User talk:Ntsimp/Archive 2

Nine Mile Canyon
Nice job on the Nine Mile Canyon article. I've been meaning to start one ever since I uploaded the Hunt Scene photo you included in the article (May last year), but never found the time. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős number 2
You say: "The category page says the source used is the list from The Erdös Number Project." Well, maybe so, but they don't say that's the unique source. At any rate, I do not consider that list as being the ultimate source: (1) it's far from complete, (2) it's not verifiable, and (3) it does not go beyond Erdős number 2. (For comparison, here at WP we go all the way to Erdős number 6 -- a category which by the way I started.)

You say: "I can see, for example, why they consider Armand Borel's Erdős number to be 3." Well, as I said in my edit summary, they are plain wrong. Armand Borel wrote a paper with Sarvadaman Chowla, see, and in turn Chowla has Erdős number 1, as the WP article on him correctly says, see. Therefore, Armand Borel's Erdős number is 2, no question about it.

You say: "If you want to use a different source maybe you should propose that on the category talk page or something." Well, maybe. But I've been adding dozens if not hundreds of Erdős numbers for the past 6 months using my own system (that is, based on the reliable, verifiable data provided by MathSciNet), and I haven't heard any complaints about that before. If you think my system presents a problem, I'll try to explain it in a wider forum. Let me know what you think. Turgidson 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. regarding your response:  The Erdös Number Project says, "Not normally included are joint editorships, introductions to books written by others, technical reports, problem sessions, problems posed or solved in problem sections of journals, seminars, very elementary textbooks, books on history, memorial or other tributes, biography, translations, bibliographies, or popular works."  Well, that's their definition, fine.  But to me, this is a secondary source.  The primary source remains MathSciNet.  As Jerry Grossman says on his web site:
 * The data shown on this site are based primarily on all items appearing in MathSciNet through the end of 2006. The next update will probably occur around 2010. If you have any additions or corrections to our lists, PLEASE send them. New coauthorships that appear in MathSciNet will be included at the next update, but if you know of other new coauthors, please contact Jerry Grossman.
 * I personally prefer going to the source, and getting the data directly from MathSciNet, which is the authority in this matter, and which data I can verify, by looking at the respective reviews. Why go through a middleman, and accept his interpretation?  Don't get me wrong -- I like Grossman's project, and I used it quite a lot in the past, meaning, 5-8 years ago.  But I think we can do better here at WP, so I'd rather discuss things on their merits, based on WP criteria and common sense logic, than be beholden to what the Erdös Number Project says (valuable as that is).  And, while at it, a couple more arguments for going with MathSciNet:


 * For current stuff (and WP is current, much more so than ENP), MathSciNet is the place to go. As the above quote shows, ENP is only current though the end of 2006, and I think they update their data only once every year or two.
 * And, as I said above, at WP we're going all the way up to Erdös number 6, instead of Erdös number 2, as done by ENP.  To have anything consistent, the only way to do it is to rely on the definitions at MathSciNet, which computes the Erdös number according to its own algorithm, not ENP's.
 * So I hope you see my point. I agree that there could be other opinions on this matter, but as you can see, I've given some careful thought to the matter, and I am prepared to argue it if need be.  But I think it would be more productive to devote one's energies to making this a better project.  Perhaps we can join forces to that effect?  Turgidson 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I do see your point. I'm not arguing against researching Erdős numbers directly through MathSciNet; I'm not claiming ENP should be the only source cited. But so far it is. Go ahead, be bold, unless you think the change would be controversial, in which case you should take it somewhere besides our user talk pages. The point is, we're on the same side here. We both want articles categorized by Erdős number. The way I see it, we've already joined forces. I'm not bothered that you have reverted a couple of my edits, but they were correct according to what the category page still says. Ntsimp 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand your point now -- I had a bit of trouble before. OK, let me see what I can do -- I will probably follow your suggestion and write something in the respective category pages (or their talk pages).  I still need to mull it over what exactly to say, and how to say it -- I don't want to create too much of a stir. (Being bold is fine, but have you seen some of the fights around here? Some people get really worked up over a bold vs italic issue, or a diacritic, or something.  And, by the way, I also consider singular they to be substandard English -- it's one of my pet peeves!).  Cheers.  —  Turgidson 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bohuslav Balcar
Hi, Ntsimp.

I ran across this new article about a mathematician. I have concerns about notability. Specifically, I can't find a lot of citations to his work (103 cites on a Google Scholar search, and most of those in fairly obscure journals, or to one chapter in a book "Handbook of Boolean Algebras"). Can you supply more information about why you think Balcar is a notable mathematician? Thanks! DavidCBryant 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish disambiguation
I cleared a backlog, before realising that you had adopted the task! Finavon 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Since long"
Hello Ntsimp!

I admit that Since long may be influenced by my Swedish Sedan länge, but still, I was surprised to learn that it would be "non-English". I also feel that For a long time really doesn't have exactly the same semantic value, as it suggests a possible "ending" to this time, contrary to Since long, that would imply "up until today". Is there a closer match in English?

HenkeB 09:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories by Erdos numbers
User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `'Míkka 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories
Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the words of encouragement—that's something in very short supply around here. As to who was right and who was wrong, I don't really know, and anyhow, it's all down the memory hole now.  As always, bureaucracy wins. Turgidson 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ntsimp, for the research you did on the demographics of the votes leading to the deletion; and pertinent citation of its relevance, in the guideline. That's just great work, pointed, specific, verifiable, great work. A breath of fresh air to me. Thank you.
 * And Turgidson, please don't despair, there is a mechanism for overturning the deletion. Pete St.John 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)