User talk:RDBury/Archive

Style conventions
Hello. Please see my recent edits to sinusoidal spiral. In particular, See Manual of Style (mathematics) for more. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In non-TeX mathematical notation, variables (but not digits and not punctuation) should be italicized.
 * A minus sign is longer than a stubby little hyphen.
 * In TeX, write \sin, \cos, \log, \det, \max, \exp, etc. with a backslash. This has two effects: it doesn't get italicized as if it were a sequence of variables; and proper spacing.  (In TeX as used in more general settings than Wikipedia I think it may also prevent line breaks between "log" and "x", etc.)
 * Thanks, mostly oversights on my part.--RDBury (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cellular Automata
I would argue that the use of rule as opposed to function is not in keeping with standard texts respecting cellular automata. While it is generally of value to limit jargon usage, it is of less value to misinform readers. The standard of mathematics is to describe mappings (such as injections and in this case a surjection) by the term function. Perhaps we can meet half-way, by including a comment that the mappings of cellular automata rules are surjective. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I'm going to move the discussion to the talk page of the article.--RDBury (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Asymptosy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asymptosy. Since you had some involvement with the Asymptosy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Circular algebraic curve
So far this includes only lists. If there are other articles that should link to that one, could you add those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Four links added.--RDBury (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Ellis AFD
Here's a link to an Amazon.com listing of an Amelia Ellis book. Note that "BoD", the publisher, stands for "books on demand". I don't participate in AFD discussions, so I'm leaving this message here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The books on demand thing turned up in one of the reviews, something about the mainstream publishers overlooking a gem.--RDBury (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)
Since you participated at Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD has been closed as "no consensus" with a suggestion of debate at a policy page. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

sdfsd
Thank you re this article. Wikipedia is full of pieces of crap editors who piss me off and are illogical. You are not one of these people. Thank you for your good arguments on that article's deletion page. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and thanks for the feedback. I'm only calling them as I see them.--RDBury (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your extensive discussion of the rationale for deleting "List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs". Its good to see editors with a thorough understanding of the kinds of issues lists bring up. i try to do the same, but have only been editing for about a year, and am still learning. Lists can really bug me when they seem to have vague inclusion criteria, and i have trouble understanding why people DONT understand that, aside from people really loving a particular subject to the point of losing perspective.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I was very familiar with the issues leading to that AfD long before it appeared and I borrowed extensively from threads appearing in its talk page. It helped also that I was making a good faith effort to address some of the issues so I already had a good understanding which of them were impossible to overcome and why. Actually, I thought the AfD was premature since it had recently survived another one, and I was a bit surprised (pleasantly) when it resulted in the article being deleted. Inclusion criteria can be tricky, it this case it was pretty clear (to me at least) that it involved OR. Thanks for the feedback.--RDBury (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD/H
Thanks for taking care of "Harpers Island" in the holding cell. I just wanted to remind you to make sure you move it to the "ready for deletion" section after it's been orphaned. It's not a big deal since I noticed that it hadn't been deleted, but we have had cases of templates missing the deletion step for months or even years. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a bit confusing about the move step, there wasn't anything in the directions about it; I checked previous edits to see what the convention was and it looked like people were just removing the entry.--RDBury (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Convergence of Fourier series
Do you really believe that a Fourier series necessarily converges to the function that generates it?

So that all the work mathematicians did on this and related questions over a couple of centuries is nonsense, to be dismissed casually by you in a couple of seconds? All the books have it wrong, and you need not explain why, but only make a terse comment and then everyone will instantly abandon their belief in what the books say, despite the fact that books and papers give proofs and you don't? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: We have an article about this: Convergence of Fourier series. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded on the original page. Yes I know the statement is not true in general and I should have been more clear on conditions. I don't think the person asking the question was looking for a dissertation on the convergence of series and the example he gave seemed to be constructed so that such issues wouldn't be a factor.--RDBury (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Coiled chain
Given you seem to understand catenary curves would you care to look at Reference_desk/Science thanks --BozMo talk 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

STOP!!!!
Why are you removing references like MAD?????

Tom Ruen (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page.--RDBury (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixing errors
As you suggested, I moved the thread "Fixing errors" from the village pump to the help desk. After doing so I removed the thread from it's original location, to avoid cluttering it or generating paralel answerings (I'm telling you because this involved your answer).

On a side note, I have been one of the longest contributors to spanish wikipedia, but despite my effords that project won't get anywhere. Non-admins are excluded from desition making, and admins can insult, dusrupt and use their tools with discretion even for mass deletions or forcing political agendas, that nothing would ever happen, as they protect among themselves. AGF only applies for them, and critics of their actions are "vandals", "trolls" or whatever. Policies are ignored, perverted or rejected, and discussion is not the way to decide anything but just a burocratic step that can be skiped or ignored at will.

Yes, spanish wikipedia has a very small community, and lacks a lot of content because of it, but that's because the project itself want it to be that way. Unless they decide to make radical changes, or the foundation decides to put an halt on this anarchic "project autonomy", their constant inferiority when compared with the other major wikipedias (at all levels) will be kept. MBelgrano (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about the problems with the Spanish Wikipedia. There is bound to certain amount of politics in any organization but the issues you are describing sound serious.--RDBury (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for trying to help on Inchon (film). However, when this particular editor is involved, I feel moved to quote the great E.R. Eddison: "Be it as thou wilt, but it will be in vain." - The Worm Ouroborus, Chapter 2: The Wrastling for Demonland. Cheers. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just calling it as I see it. I'll have to check out Eddison, sounds like Maxfield Parrish in prose.--RDBury (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Parish could have illustrated Eddison's book, but he was probably much more famous at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple references (Help desk)
Hi, I appreciate both your comments and your suggestion to move it to the Village pump, as my intention wasn't to start a guideline discussion on the help page, but to be pointed to precisely where one might already exist and/or where I should start one. Given that it has started there (and someone has asked me a direct question), is it inappropriate to copy-paste to the Village pump the entire discussion from the Help desk page and continue it there? Should I simply start fresh at the VP, posting a suggestion and noting that fact at Help desk for those who have weighed in already to post again themselves if they want to take the trouble? Do you recommend I post at Village pump (proposals), or is it more fitting for Village pump (policy)? Sorry for the barrage; it's late and ducking in here for a moment and noting the responses, I wanted to keep this plate spinning. Thus far, I've generally stuck to editing and talk page discussions and need to bone up on both the processes and the etiquette of these goings-on behind the curtain. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that I don't hold myself to be any more of an expert than you are, what I have seen done is to create a link to the section with the past discussion (in this case the help desk) along with a brief summary of the major points made. The help desk gets archived quickly so it might be a good idea it add a date so the link can be easily changed to right one when than happens. I would say VP (policy) is the more relevant venue for this issue.--RDBury (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your observations. I have posted at the Village Pump here  and invite your participation at whichever point(s) in the discussion/process as you see fit.  Best, Abrazame (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

cardioids in the Mandelbrot set
Hi. Could you explain or give a link to explanations of youe edit : "Sub-Mandlebrot cardioids are approximate, not actual cardioids. " Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A cardioid is a specific curve of degree 4. The sub-Mandlebrot sets resemble main one but they are slightly distorted and the bulbs have degrees higher than four. The distortion is especially evident in the sun-Mandlebrots near the cusp at (.25, 0). The equation I deleted was not the equation of a cardioid but of a much higher degree curve.--RDBury (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thx for explanations. In papers which I know all the authors say that these curves are cardioids. Probably it is simplified version. I see you are mathie. Can you expand it because there is no info about degree of cardioid in article, and degree of curve in all wikipedia. If you could write how to show this distortion ( in wikibooks about fractals for example) or made image with explanation.


 * Can you also look at : exact boundaries of hyperbolic components of Mandelbrot set or wikibooks and Mandelbrot set. If you find errors or can expand or add it would be great. Best regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The cardioid is on my list of articles to expand, I'm trying to do all the notable plane curves but there are a lot of them. The boundary image source code looks interesting but some of the details of the derivation look a bit beyond my level of expertise and it looks like some of the algebra is best checked by machine. I'll keep it mind though, the Mandlebrot set as been a hobby of mine since it was first popularized in Scientific American.--RDBury (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi RDBury,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On constructive geometry
Hi RDBury, and thank you for comments on my talk page regarding my proposal. You're right, the closest existing article to this topic is Compass and straightedge constructions. However, the title for me is a bit strange. What I really had in mind is something close to in terms of elaboration (look how it's structured at table of contents). Would it be helpful to rename Compass and straightedge constructions to Constructive geometry (as it seems more general and correct term) or at least make a redirection? Thank you. Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll create a redirect. I think the kind of thing you have if mind should really go on Wikibooks per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Wikibooks already has books called Geometry and Geometry for Elementary School which have some constructions. The Geometry book is incomplete and perhaps some additional chapters on constructions would be appropriate.--RDBury (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Nokia X6 article
This phone is now released and deserves it's own page at least as much as all the other phones that have their own page.

Superfly Jon (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor
A bit of help at Asymptote and Talk:Asymptote please. User:Franklin.vp is impossible to work with, and I need to watch my blood pressure. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best.--RDBury (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice find about Apollonius. For plane conics (over the complex field) this is actually equivalent to the modern analytical definition (the lead is probably not the place to bring this up, though). In general, for a plane algebraic curve, a line is an asymptote (in the sense defined in the article) if and only if it is tangent through the point at infinity and this in some sense "explains" why there remains some ambiguity over the usage. I don't know where I'm going with all of this exactly, but it would be nice if there were a source that stated all of this clearly that we could cite. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a nice summary in a reliable source would be excellent. Normally I start with the major math websites, Mathworld, Springer EoM, MacTutor, since at least one will give a good starting point. They have all let be down in one way or another in this case though.--RDBury (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are some of Franklin's comments about me way out of line? (The personal comments on Talk:Asymptote were one thing, but now he has been following me around, and I find this post which totally crosses the line.) Some of the things he has said in recent discussions have really hurt my feelings. So much so, in fact, that I am now considering retirement (again). I have tried to put my best foot forward now, recognizing that perhaps both of us have acted in a somewhat mutually antagonistic manner. But he has said some things of me in this public forum that I am very uncomfortable with, and I find it very difficult to move on. Do you have any thoughts or advice on the matter? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is definitely no place for comments such as the one you pointed out. There is a policy against personal attacks and from what I've seen it's interpreted broadly by admins. Fortunately I've never been personally involved in this kind of thing (in either direction) so I don't have a lot of experience to draw on and perhaps I'm not the person to ask. But looking at his talk page, it appears that he has been warned about this kind of thing before, so if his behavior persists I think the next step would be to go straight to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. In any case, please stay active on Wikipedia. Your contributions are valuable and it would be a shame to lose them over this kind of nonsense.--RDBury (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observation. I see that this isn't the first time that the Franklin has viciously assaulted another user.  I have put a post on the administrators noticeboard about it, since there was an earlier thread and ultimatum about precisely this sort of behavior.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

vert asymptote
It should be conveyed that the lim being infinity is by not means the final answer. Options: .  franklin   15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * presenting it as particular example
 * putting it last (as it was)
 * or simply removing it
 * Not sure I get your meaning. In any case I'm still expanding the section, maybe the final version will be more clear.--RDBury (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it says that there is a vertical asymptote if the limit at a point is infinity (a correct implication). Next it says that "in general", it happens if any of those lateral limits are plus or minus infinity. All technically good but, since not everyone captures strict logical meanings more emphasis in the fact the first limit the incomplete picture or just an example should be made. For that reason I put it last. It is fine there if something like "in particular" or "for example" (or other alike) is added next to it. Or simply not to say it at all.  franklin  15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented out some of it for now, I need to resolve some notation issues before proceeding.--RDBury (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Documenting mathbot
Regarding your request for documentation, I did try to describe briefly what mathbot does on its user page, particularly see the section regarding the list of mathematics articles. If there is anything beyond that you want documented, please let me know (here). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I tried to add more documentation. It is linked from User:mathbot. Comments (and edits) are welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Equation wrapping and orphan control
Hi, could you please explain the technical reason this edit? I don't see any difference between the two versions in my browser. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on the article talk page.--RDBury (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider using Nowrap for preventing equation wrapping. --CiaPan (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature
You forgot to sign Articles for deletion/Boy's surface/Proofs (2nd nomination). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks.--RDBury (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you also forgot to sign comments at Articles for deletion/Finnish numerals. Cnilep (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--RDBury (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join
Hello RDBury,

Thank you for your multiple contributions to Wikipedia. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Mathematics. Feel free to add your name to the list of participants. Happy editing! Arcfrk (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL--RDBury (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Geometry problem in WP:RD/MATH
I just gave another solution for your Geometry problem in WP:RD/MATH – please see it in archives. --CiaPan (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks--RDBury (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Math articles rating
I see you modified rating for the Right angle article, promoting it to the C class The 'Mathematics rating' link just before the class note leads to WP:...Math.../Assessment. That page, however, does not define the C class, which is defined in WP:...Math.../Grading scheme. Could you, please, correct the 'Assessment' page so that it agrees with 'Grading scheme'? (Or forward this request to other editors, involved in rating.) --CiaPan (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on it right now.--RDBury (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --CiaPan (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Witold Milewski
Unfortunately, the PSB articles aren't currently available online (though they were three years ago) - I have to go to the library, which I'll do on Thursday. There are only lists of the articles:, where he is listed as Franciszek Witold Milewski (1817-1889). (This and other lists of the articles are at the "wykaz opublikowanych haseł" section of the PSB-webpage). I'm not sure if I'll be able to rewrite more articles than that about Milewski: neither my English, nor my knowledge of mathematics is perfect. But the Milewski one will be ready in a few days. I think that I'll try to write also about the early-modern ones. Laforgue (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfection is neither required or expected and any help is appreciated. As I mentioned elsewhere, the important thing for me is to add references. I work on WikiProject Unreferenced articles sometimes and some of the most difficult cases are ones where possible sources are in a foreign language. There's no problem with using these on Wikipedia but it's difficult for people who don't speak the language to locate and evaluate them.--RDBury (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

italics, spacing
Please notice this edit. In particular, italicizing the digit 1 is plainly incorrect; see WP:MOSMATH. Notice what TeX does:
 * $$ x + 1 \, $$

Michael Hardy (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped
You participated in the discussion at Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences
Hi- You put a notability tag on this article, and I wanted to give you my reasons for why the book is notable. "notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9]  how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." UC Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, William and Mary, Ohio University, Washington University, Phys 320 at Emory, SUNY, Syracuse Univ., University of Florida,
 * Per WP:N on books, academic books:
 * The well-known publisher, John Wiley, has established an instructor companion site.
 * A google scholar searchindicates the book is cited in 592 technical papers.
 * a google searchfor the book and author gives 19k+ hits. Checking some of the hits turns up these classes requiring the book

and many more where the book is recommended or supplementary such as

Penn State, University of Virginia, UC Irvine, Ohio State, Haverford College, Oregon State etc., etc.

I'm not sure how to show this influence in the article itself, but maybe it indicates to you that the book is notable? If not, what would you recommend to establish notability? Robsavoie (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria for notability of books are listed at Notability (books); the section on academic books is most applicable in this case. You should copy the evidence that's relevant from here to the article to establish notability. IMO a reference to a review in a respected journal would help as well.--RDBury (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

remark about hippopedes
Hi,

I have removed/edited one of your edits. In the article Hippopede you included the remark that these are exactly the bicircular quartic curves which are symmetric to both coordinate axes. That is not 100% correct, because these curves are the spiric sections. (One can define hippopedes as spiric sections, where the conic section on the right side of the equation is reducible. Spiric sections are toric sections with the mentioned symmetry.) Therefore I took this remark away from the article.

Anyway, I am glad to see that you are taking the available information about this aspect of geometry to a whole new level in Wikipedia. Thank you for this.

Hugo Sanchez-Vicario (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. One challenge with doing this type of article is the variations in notation and terminology between different authors. The remark about symmetry comes from "Courbes 2D" at Encyclopédie des Formes Mathématiques Remarquables but perhaps there is some confusion due to different usage of the terms which only gets more confusing in translation.--RDBury (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

M-15 centerline 1917 FPC
Any opinion on the original?  Imzadi  1979   →   18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about it, you'll see my vote if I come up with anything definite.--RDBury (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Double-checking...
... that this edit was actually made by you when you weren't logged in, as the comment asserts:. If you could reply when you're logged in, I'd appreciate it. We don't want someone going around the reference desk pretending to be you. :P -- Kinu t /c  05:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Great Zab
FYI, your comment there duplicated another user's vote. I have removed it.  Jujutacular  talk 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Plimpton 322
Thanks very much for deleting the section on reconciliation yet again. It is wonderful to find that there is such adamant opposition to these elementary mathematical observations. In contrast, here is the author of a leading history of mathematics published in the USA: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.

Now, what you are doing is helping to ensure that readers miss connections that they might feel they ought to have noticed. Please forgive me, but it really does puzzle me how that meshes with the enterprise of Wikipedia.

Would it be possible for you to say precisely and succinctly what the reasons for deletion of the section on reconciliation are?

What is it so unacceptable about this innocuous, yet pertinent and helpful, material, that it cannot even be left with a caution that original research may be present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons for removing the material were explained in the edit comments when the material was removed earlier. This is not the forum for discussing the merits of this material.--RDBury (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

However, each of those reason has been addressed point by point as the reasons given changed, one of the last reasons being that the material was unhelpful for any reader, pace the remarks from the leading historian. Moreover, adjustments have been made to the text in order to help head off apparent worries, misplaced though they seem.

When reasons change like this, it invites doubts as to the reasoning. So, would it be possible to pin-point, in your view, the precise reason why this material, whatever its merits, is so unacceptable that it has to be excised altogether, so we can get to grips with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Renewed thanks for reporting me to the Wikipedia authorities. This has led to Richard Morris User: Salix alba revealing a complete misreading of the excised section, in the face of a disclaimer inserted to guard against exactly that type of inappropriate inference. It is good to have this insight into the operation of Wikipedia, that an editor can excise material, and then place a temporary stay on further revision, wholely and solely on their own misreading, to the point that they are so unwitting that they voluntarily reveal themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responsible tagging
I am currently discussing the issue of pointless drive-by tagging some other editors exhibit, so I felt like posting a thank you for your responsible tagging at block codes by providing a reason to the cleanup template. Nageh (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
Just a friendly reminder that you have a GA review that has been left in limbo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangram Aaron north (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN
Hey, could you come back over to the GA review you were doing for Tangram? I responded to your suggestions, although one of them I couldn't find the issue. Please return. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the status to On Hold and added detailed comments on what still need to be done (imo at least). The issue you couldn't find is one I fixed myself.--RDBury (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OEIS reliability
I'm writing here to avoid going increasingly off-topic on the MacTutor discussion.

I'm on the editorial board of the OEIS so I'm familiar with its procedures. Whenever a new sequence is proposed an A-number is reserved for the sequence and the text is added to a draft for that number. These appear on the draft page which all registered users can see. Generally a number of corrections, additions, and revisions are proposed, both by the Editorial Board and the ordinary members. Once this is done, if the sequence looks good, an Associate Editor marks the sequence as reviewed. Usually more changes are made (causing it to lose its 'reviewed' status) and it is reviewed again. Once a version stabilizes, an Editor-in-Chief approves the sequence. Only then does the sequence move from the Draft page to its own page where it can be viewed by the general public.

Along the way many proposed sequences are found to be inappropriate&mdash;incorrect, a duplicate of an interesting sequence, or just uninteresting (the equivalent of WP:NN). If this happens the sequence is flagged by the person noticing this and the sequence is deleted by an Editor-in-Chief after there is some kind of consensus. (There's no equivalent of Wikipedia's WP:AfD process; actually so far there's been relatively little contention over deletion.)

The large number of people on the Editorial Board (maybe 50 Associate Editors!), together with the multi-level review, mean that the 'new OEIS' screens out many more errors than the 'old OEIS' (when everything was done by Neil Sloane). It's also faster -- there are usually at least a few Associate Editors working on the OEIS at any given hour, so sequences can get through the process fairly quickly. Two days might be faster than usual but most get approved (or denied!) within a week or two. Of course it's much easier than reviewing a paper!

Personally, when reviewing a new sequence, I typically re-calculate all the terms of the sequence. This gives some measure of protection against errors in the numbers themselves, as well as a check to ensure that the definition has been communicated clearly -- if I get other values maybe the description wasn't quite clear. Some are more work than others: sometimes I will spend several hours writing a more efficient program for a sequence and several more reading the references, where in other cases the references are well-known (or inaccessible to me!) and the sequence is straightforward (a linear recurrence relation, say). Of course it's rare that I will be the only one to review a given sequence; typically at least two others are involved.

So generally I stand by my original position: the OEIS is a reliable source, though it should not be used to establish notability.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinion?
Cf. en:Talk:Monic polynomial Best, JoergenB (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for the helpful answer on math reference desk!("what are these number triangles called?")-Richard Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OEIS should get the credit on that one.--RDBury (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for "Previous problem with generalized dice" on RD/MA
I knew that I was contributing calculations, not mathematics, but I was surprised that I hadn't even considered the possibility that the limit didn't exist. It seems likely that as long as positions far enough out can be reached from a single starting location (gcf{i: pi>0}=1 in your follow-up question), then things will be stirred up enough for the limit to exist, but I can't see a proof of this. I am so glad that you asked the follow up question, as I was planning to do so myself, and I wouldn't have come up with so general a statement. Thanks. -- 110.49.250.246 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for posting the question in the first place. The main reason I monitor the help desk for the occasional problem that generates some interesting analysis.--RDBury (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it was StuRat's question. I'm just the one who had a calculator handy. -- 110.49.234.92 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you still deserve a thank you though.--RDBury (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal FAR
Hi RDBury - Are you still interested in working on the Blaise Pascal article in response to the comments at the FAR? I see that you did some work, but there are still comments concerning comprehensiveness and referencing that have not been addressed, according to the reviewers. Please leave a note on the FAR page if you are interested in continuing work; otherwise, the article looks to be headed towards a delist, from the existing comments. Something that you can do is ping the reviewers who have already voted "delist", to ask them to revisit their comments, after double-checking that you have fixed or responded to all of the issues that they identify. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't do any work on the article itself, just made some comments in the review discussion. I don't really know enough about the subject to make useful contributions to the article and I doubt I can address most of the concerns raised in the discussion.--RDBury (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

public national scientific societies of Brazil
Ok, I'll see if I add some more refs. Best regards -- Andrevruas (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide
Please note that I have done a procedural close to Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Slide shows on Wikipedia article pages
Were you able to get a slide show for an article? Do you know any pages that have slide shows? Rhennius (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of is an animated GIF. Pretty sure I'm not the one to ask though.--RDBury (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

limaçon
Hello, the French word for "snail" is "escargot", you are right. But "limaçon" is an old word meaning "snail", too. Please read http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/lima%C3%A7on if you can (it's in French), or: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/lima%C3%A7on  --El Caro (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "limaçon" is the French version of "Limax". The way the article has it is correct either way, the name either comes directly from the Latin or indirectly via French. Figuring out where names of things in mathematics come from can be tricky. Most math was done in Latin until the 18th century and the limaçon was being studied well before that, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the curve was known primarily by its Latin name at first. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I think in this situation a cite is needed before changing what's in the article.--RDBury (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New RS for Sieve of Eratosthenes folklore rhyme
Please excuse my intrusion, but did you notice there is a new reliable secondary source of the first grade - the authoritative "Programming in Prolog" 1981 textbook - which seems to contain the poem in question, and in archaic spelling at that. I think this addresses your concerns and calls for a re-vote. Your opinion will be much appreciated. WillNess (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted by comment on at the talk page.--RDBury (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About removal of "unsourced conjectures" from OEIS
Dear RDBury,

You deleted Simmons and Markovič`s conjecture about perfect powers: Markovič`s conjecture can be found in http://oeis.org/A186080 under comments:

"See A056810 (the main entry for this problem) for further information, including the search limit. - N. J. A. Sloane, Mar 07 2011. Conjecture: If k^4 is a palindrome > 0, then k begins and ends with digit 1, all other digits of k being 0. The number of zeros in 1x1, where the x are zeros, is the same as (the number of zeros)/4 in (1x1)^4 = 1x4x6x4x1.")

Author of the sequence and thus the conjecture is Matevž Markovič (as stated on the A186080 page).

Simmons conjecture was found on http://www.worldofnumbers.com/cube.htm "Simmons conjectures that there are no palindromes of the form X k where k is greater than 4".

While I am not sure that worldofnumbers.com is a valid source, OEIS definitely is. Or the conjectures mentioned in OEIS under comments do not count?

Matevz91 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Conjectures, since they are not statements of fact, have a higher standard of inclusion than verifiability. If the conjecture is made by a well-known mathematician or if the conjecture is mentioned in a reliable secondary source it may be noteworthy enough to be encyclopedic, but the mere fact that someone conjectured something seems like trivia and should not be included in WP. In this case, since the references you're giving are primary sources, I'm not convinced that the material should be restored. But the issue may be worth raising in a larger forum so I'll post a thread at the Math project discussion page.--RDBury (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi RDBury,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Helicatenoid.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 13, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-13.  howcheng  {chat} 00:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

lemniscate in Pale Fire
Hi. It seems to me that the link from Pale Fire to lemniscate was exactly what was needed. The dab page says lemniscates are figure-8-shaped, which is what the reader needs to know. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lemniscate" is a mathematical term not listed in many dictionaries. In a non-mathematical context, the phrase figure eight or infinity shaped is more understandable.--RDBury (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA
Just a courtesy notice, I'm about to start a GA review for Catenary, I should have some comments in a little while. Failedwizard (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm looking forward to it.--RDBury (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Completed. There's a couple of points to discuss, and I welcome any general feedback. Overall I felt it was very solid with a couple of minor things. Will put GA officially on hold now. Failedwizard (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, you've certainly given some valid areas to focus on for improving the article; it might take a while to address all these points but I'll try to keep you updated on progress.--RDBury (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just dropped by the review to say hi, updated a few bits of the table, replied inline to some comments and left a summary at the bottom. :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given it's the holidays, I'm happy to leave this open until the new year, do you think you'll have a chance to work on it before then? Failedwizard (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's going to be difficult for me to work on it much until Jan. I'll do what I can though.--RDBury (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just dropping by to say I like the work on the article so far - moving in the right direction, detailed response to come in the next couple of days (I'm getting the impression you're happy with slow and steady, but ping me if you want a bit more speed, it's just a bit of a busy time at my end)... Failedwizard (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey man - I took some advice from a guy I trust on GAs, and I think it might be time to set a hard deadline for the end of the review process on Catenary. I happen to be around all of this week, and then am on holiday for the next two weeks so 7 days from now is probably our best bet (9AM GMT 20th Jan would be my time). There are a few outstanding things, but I think that we can sort them out between us fairly quickly, otherwise we'll have to be looking at resubmitting in the future... Failedwizard (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just got back from break myself and will be able to spend more time on it. I was also going to try to get help at WPMATH though I'm not expecting much.--RDBury (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've fixed or least responded to everything that's on the review page currently. There are a few additional things I want to do, like creating a separate notes section and do a bit of rearranging, so there's still plenty to of work there.--RDBury (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

artanh
Sorry if I created the impression to not wait for consensus regarding the definition of artanh on Inverse hyperbolic function. On the other hand, nobody has brought forward a good argument against the changed definition on the discussion page. I interpreted this as consensus. May I suggest you read http://people.freebsd.org/~das/kahan86branch.pdf http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~watt/pub/reprints/2000-sigsam-according.pdf in order to understand why we programmers do care?richy (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not something I feel that strongly about but I thought if you're going to bring it up for discussion then you might as well follow the consensus. My reading of the discussion was there weren't many people who saw it as an improvement.--RDBury (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, after waiting a while it becomes apparent that nobody seems to be in the mood of discussing such complex things. What consensus should I wait for, other than the consensus among implementors? (Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up for discussion to begin with.) Since there are good reasons for the change (namely, consensus among implementors), let's, please, do just it. The way it is now, Wikipedia lists a formula which gives different results than the principal formula recommended by the literature. And this isn't even just about systems with signed zero: Systems without signed zero give different results than the formula we currently list on the branch cut along the positive real axis! (These systems are Mathematica, Maple, Pari/GP, CLN, etc...) And I've already discussed systems which support signed zero (C, C++, CLTL2, Systems adhering to LIA-3). I see dozens of reasons for the change and none against it. I'm going to fix it now.richy (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirecting links
Why? See NOTBROKEN.

Not that I particularly mind, I just want to be sure you're not wasting your time for no reason. :-) --Steve (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was doing this as part of a page move. It appears the guidelines contradict each other on this.--RDBury (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I was misreading the directions. Thanks.

navbox on algebraic curves
Hi, Thanks for your help. The Cassini page as well as other pages on curves should probably display a template for the navbox to allow for easy navigation. Tkuvho (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikification of Rational point
I can tell by your contribs that it is most likely you edited Rational point after reading my request for help at the reference desk. Assuming I am right, I'd like to ask how you thought your reversion of my attempted clean-up helps? Your edit summary stating that "the new version has some glaring formatting errors that it would take too long to sort out" tells me that something formatty was wrong, but not what, and it also tells me that you couldn't be bothered to fix it. So since I can be bothered, maybe you could explain why you undid my work, so I can set about fixing it? If I sound riled, it'll be because I am. If you can't spare the time to improve articles, leave them alone. If the only way you think you can improve an article is to revert it to a former state, please explain (clearly) why, so others can see about doing what is needed to improve it. There is never good cause to simple bulldoze through an article making it different. The result of your work was to revert it to a poor condition. How is that helping?  fredgandt  05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There were simply too many formatting errors to try to fix each one so I thought it would be better to revert to a clean version. Some of the most obvious were converting italic variables to non-italics and mangling the equation for the example curve. I didn't see any issues with the previous version but several with the new version and it was hard to see what you were trying to fix without a line-by-line examination of the changes. The layout issues in the tag weren't specified so maybe a clearer explanation on the talk page of what those are would help. Please don't take the revert personally, I just didn't think the changes were an improvement.--RDBury (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So use of &#60;tt&#62; instead of italics is bad for math articles? What about the &#60;math&#62; tags? I've not used them before so would expect problems, but didn't think I did that bad a job. I was hoping that someone could check the actual math parts, and make sure I didn't break what was correct while math-tagging. Since the article also has no references, an expert eye is sorely needed. It's not all about formatting there. In all the math related articles I have seen, the &#60;math&#62; tags are used to show equations. So if this article is going to conform with the norm, surely it should also have its equations in TEX. Is there literally nothing I did worth keeping? Half the reason I am confused by this, is that some of the &#60;math&#62; tagging I did, you left in place, while other parts not. I have a feeling you reverted not so bad changes while reverting no so good changes, for no better reason than the alternative (fixing instead of reverting) was not something you were prepared to do. I don't take it personally. I am just trying to improve the article, and reverting to a half way point between my start and last edit seems to make no clear sense. How can some of the work I did be ok, when other work (very similar in nature) is not? Being a stub, and me not being a math expert (so I can't expand it), there isn't much article to work with. Sectioning, and subsectioning would be ludicrous. So at the very least I'd like to bring the basic content in line with other math articles, by using normal display methods, and uniform wiki-markup. Some bits italicized, and some not; some bits TEX and some not, is just ugly and inconsistent with other articles on similar subjects. Any help you can offer, to improve the article would be appreciated. If however, you haven't the time, I'll carry on the best I can, and prey for a math expert who has more time to spare.  fredgandt  05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might read WP:MOSMATH for the ins and outs of formatting a math article since it's kind of a specialized area. To give short answers to your questions, the tt tag generally isn't used and sometimes html is preferred over the math tag and sometimes it isn't. I didn't go into the details of the last two edits because the previous version looked ok. Your edits before the last two looked ok and I left them in. I'm not claiming that the current version completely follows MOSMATH so there might be some inconsistency in the revert; I was just trying to get back to reasonably good version without spending a lot of type parsing wiki syntax.--RDBury (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've followed your words on italics and tried to correct the page. I am now not watching and won't be. Not my subject and my little heart can't take it. Sorry if I haven't been you most cheery visitor. just trying and failing kinda pisses me off. I'll stick to what I know in future. See you around.  fredgandt</i>  06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I undid the bits that didn't follow MOSMATH and left the other changes; there should be some net improvement.--RDBury (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The effort it took to figure out how the TEX tags worked, and the time it took to implement, meant more to me than it should have. I've read (some of) WP:MOSMATH and understand. Just needed time to relax. I hope you can forgive my explosion. I was really just trying to help.  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I probably could have handled it better myself.--RDBury (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

History and research of Voronoi diagrams
[the same talk as a few moments ago, but now with a title]

Dear RDBury,

I am contacting you regarding the article Voronoi diagrams. For a reason which I don't understand you undid twice a certain contribution of me. More specifically, I added a paragraph to the section "History and research" and you deleted it (History: My contribution is from January 17 2012, undid by you: January 19 2012, undid by me: January 19 2012, undid again by you: January 20, 2012). To the best of my understanding, this paragraph is definitely relevant. Its goal is to show the abundance of Voronoi diagrams in the scientific literature. This was shown using a table which contained the number of items certain expressions (such as "Voronoi diagram") which appear in several well-known search engines. The table clearly proves that Voronoi diagrams have been extensively investigated during the last decades. In addition, since links to these search engines are included, this table also gives a simple way for retrieving many useful references with interesting applications, and thus can help in basing the whole article on a more solid ground (additional citations for verification, as asked at the top of the article). Finally, the paragraph also has some words about a special symposium devoted to Voronoi diagrams (ISVD), another indicator for their abundance.

I hope that now what I wanted to contribute is better explained. Thanks in advance.

Augochy (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of table of data from search engines does not belong in Wikipedia. We assume readers are smart enough to do their one internet searches so there is no need to reproduce them here, see WP:LINKFARM. If there are sites with particular interest for a subject then they can be placed in the 'External links' section of an article, but there are guidelines for what may be included. Also, since there is no source for the material other other than the search engine results themselves, the material falls under the category of original research and so it is against WP policies to include it. It seems to me as well that the material is off topic for the subject as well; if I'm reading article about a math topic then I expect to read about the topic itself, not statistics generated from a Google search. I appreciate the other contributions you've made to the article but the material on search engines does not belong there. A better way to make a point about the importance of the subject is to quote a reliable source that says it's important. If you still don't agree then I'd suggest bringing up the subject on the article talk page or on WT:WPMATH and try to get a consensus to add the material.--RDBury (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I understand the point. I may try to find other ways to discuss the abundance of Voronoi diagrams basing on reliable sources (some of them are mentioned anyway), but at the moment I prefer to put this issue aside. Augochy (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, still a bit of a work in progress at the moment so stay tuned.--RDBury (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyable formulas from the Differential Geometry Library
Dear RDBury,

I am contacting you regarding the Copyable formulas from the Differential Geometry Library. You wrote that you think my changes falls under ELNO. Please, state the items from ELNO you think I may have violated.

Regards, Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraShklyaeva (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Links to be avoided include "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming," which I think would include links to a commercial site such as digi-area.com. According to the same guideline, external link should point to a page which is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Though the site may be useful for some purposes, I don't think they add to understanding of the subjects in question.--RDBury (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me point to another part of the item. Links which CAN normally be linked include links with information which "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". Copyable formulas cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia due technical reasons. Moreover, as I mentioned in my comment here, most people makes calculations of differential geometry in CAS's, because calculations is very massive. Copyable formulas move forward educational process and help to understand the topic, because the user want not only read about an object but also quickly begin to calculate and explore it. You will never have deep understanding of the subject, if you only read about it and do no practise in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraShklyaeva (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the point you're trying to make but a vague notion of facilitating the learning process is a long way from factual information. Since there seems to be consensus on the WikiProject_Mathematics page to remove the links I'm going to go ahead with that.--RDBury (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Falling cat
I know you have been involved a lot in featured pictures. Do you think that File:Cat_fall_150x300_6fps.gif is worth nominating (from Falling cat problem)? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really involved in FP's anymore but I'd say that it meets the criteria. The FP process is relatively quick and painless so it wouldn't hurt to nominate it. The only problem I foresee is that people have to know a bit of physics to fully understand what's going on in the picture. But I always did wonder how cats were able to do it and the animation pretty much explains it on its own; that's enough for me at least.--RDBury (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Birman
Hi, Could you please leave a comment at Talk:Manifest Destiny if you get a chance? Tkuvho (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--RDBury (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Shing-Tung_Yau if you get a chance.  Two editors with no record of mathematical edits are not giving up. Tkuvho (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fibonacci numbers
Hello,

Isn't there n+1 numbers from 0 to n? The first is 0, the second is 1, the third is 2, etc., and the n+1st is n.

And likewise there are n numbers from 0 to n-1.

These are the only changes I made to the entry. Why did you flag these changes are errors?

Courteously yours,

Olivier Danvy (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct statement is F1+F2+F3...Fn=Fn+2-1, for example 1+1+2+3+5=13-1. The sum of the first 5 numbers is the 7th number -1. If you count 0, the "0th" number, then you could say it's the first 6 numbers, but it would confuse most people. Trying to state a formula in prose often leads to this kind of issue and perhaps the way it's worded now is not optimal, but the statement should be correct as most people would interpret it.--RDBury (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply.


 * No, that is not the correct statement: the math formula says that F0+F1+F2+F3...Fn=Fn+2-1, for example 0+1+1+2+3+5=13-1.


 * Zero is the first number of the sequence natural numbers.


 * In any case, the Fibonacci numbers are defined from zero with F0 = 0, and one of the sums is from zero to n. So either the prose description of the formula is incorrect, or the formula itself is incorrect and the first Fibonacci number should be F1, not F0, which would open a whole new can of worms.


 * We should correct either the prose description or the formula, so that they say the same. The formula could just say "sum for i = 1 to n", which is less general than "sum for i = 0 to n", and then we should verify that all occurrences for changed formulas remain correct.  But that is unsatisfactory, since the first Fibonacci number is F0, not F1.


 * Or alternatively we should delete the incorrect prose description, if you do not want to correct it. It's not that the prose statement is not optimal, it is that it is wrong.


 * It seems to me that correcting it as I have would not confuse people, it would make them realize the issue of counting from zero. Not to climb on any high horse, but it would be more the spirit of Wikipedia to inform its readers correctly.  Any reader who would cut-and-paste the prose description and then would use it to write a program would obtain an incorrect program, and that is unacceptable.


 * With courtesy,
 * Olivier Danvy (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you point and I took a stab at rephrasing the sentence so there is only one interpretation. Hopefully that will make everyone happy.--RDBury (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * Unfortunately my point remains: all sentences pertaining to sums that start from 0 should be then be rephrased, and you have only rephrased one.


 * Anyway your rephrasing is misguiding and for well-intended it is, it does not scale. In most programming languages, indexing arrays, strings, lists, etc. starts at zero.


 * Could you live with the following sentence?


 * "The sum of the first Fibonacci numbers from zero to n (i.e., the sum of the n+1 first Fibonacci numbers) is equal to the n+2nd Fibonacci number minus 1."


 * If you do, I would gladly upgrade the other relevant sentences of the page.


 * Best, Olivier Danvy (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think putting the in phrase the "the first n+1 Fibonacci numbers", even in parentheses, would still confuse most people and will generate a lot of "corrections" whether it's technically correct or not. I know the rule about starting arrays with 0, but most people reading the article won't and we should be writing with those people in mind. I didn't notice the other occurrences of "the first n" in the article and you're right they should be fixed. Actually that whole section has a number of issues and needs a vigorous application of a weed whacker, but it's not something I feel like dealing with at the moment.--RDBury (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stet. We could add a link to the Wikipedia entry on "Zero-based numbering".  You clearly have more editorial experience, but I find it hard to believe that a reader consulting the Wikipedia entry on Fibonacci numbers would be confused by the fact that there are 1 number from 0 to 0, 2 numbers from 0 to 1, 3 numbers from 0 to 2, 4 numbers from 0 to 3, and generally n+1 numbers from 0 to n.  But if so, this explanation could be added.


 * I have just given an exercise to my undergraduate students in computer science about proving some of the Fibonacci identities by mathematical induction. It jumps at them that the description is incorrect, weed whacker or no weed whacker.


 * So one more time: how about I fix each of the occurrences of the enumerations in this page (adding the extra explanation above the first time for counting from 0 to n)? That will fix the mismatch between the narrative description and the mathematical formula, and then the rest of the page can wait for a whacker at a more propitious time.


 * Best wishes,
 * Olivier Danvy (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid going back and forth on this I thought it was time to bring this up at WT:WPM for wider discussion. Fibonacci numbers get at lot of (imo undeserved) attention in the popular press so we shouldn't assume any knowledge on the part of reader, at least for the first part of the article. Even if assume enough mathematical knowledge to follow the proofs, there are still mathematicians who aren't that familiar with computer languages, or are more familiar with languages that use one-based numbering, so I'd prefer just avoiding the issue by rewording when possible. I don't see how using the phrase, even with an explanation, has enough benefit to the article that it would outweigh the problems it would cause in terms of confusing readers. I'm getting out my weed whacker now so hopefully the issue will be less of a problem.--RDBury (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeterminant
Hello,

You have introduced the word "indeterminant" in polynomial ring, with an edit summary asserting that "variable" is incorrect. I disagree with you. Firstly, "indeterminant" is not used in mathematics, and, in any case, is not a synonymous of "indeterminate" (the first two pages of Google Scholar for "indeterminant" do not link to any mathematical article). "Indeterminate" is clearly the correct and commonly used word. I disagree with you that "variable" is jargon and incorrect here: in modern mathematics (and also in computer science), a "variable" is simply a symbol which may be the name of any mathematical object. The word has lost his original meaning of "representing a number that varies". A witness that "variable" is correct for polynomials is the common terminology of multivariate polynomial. However, although a specialist of polynomials since more than thirty years, I may be wrong. If it is the case, please provide a reliable source.

Sincerely, D.Lazard (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, sorry I wasn't clear but I meant that the word 'indeterminant' was jargon, not 'variable', but I added a link to it and recently expanded the article. The use of an indeterminant rather than a variable is meant to make that distinction between the polynomial ring over a ring and the ring of polynomial functions over a ring, which is not the same. The second is the homomorphic image of the first but, in particular for finite rings, they are not isomorphic. The term 'indeterminant' is currently used, check the What links here button on the article I just mentioned for examples. I'll try to add some references though, the polynomial article could probably use more in any case. --RDBury (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have said 'indeterminate' above and seem to be confusing the 'ate' with 'ant' in my head. I added Herstein (which I own) as a ref and am currently looking for other sources in Google. --RDBury (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The GCD proof on the maths reference desk
I wanted to reiterate my thanks for your help regarding my recent question on the maths reference desk. I am a PhD student, and have an application of the result in mind, which my thesis supervisor has asked me to write up. I'd like to reference you for the contribution of your argument: is there a way which you would prefer to be referenced? Thanks again, Icthyos (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually thank you for the mental workout. I've never thought about help desk answers being referenced. Actually Wikipedia considers itself an unreliable source so I'm not sure that you could use what I wrote up as a reference and still pass peer review. In any case, I assume these results are already well known, it's just easier and more fun to work this kind of thing out for myself than to look it up. I'm not connected with academia so I suppose if you really need to give a source you could just say R.D. Bury (personal communication). --RDBury (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I was very keen not to reference Wikipedia, for the reason you said, and was planning on just including a version of the proof. Obviously I didn't want to take credit for it, so that's why I asked. Icthyos (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In case you'd like a further mental workout, here's a generalisation of my initial problem. Obviously you retain the right to ignore this, but I thought it might interest you. Take integers A1, B1, A2, B2, ..., An, Bn, with A1 and B2 odd and all the rest even, and gcd(A1, B1, A2, B2, ..., An, Bn) = 1. Does there still exist an integer k such that gcd(B1 + kA1, ..., Bn + kAn) = 1? It seems like this should be easier to prove somehow, because it feels somehow more difficult for longer lists of integers to not be coprime, but the 'rank 2' case which we were tackling before can't be directly applied, as far as I can see. While A1*B2 - B1*A2 is non-zero, it is no longer the case that gcd(A1,B1,A2,B2) need be 1. Any thoughts? Icthyos (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the n=2 case does generalize, but you have to look at the problem in a different way. The way I'm looking at it that you're given two points v and w in the lattice Zn. We're interested in when the affine sublattice generated by v and w (i.e. {..., 2v-w, v, w, 2w-v ...}) has any points with relatively prime coordinates. A point has relatively prime coordinates iff it isn't a multiple other than ±1 of some other point. The first necessary condition is that v and w aren't the same multiple of other points, which is the same as saying the gcd of all the coordinates is 1. A condition that is necessary with a few exceptions is that the line containing v and w does not pass through the origin, since if it did the v and w would be multiples of the same point x and so would every other point on the affine lattice. This implies the gcd of the coordinates is >1 unless one of the points was ±x. Conversely, if v and w are not the same multiple of other points and the line through v and w does not contain the origin then the affine sublattice contains a point that is not a multiple of another point. The n=2 case has been done. But n=2 is actually the only case, just restrict attention to Zn∩<v,w>, the lattice of points in Zn which are in the linear subspace generated by v and w. This is a lattice of dimension 2 so it's isomorphic to Z2 and any statement about Z2 applies to this lattice as well. --RDBury (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm almost with you. I considered this more geometric approach a couple of weeks ago, but didn't push it hard enough apparently! A geometric interpretation of gcd is that gcd(A1, ..., An) is one less than the number of points in Zn lying on the line joining the origin to the point (A1, ..., An) (i.e. if the gcd is 1, the number of points is 2: the endpoints of the line). It's your final sentence that I'm having the trouble with. There is certainly an isomorphism between the two lattices of dimension 2, but one of these lattices is sitting inside Zn -- call this one Y. I agree that in the n=2 case we can find a point 'with gcd 1', and that when we map this into Y, the line joining that point to the origin will still only intersect the other points of Y at the line's endpoints. But isn't it possible for that line to intersect some other lattice point in Zn which isn't a member of Y, and thus for the point in question to not have gcd 1? I do feel like this is the right way to show it, but I feel like I'm missing something. Icthyos (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point; I was relying on intuition bit much there. There is a lattice Y embedded in Zn and the question is whether y∈Y is "prime" in Y iff it's "prime" in Zn, where "prime" means there is no k≠±1 and point x so that y=kx. This is false in general but in this case Y is Zn∩L where L is a linear subspace of Qn. If y is not prime in Y then y=kx with x in Y⊆Zn and y is not prime in Zn. So being prime in Zn implies being prime in Y without any extra conditions on Y. Suppose Y is not prime in Zn, so y=kx with k≠±1, x in Zn. Since y∈Y⊆L, x=(1/k)y∈L and x∈Zn so x∈Y and y is not prime in Y. I should have specified why I chose Y the way I did rather than the sublattice generated by v and w. --RDBury (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Amanda Brooks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Brooks 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/Amanda Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the reference desk response on spinoza and axiomatic math - I've left you a couple of more questions :)
Hi there. Thanks for your response at the reference desk on spinoza and axiomatic mathematics. I've left you a couple of more questions there. 213.246.165.17 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Cross-post" your answer to the cross-posted question
You might want to put your answer to this question at Math.SE. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Binomial coefficient identity
I answered your question here. (It is unclear to me whether you will receive notification automatically, which is why I leave this note here.) --JBL (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Least Symmetric Triangle"
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FArchives%2FMathematics%2F2015_June_30&type=revision&diff=671046944&oldid=670300447 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.232.17 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I looked at it. Sounds like the full solution will be a project in both geometry and computer programming. --RDBury (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ref desk
Hi!Thanks for the answer at refdesk about percent change.--85.121.32.1 (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
This is Chuck. You aren't answering your phone. Call Ann&Ernie right away if you are because Ann is going to drive out to check on you. Then call me.

Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy Guy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)