listingthat critic. linas 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Linas, it seems that Michael Price is itching for a bit of administrative discipline, as he reverted your changes again. If you are an administrator please act accordingly, otherwise, please let me know how this problem can be dealt with once and for all. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted Linas's deletion because (1) there was no discussion beforehand (2) Linas's opinion that it was "casual and handwaving" is (2a) not a valid reason for deleting verifiably sourced material. If correct then the solution is to "improve not delete" and (2b) this is an old claim Linas made that was settled long ago (3) Linas has previously suggested that the entire article be rewritten from a decoherence POV, so why he should now delete a more modest version of this suggestion, amongst others, seems inconsistent.  --Michael C. Price talk 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Micheal, you are not being helpful. Sometimes improvement comes through deletion. There has been a lot of material that has been deleted from that article, and deleting more won't hurt. I'm sorry I suggested pursuing decoherence -- it would indeed be an interestting thing to do, but in this case, it constitutes "original research", and is inappropriate for this article. linas 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the OR claim (which was also settled between us long ago) on the talk page here. Your claim that more deletion won't hurt is highly subjective and I disagree.  Please do me the curtesy of debating the issue at the talk page first before deleting.  If you don't have the time to debate, fair enough, but then I don't think you have the right to delete either.  --Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Micheal, the text I deleted contained several flavours of logical fallacies. Its not only OR, but its not even logically coherent. This is not something we should even be debating. Step back, and look at this from the distance. linas 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the corrections. We shall have to disagree about the issue of OR.  I assure I do reflect on whether this is worth pursuing and I shall continue to reflect: for the moment I have decided to continue.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter
Dear Linas, in your recent paper norlund-l-func.pdf you mentioned about easily constructing e.g. 1/zeta(s) series. How this can be done? And can such a series be constructed, which converges on some left-side half-plane of the complex plane?

Markku N.

Go Linas
Having fun with Topology? Paul August &#9742; 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I wanted to understand the topology of operator algebras and topo vector spaces, and all that fancy modern high-falutin stuff, but, to get there, am taking the slow boat by reviewing all things basic. Besides, you've pulled too far ahead on WP:PMEX counts. linas 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ;-) Paul August &#9742; 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you seemed so excited. What answer were you hoping to get? That I dream of being a topologist, categorically? linas 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Filter
Hi Linas I've replied on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From: Revolver
Linus,

Thanks for your kind words re: AIDS edits. I'm afraid my temper is really at a limiting point on this issue. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) Wikipedia is a minor stage for the HIV debate at the moment. The orthodoxy is under intense attack and its days are numbered (I'd give an upper limit of about 12 months or so before the public catches on and all hell breaks loose.) So, I'm trying to ignore Wikipedia and possibly return after the "shit has hit the fan" in the public arena, so to speak. 69.252.201.61 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Geometry Proofs
You created the Category:Article proofs. A related subcategory (of Category:Proofs) called Category:Geometry Proofs is being considered for deletion or renaming. Please comment on what structure you deem is appropriate. It is the bottom entry on here: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2. Cheers! RoyalbroilT : C 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Status of your http://linas.org/linux/pm.html page
Hi,

The footer of your page says that it's been last updated in 2002, is that right?

We've developed a project-management, -controlling and -collaboration software for Linux and other OSs, and would love to be included in your page. We're currently #25 on SourceForge. Our description:

]project-open[ (http://www.project-open.org/) is a:

Web-based project management system for service and consulting companies with 2-200 employees. ]po[ helps you to run your business by covering areas such as CRM, sales, project planning, project tracking, collaboration, timesheet, invoicing and payments.

Cheers, Frank

Believe it or not Danko again
Dear Linas, Danko has once again infected the article. I have removed the related text, but would like you to keep an eye on this guy. The article is getting more and more unecyclopedic by the minute. This has to stop! Below is the exchange that promted my action.--Prof. Afshar 07:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC):

''" For example Danko Georgiev works from a pure math position and a QM definition of complementarity. He arrives at a situation in which he has two incompatible equations. The "=" sign doesn't work. And so one divides the universe in two, one in which one equation obtains, and the other in which the other equation obtains." Carl Looper''


 * I am pleased that at least one person has realized the importance of my paper, and has verified the math content of it. The next step is to find out what have proved Afshar. While I am prone to accept (after suitable quotation provided by Afshar) that Bohr's view/interpretation of complementarity is wrong, I have mathematically proved that Afshar's claim to have violated the duality relation is inconsistent, and also I have proved that Afshar has not violated the mathematical definition of complementarity that is very nicely and profoundly linked to the (reduced) density matrix of the photon (qubit in general). I have suggested to Afshar that he has gone "too far" but he did not take seriously my advice. Only the claim that Afshar has disproved Bohr's interpretation of complementarity is possibly acceptable [yet, I need to see exact quotation by Bohr where Bohr exposes his own views]. But the absurd Afshar's claim to have proved $$V^{2} + K^{2} = 2$$ deserves more attention by all participants of this discussion, because such a huge mistake immediately must question Afshar's competence in QM. Again I want to stress on my main thesis which has never changed - even if there are no wires there is no which way information. This is clear - Afshar starts from wrong premise, and derives wrong conclusions. Unruh and others accept the wrong premise of which way information and then wrongly try to save complementarity. So please do not play with the semantic load of physical terms, mathematical definitions have been already done by physicists, I did not invent them, just have shown how a real scientist must approach the problem through rigorous mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is where I draw the line on insanity in Wikipedia. As discussed before the material presented in Danko's paper is Original Research and will be removed from the main article due to the admin. Gareth Hughes's request and Danko's own promise: "I will prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued." Your questioning the which-way information in my experiment is a bigger claim than my claim on violation of Complementarity. There is a good reason why Unruh, Drezet and Motl disagreed with you, the conservation of linear momentum ensures validity of which-way information (See my paper on the crossed-beam experiment AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299.) It has been explained to you a number of times by world class physicists before (in a not so flattering language, which if need be will be publicized), and just because an uniformed person (Carl Looper) happens to agree with your nonsense (I'm sure due to lack of knowledge about your pathological past which included claiming I had falsified facts and committed scientific fraud) you feel justified to advertise your OR in Wikipedia. I am removing the ref.s to your paper and anyone who disputes it can start an arbitration request. I will not allow an article on my work to be tainted with utter crackpottery. -- Prof. Afshar 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a notice on the admin's noticeboard for WP:LIVING. Its kind of a stretch to have this article fall under the WP:LIVING guidelines; I emphasized that the attacks are libelous in nature. Also, we should both read up on the WP article protection policy, as I am not exactly enjoying trying to mediate. See: Resolving disputes -- Protection policy -- Requests for arbitration. I don't know what to suggest. You appeal to me, and there is little that I can do, other than to revert the occasional edit, and try to interject in the conversations on the talk page. The only obvious solution is to embark on an RfArb. Is that what you want to do? -- linas 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always Linas. Let's hope the clowns leave on their own.-- Prof. Afshar 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How prod works
Prod is a middleground between speedy deletion and Articles for deletion. If the prod stays uncontested for a week, then the article can be deleted (at administrator discretion, of course). Once a single person disputes the prod, like I have done with Transreal number, the article is no longer eligible for proposed deletion and must be taken through the standard articles for deletion process, which I encourage you to do if you do not feel this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You say that the article was deleted a week ago in your prodding edit summary, but I can't find any deleted edits on the page. If it was recreated under a different name this time after a valid deletion at AFD, just give me the link to the original AFD and I will take further action. -- Cyde Weys 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was at Articles for deletion/Transreal number line. linas 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ozlabs restored
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked hard for evidence that it was contested, but found none. I put it up for AfD. linas 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bohm interpretation
I read through Bohm interpretation and was unable to determine what it thinks is wrong. It would be helpful if a detailed note could be left on the talk page, indicating what the problem is. For now, I am removing the cleanup notice. linas 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not add the cleanup notice, I notified users of its existence. It is the duty of the person adding the cleanup notice to put a note on the talk page saying why. If they failed to do so, thats nothing to do with me. - PocklingtonDan 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transform as math disambig
I Linas. I removed Transform from Category:Mathematical disambiguation, since it has very little to do with math, just one link. I'd think Category:Mathematical disambiguation should be used only for disambig pages where most or a good chunk of material is math. Otherwise I'd think a regular disambig would suffice. Wonder what you think. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. linas 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A TfD comment of yours
Hi, here, you told a user not to place his opinioon if he didn't have some prior knowledge. This action is, to be honest, out of order! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and part of the beauty of this is that an outside opinion can be brought to the discussion. Just leaving a note to ask you to bear this in mind - no registered user is prohibited from making his good faith !vote in any wikipedia debate - knowledge is never a limiting factor. M a rtinp23 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting on matters on which one is incompetent is certanly NOT voting in good faith. Such users and such attitudes should be discouraged. Such behaviour patterns drive away highly qualified editors and lower the quality of the information on WP. The good guys get exhausted trying to clean up the little piles of dog poop left behind. linas 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the consequences, but that is not an act of bad faith. You are assuming that the ignorant and incompetent recognise their limitations, which is not usually the case. --Michael C. Price talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. But how does one politely tell someone they're incompetent? The user in question was a teenager who claimed to have computed hundreds of Feynman diagrams, which is hundreds more than even most physics professors. I had to call him a liar after he failed to recognize the Dirac equation, which is like claiming to be a world-class mahjong player, and then failing to recognize a picture of a mahjong tile.  I should be careful here, I've made some big blooper mistakes when I first signed onto WP, just ask Oleg about the shameful episodes. So newcomers should be given leeway and guidance. I'm just concerned about the "anyone can edit" attitude, which leads to a lot of trouble. Speaking of which, are you going to remove that orignal-researchy cirtique from the Afshar experiment page, or what? I don't much like it there. linas 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Graphing Software
What graphing tools did you use to make your graphs, such as this? Thank you very much.--Luckybeargod 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The actual image was generated using gnuplot. I updated the mediawiki page to give the commands used to graph the thing. Of course, it only graphs the data that I give it ... I use home-made programs of various sorts to generate the data. If gnuplot is too low-level for you, and you're a linux user, you might also try George Jirka's "Genius Math Tool", it might do what you want. linas 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
If you would kindly look on my talk page, you will see that that vandalism matter has been overlooked, as there was a spur in the server while I was removing vandalsim by an IP address, and the page automatically saved it self. If you look at the history of that page you will see the exact IP that did do it. Also, could you please remove that warning that you put on my talk page, as it is horrid for my PR. Thanks ~ Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Indeed, sorry, I just blanked the remarks on your talk page. I'm somewhat concerned that there has been some change to the way WP distributes database updates, as I've seen some crazy behaviour recently. I was editing an article on 17 December, and on every third save, it would resurrect some text from and older version of the article. It was mind-bendingly strange. Yes, a stale browser cache could explain this, but I've been doing this for years, and not had this problem before. I was thinking of reporting this to the server operators, but ... unless lots of people are affected, I didn't think my complaints would go anywhere. linas 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, browser cache is to blame. Or sometimes the new version is already in the database, but the servers still serve the old version (that may happen during heavy usage when things take some time to synchronize I think). Doing a hard reload (Ctrl-Shift-R in firefox) should solve the problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When I edit WP, I reset my cache when I log in. I am sure that I did it before I reverted that edit to that article. I have no idea what happened, and know for sure that I reset my cache. Its really weird. ~ Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 14:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality
I've totally rewritten the retrocausality article, which was an embarrassing mess at the time it appeared on AFD. Although I by no means consider myself the most qualified editor to provide an encyclopedic discussion of physics topics such as Feynman's model of the positron, Wheeler-Feynman absorbed theory, and CTCs, nor of philosophy topics such as the bilking theory, I took your suggestion to heart and attempted to make the substantive rewrite myself. I would greatly appreciate your input on its current form, in which I have tried to ensure that the distinctions between philosophy, flawed or outdated science, and appropriate peer-reviewed scientific inquiry remain strong, citing Physics Review, Review of Modern Physics, etc. where appropriate. Feel free to respond either here or at my talk, as you prefer. Thanks! Serpent&#39;s Choice 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stirling numbers
Greetings. Can you explain why you removed all the material on generating functions from the Stirling number articles? Should we move it to a fourth article Stirling numbers and generating functions? Thanks. - Zahlentheorie 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please look at the talk pages for the respective articles. The text had a variety of problems: my biggest objection was that it used a lot of unexplained symbols. Another problem was that most of the added text appeared to be a proof; proofs are not quite approprate for wikipedia; see Category:Article proofs for examples and pointers to a general discussion. linas 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello there, notice how the old article always says that the fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration applies? That's where the symbols are defined. The article mentioned this theorem twice, always right at the beginning of the relevant section. As for the coefficient extraction operator, it is widely used in combinatorics, see for example [Generating functions at CTN.org].
 * This conversation should be held on the talk pages. The article you mention does not appear to use any blackletter symbols. The article should be accessible to those who have not studied combinatorics; I know nothing about combinatorics, but have been working with stirling numbers because they occur deeply in dynamical systems; I think other readers will have similar non-combinatorics interests. linas 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, please move it to the talk page that you think is appropriate. I don't understand about the blackletter symbols. They're right in the section titles, as well an explanation of how they are derived. I don't think you can expect all readers only to have a physics background. Some readers that consult Wikipedia will have a number theory or combinatorics background. Would you remove all the number theoretic material concerning the Riemann Zeta function just because this is not how physicists motivate the study of this function? Shouldn't we serve all potential readers? Anyhow, should we put the generating function material into an external link (PDF)? -Zahlentheorie 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at Talk:Stirling numbers of the first kind, you will find the removed text has been there all along, including the reasons for its removal. I don't think it would be hard to put it back in; all that you need to do is to explain what some of the symbols are. Such as what $$[z^n]$$ is. Its clear that $$[z^n]\ne z^n$$, but I cannot guess its meaning. When one uses strange notation in basic articles on basic topics, such notation should be explained. That's all. linas 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot -- the strange operators are not only documented on the page on the fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration (which I entered) but also on the page on symbolic combinatorics (which someone else entered). That page also includes a link to Analytic combinatorics - Symbolic combinatorics., written by two of the most brilliant people in the field. May I respectfully suggest you have a look at it. You might find it exciting reading. As for the Stirling number/Generating function stuff, I agree it should not go into the main article, but we do not want to miss out on the powerful combinatorics techniques formalized in the eighties. More later. Happy New Year! -20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The point, I think, is about article structure. Simpler material should come before the more complex material. And every article should review the notation it uses. It simply needs to be modified to say that $$[x^n]$$ is the Froobaz partition of the nth degree, as otherwise readers will think that $$x^n=[x^n]$$. The Fraktur symbols should also be given names: the article should state that $$\mathfrak{P}$$ is the Stirfry operator and the $$\mathfrak{T}$$ is the transmogrification of Q, or whatever. linas 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurwitz zeta function
I reverted your latest edit:


 * $$(2^s-1)\zeta(s)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-s}+\sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+1/2)^{-s}-\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s} = \zeta(s,1/2),$$

by summing over even n=2k in the first sum over k and over odd n=2k+1 in the second sum over k. Also 2s-1 &ne; 1-2-s. Mon4 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yowch! Right. Sorry. How odd that I made the mistake... linas 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Paper: An efficient algorithm for computing the polylogarithm and the Hurwitz zeta functions

 * Hi Linas - I'm still looking at your paper (HERE). That expression for the polylogarithm (lemma 2.1) I haven't seen before, and should go into the polylog article. I think it should have its bounds of applicability clearly stated, however. As it stands, it appears to me that, since you are using the summation definition of the polylog, then |z|<1.
 * I believe one can make general arguments about analytic continuation to show that the expression would generally valid, provided one navigates about the branch-point at z=1 carefully. i.e. I think its valid on the principal sheet.


 * Also, the Gamma function expression excludes negative integer values of s.


 * The integrand is divergent at negative integer values of s.


 * However, I bet that its range of applicability is larger than that. I was trying to derive your expression from the integral expression for the polylog of $$e^\mu$$ but haven't got it yet.


 * I think it amounts to the same thing. The analytic continuation of the series is just the integral; there's a branch point at z=1 that causes grief, but nothing else besides that.


 * Have you thought of publishing this?


 * Vaguely. Not sure where. Any suggestions?


 * Also, I will try the mathematica algorithm in the regions you say are troublesome to see how mathematica does timewise. Do you know the mathematica algorithm? (I don't). PAR 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No clue about the mathematica algo. FWIW, the borwein algo is "well known" enough that perhaps the mathematica folks just hacked it up, without bothering to publish. Or perhaps they even published, something and we're ignorant of it. Can mathematica compute Li_s(z) for s=0.5+20i, z=1.5+i0.6 ? Points near z=1 generally are giving me grief. Its hard to use the duplication formula to maneuver out of that region, into a region where things are computable.


 * ALSO - do you have a reference or proof for that generalization of the square relationship (the one in terms of the Gauss sum)? That definitely needs to go into the article! PAR 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no reference for it. I have only a simple-minded proof.


 * I put the generalization of the square relationship into the article, but I was only able to prove it using the sum definition of the polylog, so its really only valid for |z|<1.


 * Again, by general arguments about analytic continuation, I believe it is generally valid. Its not like the sum bounces you between different sheets or takes you past the branch cut. This argument is naive, but I believe fundamentally correct. Try it, for example, for the case of s=negative integer, where you have an expression for the whole z-plane. linas 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as publishing, perhaps the Journal of Scientific Computing would be a good place. PAR 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move debate opinions needed
Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

eh?
Hi Linas. What's the story with this? Herostratus 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a posse over on some policy page inflicting bad policy on the rest of us. The math and physics projects went through this idiocy once already, and ended up writing our own policy; 501Mets is a hangover still trying to be a pain about this. linas 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can stop with the personal attacks now, thank you. And you must have realized that Mets501 is not my real name, so trying to purposely reverse its order is pointless. — Mets501 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurwitz zeta function edit ...
Linas: my edit for $$/zeta(s,a)$$ 'was' correct. To check this, note that for large (real) s, and a=1/2, the function behaves like 2s, not unity. (Alternatively, work it out from the classical (summation) definition of the function ... I note that [User|Mon4] has corrected it back. Hair Commodore 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, I did edit late at night, and the calculation in my head, and dropped a few bits. Shoot first, ask questions later. linas 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Convergence acceleration
Linas: I've added a comment on the "Convergence acceleration" page, about the method(s) of Cohen, Rodriguez Villegas and Zagier - and (belatedly) supplied the reference to the paper in question. Over to you - the first one is a very good method, which I use regularly! Hair Commodore 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. Villegas is here at UT Austin; he's a number theorist. Is their paper primarily concerned with identities on special functions/hypergeometric series, or is it really a numerical methods paper?


 * Anyway, I'm not planning on writing any more on this topic; the lack of an article on series acceleration seemed to be a hole -- so I plugged it -- and then, right after finishing it, I discovered the closely related rate of convergence and sequence transformations articles.  linas 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a numerical methods paper. Have a look at it - it presents a collection of related methods, usually better than Euler's, and provides good estimated convergence rates, too. (I can't speak for the last few paragraphs, on continued fractions - I'm (usually) quite happy with the modified Lentz method and taking even/odd parts for these.) Hair Commodore 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There a copy at http://www.math.utexas.edu/~villegas/publications/conv-accel.pdf, if you want to read it ... Hair Commodore 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Synchronicity ... I just spent the last few weeks developing ideas very similar to those on the second page ... for creating a fast algo for evaluating the polylogarithm/hurwitz zeta function (incomplete, working notes at http://linas.org/math/hurwitz.pdf ) linas 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If (or, rather, when) I manage to publish a paper entitled "Some exact convergent expansions for the Hurwitz zeta function" (or some similar title), I will ensure that, out of courtesy, you are the first to be told about it! Hair Commodore 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

mathworld
You are blatantly violating Wikipedia policy. See Citing sources/example style, a subpage of the official policy Citing sources. It clearly shows that references should be cited in the lastname, firstname format. If you cannot justify your actions, I will revert again considering your edits to be vandalism ( That was too harsh ). — Mets501 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not threaten me. You are not only being irrational about this, but you are flying in the face of convention. A "lastname, firstname" listing is appropriate when one one is creating a phonebook or an author index in the back of a book, where it is desirable to list the names in alphabetical order. However, the footnotes and references in wikipedia are not alphabetized, and typically appear in order of citation. In such a case, one always uses the "Firstname Lastname" form. This is commonly taught in in high schools and colleges throughout the United States, Europe and Asia, with Hungary and India being notable counter-examples.


 * The "Firstname Lastname" citation style is used uniformly in books and preprints in physics and mathematics, and a quick scan of books and preprints will show you this. For example, click on the link above, on this talk page, the link to a paper by Villegas. You will see how citations are commonly done.


 * In fact, the idea is far deeper than that. We could call these things "Given Name" and "Surname", but we, as English-speakers, commonly don't. Most Americans call these "First Name" and "Last Name" because the idea that the given name comes first is deeply embedded in the culture.


 * Now I think we've already had this argument before, and I think it was adequately demonstrated that you are flat-out wrong. Now please cease and desist. linas 18:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I clearly remember that we had this argument before, but I seem to have forgotten where it was "adequately demonstrated that [I am] flat-out wrong". Can you please point me to that? In fact, I remember people saying that it really doesn't matter but it must be consistent throughout Wikipedia, and lastname, firstname is what we use here.  I would also like to know why you think I am "wrong" by pointing out that a random sampling of 4 pages from whatlinkshere to mathworld all use lastname, firstname (Cardinal number, Parabola, Pythagorean theorem and Pi).  Does that not disprove your "Just look at the actual usage by actual people writing actual WP articles. This single template sticks out like a sore thumb, its the ONLY one that is backwards!" argument? — Mets501 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stomping your feet and loudly insisting won't make something true. linas 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if this is rude, but you just have to answer my questions from above. I'll put them out one by one for you if it's easier.
 * Can you please point me to the place where it was "adequately demonstrated that [I am] flat-out wrong" in my opinion?
 * Why you think I am "wrong" by pointing out that a random sampling of 4 pages from whatlinkshere to mathworld all use lastname, firstname (Cardinal number, Parabola, Pythagorean theorem and Pi). Does that not disprove your "Just look at the actual usage by actual people writing actual WP articles. This single template sticks out like a sore thumb, its the ONLY one that is backwards!" argument?
 * Similar to question 2: can you please point me to other templates that are not lastname, firstname?
 * Can you please justify your position with consensus or policy?
 * No more playing around and getting around answering them. This is not a threat, but 4 simple questions.  I'll be happy to answer any of your questions once you have answered mine. — Mets501 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but in the previous discussion it was you who was proven wrong Linas. The mathematical journals in the academic library at which I work do not use the style you are proposing for references.  For footnotes, yes.  But not references.  I further note that this distinction is also present in other styles such as Chicago.  --ElKevbo 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find the answer to 1 on your own. As to 2, a sample of four WP articles on elementary mathematics is hardly "random". I suggest a random sampling of arxiv, or the bookshelf at your local library, instead. I don't understand point 3. Point 4 I have already justified. This is common international usage; even the Soviet Russian books that I have use "firstname lastname" in citations -- I hunted down my Landau and Lifschitz just so I could say this. This is just the way the world works, and trying to provoke an argument with me will not change the fact that most of the world cites "firstname lastname" when they cite. Please stop tilting at windmills. linas 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From your answers directly above I can only conclude that you cannot provide adequate answers to these questions. I will now ask for external opinions at WP:ANI. — Mets501 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion is in Linas' 11th archive. As a participant in that discussion, I recall that the issue was not resolved but IMHO the preponderance of the evidence was against Linas' proposed (ok, it wasn't really proposed - he or she just made the change and then it was reverted and discussed) change.  --ElKevbo 07:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from every single example in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, as well as all of our existing citation templates, we use "Last name, First name." That's compliant with the MLA Style Manual, APA style, and the majority of similar style guides. —bbatsell ¿?  05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Imported from Mets' ANI post) Seems to me that templates oriented toward articles in a particular field should by default use the standard citation format for that field. (I admit I would have expected "lastname firstinital" to be more common.) At minimum, what APA style does is irrelevant. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of style, and our manual of style, refined over many years, is quite clear. I have seen no evidence that in fact the standard is "First name Last name" in the field of mathematics other than, "Just look, you'll see."  At any rate, how citations are done in some primary sources is irrelevant to a tertiary source (especially one that already has a defined format).  The surname is placed first because it is the more important part of the name, and is the easiest name with which to identify an author.  —bbatsell  ¿?  17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I posted in the ANI thread (which, Tango was right, is the wrong place; try an RfC) - "it's in the MOS this way" is a weak argument. The MOS is ours. We made it, we can change it if there's something problematic in it. Similarly, trying to make the whole of Wikipedia use consistent citation style is a hopeless pipe dream. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's kind of the wrong place, but filing a RfC just seems way too much for a simple thing as name order! I would not pursue such a thing; it's just not worth that much to me to go through all of the effort. — Mets501 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean about Linas, I mean about the order issue - style issues RfC's aren't much work. Opabinia regalis 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the manual of style and the current policy is wrong! As technocrats, we have something called "the scientific method", or informally known as "just look, you'll see". I have several stacks a foot high of pre-prints, and several shelves of books, and yes, I took the time to go through them the first time we had this argument, just to be sure. Have *you* actually bothered to perform similar research? What were your findings? Until you actually do this, you are just blowing hot air about bogus policy. linas 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you think all of those books ignore basically every printed citation style guide? — Mets501 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone whose office happens to be in an academic library: yes, I have done this and I did not find a significant number of mathematical journals that employed your proposed style. Again, I do see your proposed style used for footnotes and endnotes but not for references.
 * Do you have anything new to add to this conversation or are we going to continue rehashing these same old issues? --ElKevbo 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you want. I pulled a number of books down, and I saw NONE that used the lastname,firstname style. Then I started pulling down books on art and history, egyptology and languages, and one I recently got on the making of the hydrogen bomb. These also consistently use firstname lastname in footnotes. Perhaps you are looking at the author index? I agree that the author index in the back of the book will always be listed in alphabetical order, phone-book style. But this is presumably not what we are discussing.


 * I am refering to the usage in footnotes, which is what we are talking about. You seem to now acknowledge that you saw at least some footnotes that used the "first last" style. Since Wikipedia does not list its citations in alphabetical order, this would be the appropriate style. If WP had an "author index", then yes, the backwards ordering would be appropriate. But it does not. linas 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation Style in the Humanities
OK, Since it seems to be everyone against me, I thought I'd do some more researches. Making the assumption that perhaps the hard sciences had its own own style, I went for the humanities. I picked up books I own, that I have at home. Surprisingly few had references or footnotes. The oldest book I could find was an 1897 Hebrew grammer (written in Latin). It had only a few footnotes, but these were firstname lastname style. Had many books from the 1950's 1970s, and a few from the last decade. Subjects covered Drama, Art, History. Some of these were dusty, e.g. Amy Kelly "Eleanor of Aquitane" some were best-sellers, e.g. Shirer's "The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich", some were iconic, e.g. Howard Carter "The Tomb of Tutankhamen"

EVERY BOOK I LOOKED AT, with two exceptions, used a firstname lastname citation style. One exception was a Soviet era book from Eastern Europe, written in the Lithuanian language. It was inconsistent, sometimes using firstname lastname, sometimes lastname firstname. The other was the Amy Kelly, which was inconsistent in every possible way.

Lest I be accused of making things up or whatever, the gory details, with editions and page citations below.

Lets start with popular magazines:


 * Time Magazine Dec 4 2006 Few footnotes; however all photo credits are firstname lastname style, e.g. page 129


 * US News and World Report June 19 2006 e.g.page 47, book credit (the medici conspiracy), first name lastname. Photo credits firstname lastname, e.g. page 19


 * The Sun Issue 345 Sept 2004, all photo credits are first last, e.g page 17 No footnotes that I could find, however, list of quotations, page 48 is firstname lastname


 * Smithsonian Oct 2006 e.g. page 4 -- all photo credits firstname lastname no footnotes.


 * Entertainment Dec 29 2006 year end issue, page 7 makeup & grooming & styling credits firstname lastname, same for page 9.

Books: Moving from the obscure at first, to popular and widely available:


 * E. Wallis Budge, "The Liturgy of Funerary Offerings" (1909). Benjamin Blom edition, This is a bok of Egyptology. footnotes exclusively last name only, e.g. pages 5, 7,8, 10 No author index


 * D. Schilling, "Linguam Hebraicam" (1897) published by Delhomme and Briguet, Paris, footnote in preface: firstname lastname. No other footnoes, no author index. This is a hundred year old first edition, a hebrew grammer, written in latin.


 * Jouzas Balcikonis, "Rinktinai Rastai" (collected works of Jouzas B.) 1978, Mokslas publisher, Vilinus (this is a soviet era book from eastern europe). footnotes on page 8, 9, 10, 11 are lastname, first initial, however, later one, this is not done, e.g. page 33, page 73 use first initial lastname


 * John Gassner, "Medieval and Tudor Drama" (1963) Bantam Books footnote page 29 firstname lastname most all other footnotes are not citations.


 * "The Genius of the Irish Theatre", (1960) Sylvan Barnett etal eds. Mentor books. very few footnotes. Has essays in back, e.g. page 344, 351 firstname lastname. No index, however, "some books on Irish drama" occupies last two pages, is in chronological order, and is firstname lastname


 * Robert McCrum et al "The Story of English" (1986) Viking. Book about a PBS television series. Footnotes at end, pages 353-368 uniformly firstname lastname.


 * Studs Terkel, "The Good War", (1984) Ballantine Books, few footnotes, but page 327, 392, 394, 584: firstname lastname


 * Gardner's Art Through the Ages fifth edition (1970 Harcourt Brace and World. This is a standard art school textbook. page footnotes on pages 479, 499, 732, 736, 738 all firstname lastname thousands of painting credits are firstname lastname of course.


 * Susan Pack, "Film Posters of the Russian Avant-Garde", 1995 Taschen All poster credits are firstname lastname. Bibliography at back of book pp 302-308 is in alphabetical order by lastname, firstname


 * Richard Rhodes, "Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" (1995) simon & Shuster. Notes, pages 593-669, few direct citations, but these are firstname lastname, some are first initial lastname, some are lastname only.


 * Amy Kelly, "Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings" 1950 Harvard University Press, Notes, pages 391 to 405, are first initial, last inital, for example "Wm of M" or "G de V", these are expanded in the bibliography, pages 407-415, e.g. "A of T Alan of Tewkesbury" but sometimes "Ab Abaelardus, Petrus" but also "EG Edward Grim" and "HB Herbert Bosham", so there is no particular style.


 * Howard Carter "The Tomb of Tutankhamen", (1954) Excalibur books, Notes on pages 235, 236: lastname only, or firstname lastname, e.g. Chapter 20 note 2:"Alan H Gardiner, The Chester Batty Papyrus No.1" or chaper 17 note 3 "N. de G. Davies The Rock Tombs, El Amarna"


 * John M. Barry, "The Great Influenza" (2004) Viking. Notes are on pages 467 to 506 are firstname lastname. A bibliography follows, in alphabetical order by last name.


 * Wolf Von Eckardt and Sander L Gilman "Bertolt Brecht's Berlin" (1974) Anchor Press/Doubleday Notes are on pages 157 to 160. All notes are firstname lastname, for example chapter 7 note 1 "Paul Westheim Berlin, die Stadt der Kunstler" or note 2 Johanes Molzahn Der Sturm" note 3 "Otto Dix Berliner Nachtausgabe"


 * Stanley Karnow "Vietnam a History, The First Complete Account of Vietnam at War" (1983) Viking Press, pages 706-726 Notes on Sources, is written free-form, but is always firstname lastname. More interesting, pages 687-705 "Cast of Principal Characters" is in alphabetical order by lastname, but listed as firstname lastname. photocredits pages 731-734 are firstname lastname.


 * William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", (1960) Simon and Shuster, copious footnotes, few citation, but however, e.g page 732 "Telford Taylor The March of the Conquest"


 * John R. Horner "Digging Dinosaurs" (1988) Workman Publishing pp 201-205 "Notes and References" First initial lastname, e.g. "B. Brown and E.M. Sclaikjer, The Structure and Relationship of Protoceratops Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences..."


 * Francis Legge "Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity" (1964) University Books. page 232 footnote 1 "James Darmesteter, Essais Orientaux Paris 1883 pp 113" page 40 footnote 4 "M. Foucart Culte de Dion..." but also frequently last name only.

From what I looked at, I saw near-perfect consistency in citation style. So I am confused about why we are having this duscussion. linas 05:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not footnotes. It's a references section. The correct comparison is with References sections at the end of journal articles (not books). --Trovatore 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean, like this? http://www.math.utexas.edu/~villegas/publications/conv-accel.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linas (talk • contribs) 08:33, January 9, 2007
 * First, Trovatore was referring to Wikipedia articles' References section. Second, the example you have just given doesn't support your assertion.  It employs a [FirstInitial] [LastName] convention, not a [FirstName] [LastName] convention.  --ElKevbo 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gray code categories
I reverted that change, because Gray codes don't have much to do with coding theory, but a lot to do with the other categories. Dicklyon 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Sure, one may first hear of a Gray code in an introductory electronics class, and it is the possible the first computer code ever, but its still a code, just like all the other codes. linas 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is still a code, true. But it's properties have little or nothing to do with the topics addressed in coding theory.  If you'd like to add that category, that might be OK, but don't remove the more relevant ones. I just reverted another of your changes for similar reasons. Dicklyon 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pleae don't. "Electrical engineering" is a huge category, with everything from rail gun design to transistors to solar power in it; a random article on coding does not belong there. Similarly for combinatorics: this is another huge category, and 99% of all textbooks ever written on combinatorics will not even mention the Gray code. Please classify articles appropriately. linas 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with classifying it more finely, but coding theory is the wrong place; we need to find a better place, but I'm not really clear on how to go about finding it, not having explored categories much. Knuth addresses it as an enumeration method, which is certainly combinatorics, but its engineering uses are all related to its one-at-time change properties in things like shaft encoders.  Coding theory is a bad category for it. Dicklyon 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think coding theory a bad place for it? All the other codes are there. They also have various interesting properties; I vaguely remember (maybe incorrectly) that the Viterbi algorithm is also strongly one-at-a-time-ish, or can be made so by appropriate choice of parameters. linas 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A Gray code is not designed for error correction or source coding in the Coding Theory sense of the word - it's just another representation of a binary number. Categories more similar to those for Binary numeral system seem more appropriate. Edratzer 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed. Sounds like you're grasping here.  I know Andy Viterbi, even occupied his ex office for a while, and made hardware in the 1970s to implement his algorithm; but I can't imagine the relation you're grasping for.  The Gray code is not useful for either source coding or channel coding, since it's a rate 1 code.  Its properties in the terms that coding theory would normally analyze are no different from uncoded.  It's uses are different.  So it doesn't fit as well as all those other named codes that are primarily for error correction and detection. Dicklyon 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... a prototypical application, as Dick Lyon poins out, is for encoding the rotation of a shaft. This is, as far as I know, the very first example ever of a code used for "error detection and correction" in computer science; I beleive it dates back to WWII electronics, and is most certainly a code in every sense of the word "code". Superficially, it seems to be a digital code, but is in reality an analog code (just like e Viterbi codes), which is why is effective for things like the rotation of a shaft. I don't want to argue about Viterbi; I too implemented Viterbi algo's, for use in GPS systems. I don't know why you are rejecting the obvious: its called a "code" because it is a "code"; a code does not necessarily have to be good for, or useful for channel coding. linas 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you use the code to quantise a cyclic value does not mean it is for error detection and correction. The Gray code is designed so that only one bit changes at once to ensure no glitches when shaft encoding.  Coding Theory is not the study of all codes - it does not include R=1 codes (eg Gray codes) and cryptographic codes. Edratzer 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The third sentence of the article Gray code states: Today, Gray codes are widely used to facilitate error correction in digital communications such as digital terrestrial television and some cable TV systems. Are you claiming that this sentence is incorrect? Further on, the article states: In modern digital communications, Gray codes play an important role in error correction. For example, in a digital modulation scheme such as QAM where data is typically transmitted in symbols of 4 bits or more, the signal's constellation diagram is arranged so that the bit patterns conveyed by adjacent constellation points differ by only one bit. By combining this with forward error correction capable of correcting single-bit errors, it is possible for a receiver to correct any transmission errors that cause a constellation point to deviate into the area of an adjacent point. This makes the transmission system less susceptible to noise. Is this also incorrect?


 * I asked the guy who added those bits to provide a source. Here's what he says: .  So, like I said, you can add the category, but don't remove the categories that cover the more typical uses of Gray codes. Dicklyon 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the one-at-a-time-ness property is a kind-of metric, part of what makes a code strong and error-reistant: one-at-a-timeness sharply delineates the symbol space by making sure that symbols are as "far apart as possible", arranging them on a lattice, making sure the lattice points are uniformly distributed, filling the space as well as possible. This property holds for complex codes, such as the Leech lattice, which is used in communications as a Golay code, and is not merely a property of simple codes.


 * Anyway, perhaps the problem is to distinguish articles in Category:coding theory from those in Category:Error detection and correction? I view the former cat as consisting of the more methematical, formal definitions of individual algorithms, while the latter category is more about the application of these fundamental ideas in engineering. Would that kind of a split be more agreeable? I was trying to clean up the mess of articles in these areas. Is there some other, easy-to-define rule-of-thumb for distinguising coding theory from, well, whatever you want to distinguish it from? linas 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the following rules of thumb for Category:Coding theory (which is not how things stand now). Coding Theory covers channel codes and source codes.  Channel codes (forward error correction) are codes constructed to contain redundancy (which generally equates into creating a code with a Hamming distance between code words of greater than 1).  Source codes remove redundancy (and hence compress data).  I propose the follow way to categorise things:
 * Category:Coding theory : articles on the topic of coding theory in general. Probably not much more needed in here apart from various theoretical articles (eg those relating to Shannon's theorems, theoretical bounds etc).
 * Category:Error detection and correction : articles that relate to forward-error correction and add redundancy to the data. Therefore Hamming code etc lie in this topic.
 * Category:Source coding (a new category): articles that relate to compression, eg Huffman coding.
 * Category:Data transmission : Anything about how data is mapped (eg to minimise the number of bit errors like for a Gray code).
 * How does this sound to people? Edratzer 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply; I'd rather see articles on forward error correction, etc. in "coding theory" not "error detection and correction". The problem is that "EDAC" is far more general than channel encoding or compression. For example, EDAC is the name of a Linux project for dealing with bad DRAM chips. The EDAC project was supposed to encompass PCI bus error detection and recovery; I wrote the code for this and changed the name to "PCI error recovery" from PCI EDAC. There is very nearly zero of FEC/hamming/crypto/coding in either the Linux EDAC project, or in the PCI error recovery, or in the PCI-E AER ("advanced error reporting and recovery"), and yet these are all clearly EDAC technologies, as is chipkill. which is why I want to put articles on codes into coding theory, and have a distinct cat for the engineering applications (which might not even use *any* of the math theory, as the above examples make clear). linas 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not planning on doing any more edits in this area; I vowed to avoid doing technology edits on WP, a vow I've mostly kept. I just noticed the calamitous disarray of the articles in this area, and couldn't help blasting through a bunch of corrections, which is how I triggered your alarm bells. linas 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

corporate gateway was blocked
Dig -x reports:

;; ANSWER SECTION: 142.110.97.32.in-addr.arpa. 42827 IN   PTR     bi01p1.co.us.ibm.com.

The blocked router is one of a pool of routers that connect the IBM internal network to the external world. There are a quarter-million++ IBM employees who are routed throught one of the routers in this pool. Blocking one random router in the pool is ineffective, as the routing is dynamically adjusted, minute by minute, and so the block is unlikely to stop the actual vandal. It will, however, stop random legit users. linas 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. User:Yamla stated: ''Sorry, this address is currently being used for vandalism. Please register an account to avoid being lumped in with vandals. You may need to do so from a different IP address. -- Yamla 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)'' This is false; it doesn't matter if one has a registered account or not; everyone using this address is blocked, registered or not. Such as me. linas 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS A quick review of User contributions from this adress does not show any sign of vandalism that I could make out. So why is this blocked? linas 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an autoblock. It was blocked because a severe sockpuppeteer (User:Jefferson Anderson) used it to edit from.  They're set automatically by MediaWiki without admin intervention and expire in 24 hours.  Let me contact the blocking admin to see what he recommends — he knows more about the sockpuppet situation than I do.  —bbatsell  ¿?  01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at user contributions from User:Jefferson Anderson, and I see no hint of vandalism. He does seem to be in a dispute. Note, however, that if sock-pppetry is being determined by IP address, then this is a flawed approach; the IP address is shared by IBM North America; this is a huge company, and you'll get lots of people with common interests. linas 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the case, I'm going by the block log and a quick glance at a couple of user pages. Sockpuppetry is determined by a number of factors, IP being a last resort (administrators cannot see a user's IP address, only CheckUsers can). (edit conflict) The blocking admin has unblocked you. Let me know if you have troubles editing. —bbatsell  ¿?  01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unblock - JA was engaging in votestacking and double-arguing in disputes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if he was doing this, he wasn't doing this as an anon with this IP address! I could find no evidence that this IP address edited anything that User:Jefferson Anderson was interested in. Wouldn't it have been better to just blocked Jeff Anderson's account directly? User contribs from Jeff Anderson  indicates that he made no edits in the last six days, so I don't understand why there even was a block!  linas 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read what I linked above — it was an autoblock. It was not blocked by an administrator, but by the software.  —bbatsell  ¿?  16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read it. Clearly, some administrator configured the software to block this IP address; I don't like this kind of hair-splitting argument. The point is that there's no evidence of vandalism, there's no evidence of sock puppetry, and now I'm getting a denial that a mistake was made? linas 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks.
Thanks for your elitist comments. I came under the assumption that those who violate WP:CIVIL, WP:OR and WP:NPOV would be warned. As appropriate, all proper procedures were done, it was reported to WP:ANI: case closed. Have a problem with the policies? Go complain to some administrators. I'm sure you won't find many supporters.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You still owe Afshar an apology for your behaviour! linas 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Linas, thank you for your kind intervention. Seicer is a young man who must have felt offended by my pointing out his lack of qualifications to make substantive comments on the veracity of various claims. I meant absolutely no disrespect towards him, and had apologized if that perception was triggered by my comment. I humbly accept the apology you made on his behalf, and salute you for your responsible stance on this issue. Best regards. P.S. I too believe that HB-T effect has an important relationship to the conclusions of my experiment, as both point towards the dominance of the wave nature of light. There are statistical/ensemble arguments that can reduce the relevance of the HB-T effect, but nonetheless I intend to write a review paper that will address HB-T effect and many other significant experimental results.-- Prof. Afshar 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please check your e-mail. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 08:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)