User talk:Lunch

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you for your fix at Fréchet derivative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Jaybird-Woodpecker War
--When you deleted the information from the jaybird-woodpecker article did you do so because you had information proving that the "half-crazy" man was not named Bob Chapel and also not a negro, or did you delete it because you found the content objectionable? The first is acceptable, the second isn't. If you would prefer a different euphemism, please change the wording, but don't remove relevant facts from an article. The entire jaybird-woodpecker incident is based on post reconstruction racial tension, so I believe Bob Chapel's race is valuable data. Removing that fact obscures the truth. If you have more information please add to the article instead of deleting content.

(the above comment is from User:Meekrob)

i started a talk page for the jaybird-woodpecker war. i didn't find the reference to bob chapel objectionable; i thought it was irrelevant. it seemed like a bit of trivia that made the article folksy, but didn't belong in an encyclopedia article. maybe it belongs in an article about bob chapel, but not here - not until the article becomes more substantive and that bit isn't representing information about the war so disproportionally.

NB: i also added to the article.

Lunch 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes to self
Make a page for "Holder space" that redirects to "Holder condition". Correct Holder condition to note that alpha (maybe make it gamma) should be less than or equal to 1. Equal to 1 is noted as Lipshitz; equal to 0 should be noted as bounded. See def'ns in Evans sec5.1, pp240-241. Holder class could be added too.

More general statement of the Sobolev inequalities is on p270 of Evans (and C^1 could be Lipshitz). What reference has it for unbounded domains? And a statement of continuous embedding? Brenner and Scott also have a partial statement at the end of Chapter 0. (And do they change W^k_p to W^{k,p} in the second edition?)

Add Evans reference and others to Sobolev article. Does Sobolev inequality (in addtion to Sobolev embedding) redirect to that page? Comment on L^p vs. L_p; little l_p; W^{k,p} and notation common in FE texts. Weak derivatives formulation for integer k. More general statement of Sobolev embedding. *And the other half of the Sobolev embedding that says something about continuity.* Difficulties with p=1 and p=Infinity. Dual spaces. Definintion of H^k_0 (and H^{1/2}_{00} for trace spaces). More general extension and trace theorems.

add material from evans appendix to higher D section of Integration by parts. case where $$\mathbf{v}=\nabla v$$. look up the comment about integration by parts and distributions from old versions (referred to by CSTAR at the top of the discussion). make a comment about bilinear forms, symmetry, and regularity.

requested articles to make: Adaptive Simpson's method, preconditioner (with preconditioning redirecting to it), nested dissection algorithm, FEM (with Galerkin's method and the variational method), Kelvin's circulation theorem (referenced from Helmholtz's theorem and Vorticity). also:
 * WikiProject_Mathematics/PlanetMath_Exchange/15-XX_Linear_and_multilinear_algebra%3B_matrix_theory
 * Missing_science_topics
 * User:Mathbot/Page12

on RK page, discuss IRK methods. new page for RKF methods (2/3 and 4/5 common). update Stiff_equation page; ref hairer and wanner, volume 2. see also Matlab documentation (/lusr/matlab/toolbox/matlab/funfun too) and Mathematica documentation.

improve the eigenvector/eigenvalue article

in calculus of variations article, put back historical information about brachistochrone curve (and others) motivating the development of variational calculus

make the M-matrix article. notes from saad and berman/plemmons. also, guermond notes that the positivity of the inverse of an M-matrix implies a discrete maximum principle. (and update WikiProject_Mathematics/PlanetMath_Exchange/15-XX_Linear_and_multilinear_algebra%3B_matrix_theory)

revert redirect of aitken acceleration and put a "main article" tag in "sequence transformations"

The kadomtsev-petviashvili equation
I responded to your question on the help desk. I hope it helps. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation. I was wondering how we were going to get that one. Charles Matthews 16:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Charles should have invited you to join in the conversations on the talk pages of WikiProject Mathematics and WikiProject Physics, where topics of general interest get announced and discussed. linas 15:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mesquite

 * short history and info on salt cedar introduction
 * salt cedar effects on native plants (including mesquite)
 * salt cedar in new mexico
 * burning for salt cedar mgmt
 * volunteer salt cedar mgmt
 * Talk:Mesquite refers to the "Dead Mesquite Forest" from a drought in North Texas during the 1880's; mesquite is native to Texas, right?
 * google search for mesquite in LCRA site

mesquite is a phreatophyte (tap root into or near water table), but doesn't lose nearly as much water to evapotranspiration as salt cedar. additionally, "saltcedar is a facultative phreatophyte that can survive on soil water alone in the summer, whereas willows and cottonwoods are obligate phreatophytes that cannot lose contact with groundwater." from, but doesn't say if mesquite is a facultative phreatophyte as well.

the state of texas has brush mgmt programs to control salt cedar as well as mesquite. some river authorities have done feasibility studies on mesquite removal (among other plants as well). LCRA is notably absent from such lists of studies.

Diagonally dominant matrix
Thanks for creating the page on diagonally dominant matrix, and also a warm welcome from me. I see you have found the "Numerical linear algebra" category. I think the article is too long to be labelled a stub. I hope you will some time improve the page on RK methods as you outline above; I doubt I will find any time for it before I retire. And of course, feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your fixes! (oops - there were some typos there, huh ) Lunch 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pesky Mesquite
Regarding my edit on the mesquite article, you inquired about this sentence:
 * "In many parts of Texas, particularly West and Central Texas, the proliferation of mesquite is responsible for part of the lowering of groundwater tables, reputedly causing even more lowering in some places than that resulting from human over-pumping."

I don't believe it either, although I can see that any plant would be a compeditor for surface water. So out of disbelief I stuck in 'reputedly'. But I don't have a source for it, I can't in good concience do anything but whittle at it, to try to make it look less dire. Tom Lougheed 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a tag requesting a reference.  If it doesn't change in a week, I'll remove it from the article and just leave it on the talk page.  Lunch 03:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Geostatistics
How would you like to help with this article? Ive been discussing this with JanWMerks on the talk page of the article, it seems that he is concerned with the variance of inverse distance weighted interpolation. Does his argument have any merit? I have read a number of articles on geostatistical analysis, they seem to follow statistical rules. However JanWMerks seems unable to elaborate on this beyond the few POV statements that he likes to repeat. I would like to include the seperate interpolation methods included in geostats, link this with the mathematical and statistical basis of the discipline, and describe its diversion from statistical analysis if there is one. I think that a math major (you), and a geography major (me), could make this a readable article. SCmurky 23:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to get involved, but I don't have the time right now to edit it properly (or fight an ongoing war with a crank). Sorry.  You might try asking all the people who have made comments on User_talk:JanWMerks.  You could also look through his article edits to see what other articles he's been going at.  Doubtless he has annoyed editors of other articles.  You might try contacting them too.  Best of luck.  Lunch 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah theres a few others on his talk page, I think that they are all at the same point you are. Im just looking for someone who can state definatively that his arguments are unfounded. My understanding of statistics is limited (will get better), and I want to know whether his argument has merit. If you run into anyone who might know this, or a page which could use a geostats link... SCmurky 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Reed
Hey thanks for the message. Since there is 5 links to wikipedia in the page I thought there is no point to mention that the article is from Wikipedia. However I will add it. Yea the one that you made was better than other profiles that I found in google. My friend is going to review it and edit or change something in there. I will update the wikipedia one later on. Let me know if you are interested to help me on the website for Rodney or other death row inmates. Hooman

This is the first time I'm using user talk thing. SO I'm not sure if I'm in the right place


 * Yup, right place. :) The usual thing is to reply where the message was posted so I'll write here, but I'll also CC to your talk page.  Incidentally, you can sign your name with with tildes, ~&#126;~, or your name with the date and time with four tildes, ~&#126;.


 * Huh. I hadn't noticed the links to the Wikipedia on freerodneyreed.org.  That's cool.  But I think it'd be appropriate to have an explicit note that the page itself was borrowed from Wikipedia.


 * I added a wikilink to Texas Students Against the Death Penalty to the article on Mr. Reed.


 * I was interested in seeing the trial transcripts and crime scene photographs and other evidence entered at trial along with evidence that Mr. Reed's defense have accumulated afterword. I'd be willing to scan anything and everything and post it on the web; I have access to a vast amount of storage.


 * Cheers. Lunch 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

typesetting conventions
Wrong:


 * $$\int \int exp(-x^2-y^2)\,dxdy=\int exp(-x^2)\,dx \int exp(-y^2)\,dy$$,

Right:


 * $$\int \int \exp(-x^2-y^2)\,dx\,dy=\int \exp(-x^2)\,dx \int \exp(-y^2)\,dy,$$

In the second display, (1) the comma is INSIDE the math tags; on Wikipedia this prevents misalignment (although when TeX is used in the normal way rather than the way it's used on Wikipedia, this might not make any difference); (2) \exp rather than exp ; this not only prevents italicization but provides proper spacing; (3) \, between dx and dy. Michael Hardy 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * jeeez. the formula above was a quickie on a talk page to help someone figure out a formula they had trouble with.  and if you have a beef with the way the Holder condition page was laid out, please note that i didn't write most of that page; i just added one sentence.  Lunch 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i also have a comment regarding point #1 above about the trailing comma. there is a sematic argument for putting the comma OUTSIDE the tag: the comma is NOT part of the formula.  in TeX, the display style doesn't allow you to put trailing punctuation after an equation (it annoyingly puts it on the next line) so every user develops the habit of putting punctuation in formulas (rightly so).  but this changes the meaning of the punctuation; it makes the punctuation part of the formula (which it's not).  Lunch 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Functional analysis and derivative operator
Hi, thanks for your edit. But my doubts were not about the linearity of the derivative operator, but the continuity of the derivative operator.Rich 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. It's a little subtle.  If you look at the definition of a Frechet derivative, it presumes not only that the derivative at a point is a linear map, but a bounded linear map.  There is a theorem that boundedness of a linear map is equivalent to continuity.  This is usually proved as an exercise in a first-year graduate class in analysis; it should be in any of a number of references.  I can try and find one if you want.  Cheers, Lunch 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even better, check the article "Bounded linear operator". It's got the proof of equivalence.  Lunch 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

basis function
Thanks for taking the bull by the horns and fixing the lead sentence in basis function. I changed analysis to numerical analysis and tried to justify the change at Talk:Basis function. --Jtir 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. Sounds good to me.  Unfortunately, it still needs a lot of work.  :(  Even though my changes left the article in ugly shape, I hope at least it got right to the point and said what a "basis function" was.  Sigh.  So much work to do...  Thanks for bringing attention to the article.  Lunch 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NP. We can thank User:Mct mht who first noticed the problem with the functional analysis cat. --Jtir 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * just to clarify a little bit. what i meant was that the presentation and content wasn't suitable for cat:functional analysis, not so much the title of article. the version i referred apprarently was talking about a Hilbert space basis for L^2. but nowhere was it mentioned that, for example, the basis is defined such that its linear span is only required to be dense. or that convergence is meant in the sense of L^2 and its relationship with convergence a.e. Mct mht 04:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lunch: i thought i was adding above comments to talk:basis function. oops. :-) Mct mht 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

specie vs. species
Thanks for your link on Asclepias asperula. However, note that the term is "species" (singular) and not "specie". (See, for example, the disambiguation page for specie.) I corrected it in this article, but if you've made the same link in other articles, you may want to go back and correct them yourself. Cheers, Lunch 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I shall correct the same for terms beginning with A & B. Thank you for poinint out. It is really nice to see that someone always watches. I shall correct them immediately. This is the spirit of wikipedia. Regards. --Bhadani 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

RfD
I replied at Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 26. I struck my "vote" since I'm no longer confident about the best action. Sorry for taking such a long time, but I'm working through a backlog and additionally hardware problems are bothering me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. Take your time.  I get the feeling RfDs don't move too fast anyway.  (And thanks for your interest, btw.)  Lunch 03:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

HCSSiM
Lunch: Thanks for your frequent edits to Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. It's an article that should continue to grow. You may have seen that we lost Yellow Pigs Day to deletion review a few weeks back; I commented a sentimental keep although I can't really quarrel with the decision, but maybe we could get the page back at least as a redirect and add some of the content to the HCSSiM article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't notice that it was up for deletion until after it was deleted. I even missed the deletion review.  :(  The page itself has actually been preserved at User:Samir (The Scope)/Yellow Pigs Day.


 * The original AfD has some useful information, and so does the deletion review. Cheers, Lunch 03:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(Note to self: Jeremy Bem and Noam Shazeer were individual winners at ARML. Jeremy was also a Putnam Fellow in '94 and '96; Sergey Levin was in '95.)  Lunch 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template redirects
Hi - I can't rcall exactly where the debates were, but if you look in the archives of WP:WSS, WP:SFD, and various other places like that you're bound to find them. As for why they're a problem, basically when an article redirect is called up it calls up the redirect once and the page once. IIRC, for some reason with templates, it seems to be that the redirect is called up once and the template is then for some reason called up once for every time it is used. if a template is used on 25 articles, using a redirect causes 25 times more strain on the servers than using the template. Which is why redirects are rarely used with templates and avoided where possble (some cleanup editors actually go round replacing appearances of template redirects use with the templates themselves). Given how much stub templates are used, it makes sense not to use them if possible. Grutness...wha?  23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The "authoritative" discussion seems to be at User_talk:Jamesday.  If all templates were redirects, it would double the amount of work the server would be doing when loading a page with those templates.  It seems it currently affects about 1% of server load whose elimination (as small as it sounds) would be a significant relief.  Cheers, Lunch 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

proof presuposes existance of a eigenvalue decomposition
In Projection (linear algebra) I used a proof that you correctly identified as presuposing the existance of a eigenvalue decomposition. What do you think of the new proof. Pdbailey 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nowikis
Thanks, in future I'll only be looking at pages where the template is invoked so less likely to be a problem, but I will test to see if there's a bug, or just a timeing or other mistake by me. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52 1 December 2006 (GMT).

Transreal number
Is there any chance you'd reconsider your decision, and redirect transreal number to James Anderson (computer scientist)? After I mentioned the idea in the AFD, I noticed a number of people changed their vote to endorse that idea. My original argument was something along the lines of transreals aren't NaN (and not wheels, and not hyperreals, and whatnot), and that it might be better to merge the articles on transreals and James Anderson. That way someone looking for transreals could get the references for transreals and the discussion around them. Thanks, Lunch 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lunch; thanks for your concerns. I did read the whole debate, and I made the conclusion I felt best represented the wishes of the members Wikipedia community who had participated in the debate.  I recommend a forum such as WP:DRV if you would like to pursue this matter.  Thanks. — Mets501 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The AfD does not preclude retargetting the redirect; that's a normal editorial decision which can be done by anybody (though, of course, due consideration must be given to the comments in the AfD). If transreal numbers are mentioned in James Anderson (computer scientist) (which they are not, at the moment, I believe) and they are not mentioned in NaN, then it makes no sense for transreal number to redirect to NaN and it must instead redirect to James Anderson (computer scientist). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but I didn't want to annoy everybody. And some anon went ahead and made the change to the redirect anyway, and Uncle G merged the articles.  Lunch 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They still sound like the surreal numbers written about by John Horton Conway to me. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you now have a place to put that speculation. There's a whole section of the Anderson article on transreals.  Lunch 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot edit to quadratic programming
A recent edit by SmackBot was just to insert a single space between the interwiki language links and a stub tag (and nothing else). If you can, please change the bot's behavior so that it doesn't make such trivial edits. Thanks, Lunch 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this shouldn't have happened, and I will try not to let it happen again. Rich Farmbrough, 08:24 15 December 2006 (GMT).

James Anderson Replies
I cannot tell you who my anonymous reviewers are.

I was invited to give a research seminar at the Computer Science Department at Essex University. Some faculty observed that I did not have a machine proof of the consistency of transreal arithmetic. One of their number, Norbert Voelker, volunteered to test the system for consistency using a machine proof method. He worked at Essex but, of course, he communicated with me sufficiently often to understand transreal numbers. His conclusion was that transreal numbers are consistent. Norbert appears as a co-author on the axioms paper. Thus, whilst he undertook an independent test of the number system, he did not independently write a scientific paper on the system.

I hope this helps. James A.D.W. Anderson 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

About talk:transreal number
I have merged the content of that talk page to Talk:James_Anderson_(computer_scientist). AbelCheung 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussing categories
You recently left some comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics that described a few categories. When talking about a category, you have to put an extra colon into the link like this: Category:Citation templates, which is removed by the wiki server to give this: Category:Citation templates. If you forget the leading colon, you will cause the talk page to be added to the category in question; a category tag is active anywhere in the source for a page. I edited your comments to add the colons so that the math talk page is no longer in the citation template category. CMummert · talk 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, oops. Sorry 'bout that.  Lunch 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nullity media impass
Hi Lunch, it seems we've reached an impass on editing the Media section on the nullity story. Feel free to drop me a line at ben.moore@bbc.co.uk if you want to discuss it. All the best Ben Moore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.144.120 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Mr. Moore, I think the phrase "criticized as irresponsible journalism" is a fair summary of the responses to your article. I will continue to revert your removal of this phrase.  I also suggest that you read the guidelines at WP:COI, and that you refrain from editing the James Anderson article in the future.  Lunch 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the guidelines, I concede the point that I perhaps should not edit material relating to my work. I will not change the line again, but do say for the record that a regional, end item piece on a maths problem is hardly "irresponsible journalism"...Ben.


 * Thanks. For what it's worth, I don't think your piece was irresponsible, and I wasn't the one to originally write that phrase into the James Anderson article.  Lunch 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations
No one has requested that you provide an inline citation for every statement--you have been asked to provide some inline citations for entire articles. For example, page numbers from books, per paragraph--not per statement.-MsHyde 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But the entire article is uncontroversial, factual in nature, and can be easily checked by the reader by consulting the well-known and respected reference provided at the end of the article. Again, if you plan on editing math and science articles, I suggest you read the guidelines at WP:SCG.  Lunch 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rolle's Thm
Hi, I'm one of several users of the IP address 66.136.237.246. I'm not the one that made the edit you discussed on User_talk:66.136.237.246, but I agree with the person who did. Intervals cannot be closed on infinity, as infinity is not actually a number. I didn't want to revert the reversion though without discussing it with you. I'm convinced, however, that the edit made was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.237.246 (talk)


 * As I mentioned (indirectly) in the edit summary, the theorem still applies to a curve with a vertical tangent. That is, you can (locally) apply the theorem to the inverse of the desired function.  The section could be worded better, and the notation $$[-\infty,+\infty]$$ is non-standard, but it is correct.  If you make a change to clarify the statement, that would be welcome, but please do not reintroduce the error.  Thanks, Lunch 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick Little Comment
Hey there. I'm not going to get all sour about this or be a prick (and I'll assume good faith), but I was just a little disheartened by the edits in which you removed the link to Vanishing Point from the ARG articles where you said "Microsoft's ad gimmick had its article deleted". It sounds like you're trying to discredit the ARG, making it sound stupid and insignificant, and trying to make it sound like the editors were only using the article as advertising for Microsoft. Once again, I'm not going to get whiny about this, but I just wanted to let you know how I felt. --AtionSong 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no offense intended. I'll try to be more careful.  Lunch 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done on getting your PhD. I'm sure you deserve it, especially if you're editing here at the same time! Good luck with the next step. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I finally got tired enough of people asking when I was going to finish, that I got off my duff and did it.  ;)  Lunch 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
Hey Dr.Lunch, congratulations, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoinverse
Hi Lunch, on Talk:Pseudoinverse I posed some questions to you. --RainerBlome 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Calabi-Yau image
Hello, and thank you for recreating the Calabi-Yau image! It's a really nice picture, and it would have been a pity if we lost it for good. On the other hand, due to the controversy over the copyright, I became aware of how deceptive the name is: the image apparently represents a Fermat curve, so it does not specifically pertain to Calabi-Yau manifolds, any other algebrac variety that contains this curve would do just as well! Arcfrk 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.


 * You're both wrong and right about the name: yes, this is a projection of a slice of a Calabi-Yau manifold, and yes, it is a slice projection of a Fermat curve. To quote Prof. Hanson's home page:


 * These images show equivalent renderings of a 2D cross-section of the 6D manifold embedded in CP4 described in string theory calculations by the homogeneous equation in five complex variables: $$z_1^5 + z_2^5 + z_3^5 + z_4^5 + z_5^5 = 0$$


 * To get to the image I produced takes a few steps. For starters, the equation above describes a 6-manifold embedded in 10-space; rougly speaking five complex variables means 10 degrees of freedom.  But from there, the equation is homogeneous; divide through by $$z_5$$ (assuming it's not zero); that leaves four complex variables with two equations (one for the real part, one for the imaginary part) leaving 6 degrees of freedom.  But I can't visualize that so I take a slice; Prof. Hanson goes on:


 * The surface is computed by assuming that some pair of complex inhomogenous variables, say $$z_3/z_5$$ and $$z_4/z_5$$, are constant (thus defining a 2-manifold slice of the 6-manifold), normalizing the resulting inhomogeneous equations a second time, and plotting the solutions to $$z_1^5 + z_2^5 = 1$$. The resulting surface is embedded in 4D and projected to 3D ....


 * Cheers, Lunch 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Thanks for adding it to so many articles!  Lunch 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Spivak image
I saw your note on the image page. I did leave an (automated) note for the original contributor of the image, who is the only one likely to know the provenance of the image. The reason that I nominated the image for deletion is that it is a photo of a living person used to identify that person. The general policy is that only free images should be used for that purpose. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand policy. But I'll ask again the same thing I asked on the image page: rather than speedily deleting the image, why not look into this?  I see the image uploader was a long-time contributor, but seems to have given up on Wikipedia.  Have you tried emailing them?  Lunch 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Calabi-Yau.png
Hey. Are you looking for Image talk:Calabi-Yau.jpeg perhaps? Image talk:Calabi-Yau.png only has three deleted edits; anon doing tests, you blanking them and a third editor requesting speedy deletion a day later. Prolog (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, those aren't the droids I'm looking for. Hmmm.  Nuts.  I could swear that on one of the associated talk pages there was a discussion like the one above.  But if it's lost now, it's lost.  Bummer.  Thanks for your help.  Lunch (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a higher resolution image? It's beautiful! What did you use to render this? — Preceding 69.204.106.112 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Frankunsigned comment added by 69.204.123.71 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation on the Digital Earth Reference Model
Thank you for showing interest in the integrety of Wikipedia. A number of researchers, including myself, have been working on independent design for a DERM for almost 20 years. A collection of articles and papers were completed through the NASA Digital Earth effort. See http://www.digitalearth06.org.nz/Powerpoint/W_SimpsonForesman.ppt o	We recognise the need for a Digital Earth Reference Model (DERM) that provides the unifying frame work for integration of all Earth data in a common open standard As an example. The International Society for Digital Earth has a standing committee that brings together much of this work. http://www.isde5.org/sessions.htm#Sessions_Digital_Earth_Reference_Model_DERM.

If you require further details, please let me know. User:Perry R. Peterson 14:33. 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummmm, just to be clear: I don't require the details. The article does. Or did.  One of the admins deleted it because the prod expired.  You can ask them to restore the article if you want.  But be prepared because the references cited in the article don't support it, and the ones you cite above (although better) are still weak.  Did anyone publish any papers on the DERM?  NASA produces reams upon reams of reports and articles; are there any from it?  Has PYXIS been written about by any newspapers?  Or journals?  Anyone other than PYXIS itself? These are just some suggestions.  YMMV.  Lunch (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

YP Day
I understand your rationale in changing Yellow Pigs Day back to a redirect, but I respectfully disagree with it. Whoever was supposed to delete the page the first time around obviously messed up because s/he only redirected the page, preserving its full contents in the history (rather than sending it to the admins-only deleted page archive), so I was easily able to undo this "deletion." If someone discovers that the article was never properly deleted and then does delete the article, we can list it for undeletion. The original VfD looks like it was overwhelmingly for keeping the article except for one user who provided reasons that were then countered by others; we would have no problem in an undeletion debate. Finally, there is absolutely nothing to lose by restoring the article. As it currently stands, you can read the article only if you're clever (i.e., by checking the history). If nobody discovers the YP Day page, then everyone benefits and can read the article. If the page is deleted, we return to read-only again because some user has backed up the page as a user subpage. Therefore, I request that you remove the redirect, but I leave the final decision up to you. 64.254.160.196 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article was deleted. When somebody created a "new" article with just the redirect, the old history was brought back to life.  Apparently, the WikiCabal that had AfDed the article before didn't care enough (or even notice) when the article was recreated.  Personally, I'd rather keep it that way as I think it was stupid to delete it in the first place.  I've learned the hard way on Wikipedia that people will make rather irrational decisions about subjects far from their expertise or knowledge.  Witness the hullabaloo at Bring radical.  Sigh.  Lunch (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about users making irrational decisions. There's a reason I stopped editing Wikipedia a few years ago.  However, normally, when you re-create a deleted article, the history remains deleted.  The deletion log shows that the article was deleted, undeleted, and then deleted again in August 2006; it then remained undeleted in December when someone created the redirect page; an admin then undeleted it on 10 July 2007 for no apparent reason.  64.254.162.131 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Shift Inc.
Just wanted to let you know that I have restored an article you tagged for proposed deletion. This is not necessarily an endorsement of the article's suitability but simply procedure for contested prods. Please feel free to take the article to articles for deletion if that is your wont. l'aquatique [talk]  01:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles
Greetings! In light of your participation in this discussion, you may be interested in participating in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Berger (mathematician) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Berger (mathematician) 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/Robert Berger (mathematician) 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. Nsk92 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)