User talk:Seberle

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Continuous random variable
This edit is troubling. It is plainly false that if a random variable has infinitely many possible values, then the probability of any of those value is zero. For the Poisson distribution or the negative binomial distribution, the set of possible values is {0,1,2,3,...}, which is infinite, and the probability of each value is positive.

There are two conflicting definitions of continuous probability distribution (on the real line). One says only that the cdf is continuous. That's the same as saying the probability of any individual value is zero. The other says there's a probability density function, and that says more than just that the cdf is continuous. The Cantor distribution is continuous in the former sense, but not in the latter. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Zarma
Thank you so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

math wars
If you want to edit, fine, but don't wholesale eliminte an entire section leaving out major points, including a reference to the TERC study which purports NOT teaching subtraction gives better results. The major objection is that TERC and Connected leave out standard methods entirely, or at least descriptions and solved examples, and you should not just toss that out. Have you actually seen TERC or CM in person? Do you have any idea how awful Mathland was? Bachcell (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have been editing the same article at the same time. I am not a heavy Wikipedia editor, so this was a first for me! When combining our two edits, I did not include your paragraphs because some parts were not correct, the language was not NPOV and I was not prepared to try to edit it down to an acceptable paragraph. Please consider including brief summaries of facts rather than arguments. Remember, this is not a debate. This is an encyclopedia article reporting on a public debate from a NPOV.


 * Yes, I've seen CM. I happen to think it is quite good. But I also understand the research behind it and I understand why many parents and some teachers do not. The Standards are, in fact, poorly understood by the public for the simple reason that they are unfamiliar with much of the research that has informed the Standards. But I will not include any defense of CM in the article, or take sides. I will limit myself to just what public debate has been. It makes no difference how bad or good Mathland is. For Wikipedia we are just reporting on a social phenomenon.


 * If you do not understand both sides of this debate - if you do not understand, for example, the research underlying CM - please consider not contributing to this article. If you do decide to edit, please keep the language NPOV. --seberle (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
Hi, don't know if it was by accident or design but you remove a lot of the past content from Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics with your latest edit. Per WP:TALKCOND we tend not to delete past content from talk pages, as it might be of use at some point. I've restored the past discussions.--Salix (talk): 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Education and math
Let's discuss this on the talk page. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I should have written "qualitative methods" rather than "anecdotal methods"---a snide comment by a colleague must have stuck in my brain. :)

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific University Curricula
I noticed that Core Curriculum (Columbia College), a program for undergraduates at Columbia University very similar to the Common Core at the University of Chicago, was in the category Category:Specific University Curricula. Accordingly, I felt that Common Core should also be in that category. (The Common Core is, in fact, a university curriculum; it is mandatory for all undergraduates at the University of Chicago.) Supernaturalist (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tessellation
Hi Seberle, good to meet you.

I think we're slightly editing at cross purposes on the tilings, so I'd like to explain quickly my concerns.

Firstly I guess we agree that the article seriously needs some work to make it clear, accurate, good to read and properly cited. It has been none of those things and it's a deal better now, and I'm glad you feel like helping out.

Secondly, I've tried hard to remove WP:OR whether intensely mathematical or not when there seemed no hope of finding citations and the original editors had long gone. So I do hope we won't add back any equivalent stuff.

Thirdly, I understand that mathematical types like things to be well-defined, seems reasonable in their case. Unfortunately, "definitions" in English text quickly deteriorate into WP:DICDEF - dictionary definitions - which are quite rightly not allowed - this is not a dictionary. I changed "Definitions" into "Overview" to say "this is a high-level eagle's eye view of the whole article", not a piece of mathematical definition-setting. So, er, I was hoping it wouldn't be changed back... if you see what I mean.

To sum up, we need explanation, decent images, references that the average joe has a reasonable chance of being able to look up, and then to understand, and not too much maths or definitions. I'd like to think the article was moving in the former direction, not the latter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Chiswick, that's fine by me. I'd much rather see an overview section than a list of definitions. At the moment, it is really just a list of definitions, so I put the title back. You are right, though and I agree. Maybe if we leave the subtitle at "Overview" we can eventually move the section toward a true overview section. --seberle (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm either CC or Chiswick Chap, as Chiswick is a place! Very glad you agree, and hope we can make the article into something really beautiful - it's a great subject. Patterns in nature is a Good Article; I'd love to see Symmetry and Tessellations up there too. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very cool, CC. Sorry about your name; I wrote early this morning and was half asleep! Nice to know someone friendly here. I sometimes run into confrontational types. I agree that the Tessellation article is in need of a lot of work, but headed in the right direction. Your edits have looked good. My biggest beef is still the opening sentence, which defines a tessellation as a process rather than a mathematical object. But I haven't been able to get others to agree and I always hesitate to change a lead sentence without some consensus. I'll take a look at Patterns in nature soon! seberle (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Super, the article is starting to look organized. Thanks for your additions, which are starting to make the math intelligible ... however we do have a couple of places that need citations. Who introduced the vertex notation, for instance? Needs a ref. Thanks as always --- Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the history of the vertex configuration notation, but Grünbaum & Shephard (1987) is the standard reference for most things concerning tessellations. --seberle (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mmm, but we need to cite the statement made, even if not to provide a history (which would be best, probably). The choices are


 * 1) cite a paper that at least mentions what is stated (we hardly ever give page refs unless the papers are hugely long)
 * 2) cite a book, giving a page reference
 * 3) cite a decent website that explains the statement made
 * 4) remove the statement.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Don't have the book, just my notes. (G&S have been promising a 2nd edition for years and I'm waiting for that. I'm not up to making a library run just for a page number.) I could cite an article (there are many--the notation is standard). Isn't Wikipedia's own article on vertex configuration notation sufficient?


 * We can't rely on other articles, for the mathematical reason of ... recursion. If we relied on the unquestioned splendour of vertex configuration, it could rely on the unquestioned excellence of its links to mathematics and, er, tessellation, and hey presto, we have a proven, self-consistent system of unshakeably useless references! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't rely on the Vertex configuration article to contain the proper reference for the vertex configuration notation? Seems odd, but it turns out you're right. The Vertex configuration article just has a general reference and no page number. So do I go with an article, or do we wait until someone finds the page number of G&S? The latter is preferable, the former is more likely to be done soon. --seberle (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a multi-threaded discussion?! OK, so there's a concrete example - we'd hope to rely on the VC article but there's no guarantee, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" - according to our own policies, by the way. The thing isn't an either/or choice; by all means link to the article, but don't hope to rely on it, as it is not proof of WP:notability nor of WP:verifiability. So best to wait for the page to be looked up (or try to google for it). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. I know it's not in Google Books. I actually need to go check it out for some other non-Wikipedia questions, so I'll try to get around to eventually. There is no "the article," but there are many articles and websites that reference it. I agree G&S would be best. --seberle (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I love the way the article is becoming both user friendly and mathematically accurate. Thanks! This seems to be unfortunately rare with Wikipedia articles, especially math articles. --seberle (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. It's rare because dialogue, analysis, teamwork, looking up decent sources, and careful word-crafting are harder than rushing about swapping "–" for "-" in a thousand places (miaouuuw). Great when it works, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tessellation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congruent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Gallery amidships in Tessellation
Hi Seberle, I'm afraid I think the gallery in the middle of T. breaks up the article, and with the images to left and right immediately afterwards, looks a bit of a mess, if I may speak plainly. A small gallery of examples right at the end is one thing; an overflowing one in the middle quite another. Maybe we could put it back? I think we will need to be very selective in the choice of examples and the way they are grouped to make it feel neat and tidy. At the moment it feels like a jumble. Sorry to say it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't feel sorry. I was feeling the same way. But I really would like to see some examples to highlight the definitions. (I need to add a few more that I'll probably have to draw myself.) But I really don't like the gallery format. It does look messy. And just having a string of illustrations down the side would be an awful solution. I was going to poke around and see what other formats are available on Wikipedia, but perhaps you know? I really like the way Mathematics did their examples. Very nice. What do you think? Or another idea would be to make a table of definitions with one column terms, one column definitions and one column a pictorial example, but I think that might look too heavy. --seberle (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I pretty much agree. There isn't really a solution of any elegance in a standard article. If there are a lot of images, one can make a pretty page on Commons and point to that - but few readers seem to go. One can tuck a gallery at the end: not too wonderful, unless the images are very much of a piece (as they are at the end of Bewick's Birds, for instance, when the format works elegantly, I think). One can add a table with images in a column as you say: this is best in a list, like List of camouflage methods, one of my better efforts, which shows that multiple columns of images are possible for special purposes. Otherwise, having a lot of images is usually a disaster. I kind of got away with it in patterns in nature, but at this distance in time from my own work, even that is starting to look kinda weird ... such is life. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Game of dili in Niger 2014.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Game of dili in Niger 2014.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Math wars
I reverted most of your recent edit. I tried to leave detailed edit summaries. Please leave a message on my talk page or on the article's talk page if you have questions. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rules of Go
I've reverted your edit. The article is organized to first present rules equivalent to those of Tromp-Taylor, which require the game to be played out, and then to discuss other sets of rules by making comparisons with Tromp-Taylor's. (Please see the sources in the article, "Logical Rules" and the rules by James Davies.)

This is preferable for a number of reasons, not least of which is that "dead" is very difficult to define accurately. Saying that they "would inevitably be captured if the game continued" is not precise enough, in part because it raises the issue of what else might happen on the board if the players continued to play. It also contradicts the end-of-game rule, which says the game ends when both players pass consecutively. If they continue to play, then when does the game really end? Even if the players agree on the outcome, they are agreeing on the outcome *if* the game were continued according to a certain set of rules. What rules are those? Those need to be stated first, before you can mention rules intended to speed up the end of the game.

If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that the definition of "dead" was introduced relatively recently. Please note where the introduction states "This article first presents a simple set of rules which are, except for wording, identical to those usually referred to as the Tromp–Taylor Rules, themselves close in most essential respects to the Chinese rules." And this too: "The basic rules require the players to "play the game out" entirely, capturing all dead stones in normal play. Virtually all rulesets used in practice provide some mechanism that allows players to begin scoring the game before the final position (the one used to score the game) has been reached. In some cases, this is merely a convenience intended to save time. In others, it may be an essential feature of the game. In any case, explaining these rules might obscure the nature of the game somewhat for a person unfamiliar with it. See § Counting phase below."

45.3.27.150 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Integrated Mathematics
Hi, you reverted my change with the comment: "Nearly all modern American curricula follow Common Core, which is partly based on previous NCTM standards. This has nothing to do with whether the program is "integrated" or not." First, Common Core is not a curriculum, it is a set of standards that students should master in a particular grade. Second, Common Core recognizes both traditional sequential (AGA) as well as integrated style of teaching math. Whether the latter is the product of NCTM being a member of Common Core project is a matter of a separate investigation. There are programs like HMH AGA, that do not advertise Common Core on their main product page: https://www.hmhco.com/programs/aga/news-events but have editions that do mention Common Core, like: https://forms.hmhco.com/sales/CATeach/ca-hmh-aga.html This is still an AGA program, not integrated. Third, Common Core is not based on NCTM standards directly, although one may suspect a heavy dosage of influence from NCTM on Common Core.

So, while not all math programs, even those that are branded with Common Core compliance, follow NCTM standards, most if not all integrated programs do follow NCTM standards because these programs were created with NCTM participation and NSF funding. Altogether thirteen programs were designed. The whole idea of creating these programs was that the traditional AGA method supposedly did not work, so the new programs were to be integrated but also investigation-heavy, groupwork-oriented, context-based, technology-rich. Feel free to find an integrated math program in the U.S. that does not have these traits. Mikus (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mikus. I'm not sure if I follow everything you are saying so forgive me if I misunderstand something.


 * First, You are quite correct that CC is not a curriculum; it is a set of standards, which are goals. Most curricula are implementations of standards. (This is why I said modern American curricula "follow" the CC. Perhaps "implement" would be a better term.) Second, you are also correct that the CC recognizes both traditional and integrated curricula. This is in fact referenced in the Wikipedia article.


 * After this, I'm not sure if I have correctly understood your comment. NCTM is not a "member" of the Common Core project. Please see Wikipedia's Common Core article if you are not aware of how the Common Core was developed. The CC Standards for mathematics reference a wide variety of sources, so it is only partly based on previous NCTM standards. Of over 100 documents consulted in formulating the CC, only three are by NCTM. The CC Math Standards do specifically credit the NCTM (and two other sources) for part of their process standards, but they don't specifically credit the NCTM for any of the rest of the CC Standards. Many of the previous state standards consulted were influenced by the NCTM, so NCTM's influence on the CC is largely indirect and only partial. So, yes, I agree that the CC is not based directly on anything by the NCTM and yes, NCTM probably had some influence on the CC. (Actually, during the writing process, there was initially considerable criticism by the NCTM -- and other sources -- and the CC responded in their final version to some of this criticism.)


 * I seriously doubt that most American integrated programs implement NCTM standards. This statement would need some support. As far as I can tell, nearly all new American curricula being developed attempt to implement the CC Standards rather than older NCTM standards. I don't understand what 13 programs you are referring to. The NCTM is not involved in the development of any "programs" or curricula, as far as I am aware. I have never heard anyone state that the traditional American sequence "did not work". Some critics believe that integrated curricula work better, but no one (to my knowledge) believes the traditional American sequence "does not work". Clearly it does work. It is certainly not the position of the NCTM that the traditional American sequence does not work. NCTM represents a great many mathematics teachers throughout the US and Canada, so it encompasses a wide diversity of opinion. Critics on both sides of this issue are more concerned with how children learn and whether integrated curricula help children learn and retain mathematics better than the traditional American sequence or not, and if so, in what ways it is better. This is up for debate.


 * I am not aware of modern ideas of using investigation, groupwork and technology being coupled with the idea of an integrated curriculum. These are different ideas with their own merits. All of these ideas (investigation, groupwork, technology, etc.) are strongly supported by research and are promoted by educators throughout the world and are therefore promoted in nearly all modern math programs, whether integrated or traditional American. It is therefore not suprising that most integrated curricula also incorporate some of these research-supported pedagogies. Traditional American curricula also support them, so there really isn't much of a relationship here. These are two separate issues as far as I can see. At best, you might make the argument that some traditional math curricula which follow older ideas of mathematics teaching would naturally eschew modern pedagogies as well as follow the traditional American sequence, since both types of ideas are new to Americans. However, even some very traditional math curricula, such as Saxon, now incorporate technology, investigations and other modern pedagogical ideas in their latest editions. Saxon even claims now to be CC compliant. If you believe that these ideas are somehow related and have been treated together in a special way, I suggest you make that argument on the Talk Page of the Integrated Mathematics article, along with references. I am not personally responsible for this article any more than anyone else, so please make sure you post your ideas on that forum. I really don't have time to continue this discussion on my personal page.


 * One final note. Whether a book is "branded Common Core" or not may not actually be indicative of following the Common Core. There is no body that accredits whether or not a textbook properly implements the CC or not. Anyone is free to slap a "Common Core" label on anything they want. Some researchers have found that many textbooks claiming to be "Common Core" are not actually compliant with the CC Standards. But in any case, as you correctly pointed out, whether a curriculum is integrated or traditional American is an entirely separate issue from whether it implements the CC or not. These are two separate questions.

Tech assist on recent edit
Hello!

I am not a behind-the-scenes Wiki user so I hope I've done this correctly, haha. I checked on the "Niger" page earlier today and saw that the introduction paragraph is all scrambled up. I looked through the edit history and it appears it was your most recent edit that caused it. I am not really sure how to repair it, so I figured I would alert you to it instead of messing with your edits. Thanks! :)
 * Sorry about that! Glad to see it got fixed.--seberle (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reeve tetrahedra ...
... are a single family of examples, introduced collectively to demonstrate something. A single one of them, taken by itself, has no significance and in particular is not sufficient to prove Reeve's point; it is only when they are taken collectively that they do so. Since your previous edit (before your revert) was to Zarma people you should be able to recognize the significance of the distinction. --JBL (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant guideline, fwiw: Naming conventions (plurals). The relevant exception is Things like Maxwell's equations, Legendre polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials, [the] Cauchy–Riemann equations, etc. The topic is naturally the set or family of equations, although in some contexts they may be referred to in the singular. (That is, such a polynomial—for example—is of interest only because it is part of the polynomial sequence called the Chebyshev polynomials, and the sequence is thought of for most purposes as a unit.) Similarly, one is much more likely to mention Arabic numerals than a particular Arabic numeral.  --JBL (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)