User talk:Svennik

AfC notification: Draft:Dual-complex numbers has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Dual-complex numbers. Thanks! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi ! Thanks for your comment. I've found several journal sources for the geometric construction. I've still kept the reference to Stack Exchange though. Is that fine? Svennik (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replied on my talk page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dual-complex numbers has been accepted
 Dual-complex numbers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! ~Kvng (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Dual-complex_numbers help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

How is multiplication of dual-complex numbers defined?
I find it very strange that you tell us that multiplication of dual-complex numbers is non-commutative without ever telling us how to multiply dual-complex numbers. Could you add something about that to the article?

Also, it is worth noting that no other articles linked to Dual-complex number until I created a link in the "See also" section of Dual number a few minutes ago. The most frequent mistake in creating new Wikipedia articles is to create no links to the new article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking to the article. I have added a multiplication.
 * --Svennik (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Don’t touch other users’ postings
is unacceptable – see WP:TALKO. Don’t do anything with other users’ postings except for technical fixes and removal of obviously harmful content. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did ask you whether you wanted the discussion edited out. I assumed I had your OK, Incnis Mrsi. --Svennik (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re this diff is it mistake that you removed two messages, instead of just the last one? Gryllida (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that back-and-forth insults between me and a blocked user are necessary to keep up? If you feel otherwise, you can undo the edit. I won't make a third attempt. --Svennik (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated expression of personal opinion in an article
I see that in this edit summary you referred to an edit of mine as "pedantic". To learn how and why you thought my edit was pedantic might be interesting. Far more important, however, is that your edit is in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Please do not repeat it unless and until you can provide a reliable source which shows that it is a recognised fact, not just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @JBW: There's more than one possible interpretation of the term "dual-complex numbers". I've seen a paper talking about an algebra called the "dual-complex numbers" where the algebra was in fact $$\mathbb C[x]/(x^2)$$ - see here: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01114178/document. Equally, the term has been used to refer to the same algebra as in the Wikipedia page. I think the remark is helpful for avoiding confusion. --Svennik (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I described your edit as pedantic because I don't see how my remark about their name is harmful. If anything, I've argued that it's helpful. But I guess you've been here longer than me. --Svennik (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have asked on my talk page why I haven't responded to your message above. The answer is that I didn't have anything I thought worth saying. I am a little surprised that needs explaining. Nevertheless, I take it that what you meant was that you would be particularly interested in reading my thoughts on the matter, so I will respond here now. However, you may like to consider whether what you said was the best way of conveying the message that you would be interested in another editor's opinion.
 * Your comment about something being potentially confusing is editorial commentary, and as such does not belong in a Wikipedia article. In a book, a newspaper article, an academic paper, or any of various other kinds of writing it might be appropriate, but a Wikipedia article is not supposed to speak to its reader in its authors' voices, and commentary, advice, and opinions do not belong there.
 * Incidentally, your statement that the expression "dual-complex numbers" is ambiguous is interesting, and clearly a criticism of the existing article, which does not, as far as I can see, mention that ambiguity. However, I am not sure why you mention it in connection with your statement that the expression may be misleading because complex numbers and dual numbers have commutative multiplication. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 08:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computable analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dual number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scheme.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2021 (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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

About Computable analysis
Hi Svennik, thanks for the interesting additions to the Computable analysis! I am not an expert on this topic, so I got a question regarding what you wrote there:

"A similarly surprising fact is that differentiation of complex functions is also computable, while the same result is false for real functions."

According to this paper (Corollary 1a), differentiation of smooth functions is computable. Since real analytic functions are smooth, differentiation is also computable for real analytic functions. On the other hand, Cauchy's integral formula applies only to (complex) analytic functions.

Thus, differentiation is computable for both real and complex analytic functions, right?

Saung Tadashi (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The paper doesn't say that the differentiation operator is computable. It says that if a computable function is $$C^2$$, then its derivative is a computable function. That doesn't mean that there exists a procedure for finding this computable function, even though that function exists. Svennik (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thanks for clarifying :) Saung Tadashi (talk) 11:29, 1 May 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edge computing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Latency and The cloud.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)