User talk:Thenub314/Archive 1

Smile
Hi, no problem over at Talk:Singular integral. I think Wikipedia is starting to get to me, and so I am beginning to act defensively for no good reason. I'll probably take a break for a little while. By all means, please improve the lead at Singular integral.



silly rabbit (  talk  ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. :). Well, instead of taking a break, you could  help me on a project.  I am not sure I will ever put it in, but I have been thinking of trying to improve the Hilbert Transform article.  But I wanted to make sure what I come up with is actually an improvement.  It is a work in progress, but do you think you could help me out?  I don't have quite enough experience on wikipedia and I am not that great of a reader/writer. My version is currently sitting in User:Thenub314/sandbox, could you look it over?  (I promise it is related to the article we were talking about, at least mathematically). Thenub314 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks fo your help. I decided to be Bold and place the article into the main space.  Hopefully it will be received well.Thenub314 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
I'm happy to see that you have come back. Congratulations on finishing your doctorate and (from your userpage) landing your first postdoctoral job. Best regards, siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am glad to be back, and excited about the new job. And glad to see your still here. Thenub314 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourier series
I don't think you understood the point of the section on how to determine the coefficients. It wasn't an example of how to do it for a function that is the sum of sines and cosines: it's for ANY function that has a fourier series. You start by assuming it has one and then you can find the coefficients (look again, at the end it says to replace the series you are looking for with the function you do have). I changed it back for now. It might need more expansion or something. RJFJR (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I did understand that this is what you were saying. This is the classic derivation of Fourier, which unfortunately doesn't really work. Thenub314 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibbs phenomenon
Hi Thenub314. Following up on your post at WT:WPM, where did you see this article noted as requiring expert attention? EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I found it of the things to do portion of the project page. A direct link is here

"Explanation"
Twice in recent hours you've used the same misspelling of this word. Please note the correct spelling above. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If your going to police my spelling I hope you have a lot of time. I am fully that explaination is not the correct spelling, but when I am typing fast sometimes I don't catch myself. I try to be more careful about edits to articles but in edit summaries and talk pages I have no real intention of being careful. I noticed the edit summary to Gibbs phenomenon, what was the other example you were thinking of? (By the way, it may be an artifact of the written media, but this really comes across as a sort of "shape up or ship out" type of message.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs)


 * It's not a shape-up-or-ship-out messages, but the misspelling is irritating since it conflicts with the pronunciation of "explanatory", etc.
 * Looking at my various edit summaries to Gibbs phenomenon, I don't see any where I mentioned anything about another example. Can you say which edit you have in mind? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at my various edit summaries to Gibbs phenomenon, I don't see any where I mentioned anything about another example. Can you say which edit you have in mind? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep my spelling under control. I meant my edit summary, in one of the I spelled explanation as explaination (It's the spelling of explain that always causes me to make this mistake). I just didn't notice a second case of where I made the mistake, but I make it all the time, so I am sure it is out there. Thenub314 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Little POV"
You do not like my phrase "New frameworks are revealed from time to time; for now we can only dream about a single unifying framework". Why? Both parts of it are well-defined and verifiable (by expert, at least). Please explain. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let me commend you on undertaking the job of improving the discussion of other frameworks beyond sums of iid random variables. It is mainly the phrase "...for now we can only dream...", we may instead attempt to create a single unifying framework (or prove the existence of such a framework is not possible), or any number of other things beyond dreaming about it.  The second phrase in the sentence struck me as a point of view on the subject (but only just a little).  I have to run to catch a train.... Sorry I don't have time to comment further. Thenub314 (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Then, I restore the phrase in a modified form; please look, and improve my poor English when needed. (Really, you could modify the phrase yourself rather than delete it.) Good luck when catching the train... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

your comment at non-standard calculus
Thanks for your comment there. The better term would be "pointwise" instead of "local". I used the term "local" because the editor who introduced this discussion at uniform continuity used that term, as opposed to "global". Perhaps a more precise dichotomy would be between "pointwise" and "non-pointwise", but this seems more awkward. Awaiting your suggestions. Katzmik (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I agree with your deletion of "favorably" here. We can let the reader judge for himself. Katzmik (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourier Transform
Hi. Sorry for being a complete noob. I'm a professional mathematician but have never edited Wikipedia before. If I've got it right, then user Thenub314 will at some point in the near future read this, and this is a message to him/her: you recently edited the Fourier Transform page, or a related page. So my guess is that if I make a statement of the form "there's a mistake (a typo) on the page", and if you believe me, then you'll be able to fix it (whereas I don't know how to fix it). So I think that in line 105 of the "functional relationships", the 3rd entry is wrong. When defining the Fourier transform of f-hat, of course the answer will depend on the definition of f-hat! My understanding of the note on the right in line 105 is that in a given column, we use the definition of f-hat in that column. If this is the case then in the non-unitary setting, applying Fourier transform twice introduces a multiple of 2.pi---that's exactly why it's non-normalised. f-hat-hat(x)=2.pi.f(-x) in the un-normalised case, right?

Who knows when I will next "log in" to Wikipedia (maybe never). If you want to respond to this, best just email me on buzzard at imperial dot ac dot uk.

Cheers,

Kevin Buzzard

K m buzzard (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kevin, no need to apologize for being a noob, we all were at some point. :) Thanks for pointing out he mistake. Thenub314 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

local nature of definition of uniform continuity
Hi, Thanks for your comment at (ε, δ)-definition of limit. I added a link to the precise location at non-standard calculus where this is explained. Let me know whether this is sufficient. Katzmik (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had already noticed the section at non-standard calculus, I was looking for a reference (book/article) that supported the claim that one definition is more local than the other. It is not difficult to give alternate definitions of Uniform Continuity in which one must check a property in some extended domain. So I have difficulty seeing what is meant here. Thenub314 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this comment after I had already made the one below. Could you please elaborate on your remark concerning the extended domain?  I am not sure I follow.  At any rate, I am not familiar with any standard definition of uniform continuity that's purely pointwise in nature, whereas this is patently the case in the hyperreal situation.  Either of us can try looking for a citation from Keisler in this direction if you think this is important, but at any rate this observation is a plain fact rather than a research program. Katzmik (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to think that what you propose is in fact impossible as it seems to amount to a purely topological definition of uniform continuity, which cannot be done as it says elsewhere in the article, but perhaps you have some metric considerations in mind, as well. Katzmik (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article mentions that the space is metrizable. But more concretely one could just check continuity at every point of the domain.  And if the domain is bounded above you would need to check a uniform continuity condition at infinity.  One condition I can verify works would look like
 * $$lim_{b\to 0^+}\limsup_{x\to\infty}\sup_{|a|<b} |f(x+a)-f(x)|=0.$$
 * Ugly I admit, and OR on my part since I didn't look it up. The on what basis are we saying there isn't a "local" or "pointwise" definition of Uniform Continuity? Simply because we are not familiar with one is not enough of a reason.  Returning to another subject, as I noticed PClark point out already, uniform continuity is not discussed in  Kreisler's book (at least I didn't see it in the index, or during my brief skim) which is why I was asking for the citation. Thenub314 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the definition you gave is ugly. It is certainly not of the type you envisioned at the talk page of uniform continuity.  Namely, this definition does not proceed by extending f to the (standard) extended reals, and defining uniform continuity in terms of the pointwise germs of f.  The definition you gave defines a different function (the inside sup), and defines uniform continuity in terms of the new function.  An even easier solution would be to let C equal 1 if the f is uniformly continuous, and 0 if it is not uniformly continuous.  Then you have an easy criterion to determine the uniform continuity of f in terms of C.  As far as the accessibility of the limsup definition is concerned, we can organize an informal poll to see how it compares to other available definitions.  My point was that the standard definition of uniform continuity cannot be formulated in terms of pointwise germs (even on an extended domain), whereas the non-standard one decidedly is.   Uniform continuity can be found on page 45 of Keisler's "Foundations of infinitesimal calculus".  He does not bother to compare non-standard definitions with standard ones in this particular text.  The great strength of wikipedia as an electronic database is the possibility of interlinking related definitions and theorems, which is not always appropriate in a bound volume.  Having said this, we won't be able to do much about a certain tendency among traditional mathematicians to reach for their revert button when they hear the word "non-standard".  Katzmik (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong but the above condition only depends on the germ at infinity in the extended real numbers. I think PClark was looking for the reference about the definition, I was looking specifically for a reference that discussed the differences between standard and non-standard calculus.  I hope you don't include me in those that reach for the revert button!


 * Certainly not :) You seem to have tolerated Hardy's edits there pretty well :) Katzmik (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (And I hope you meant to say editors instead of mathematicians, as I am not convinced most editors are not mathematicans) I have no problem with the discussion of non-standard calculus. I have maintained that we should discuss these things in limit of a function, limit of a sequence and non-standard calculus.  I am skeptical of the claim that the terms pointwise to local apply to the non-standard definition of uniform continuity in some way that could not be said of uniform continuity.  Even the example of the easy calculation of showing x2 is not uniformly continuous by the "easy" non-standard method has an equally easy direct analogue in the standard setting.


 * It has an analogue, but it is not local in the sense that it depends on pointwise germ only. The non-standard definition of course is not local in terms of the function f itself.  It is local in terms of its natural extension f*.  This is true in the precise sense that the definition is formulated solely in terms of the pointwise germs of f*.  Carl and I had a long exchange about this at the talk page of uniform continuity; he argues that the construction of hyperreals and natural extensions is not local, see there; however I don't recall him arguing with the narrow point I just made above. Katzmik (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why I requested a citation where I could read about claims that uniform continuity is more local in the non-standard setting then in the standard setting. . Thenub314 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. There are editors who are more knowledgeable about NSA than I am, perhaps we could check with them for a reference.  Meanwhile, JITSE mentioned an interesting quotation about the difficulty of definitions involving multiple quantifiers, I included it at (ε, δ)-definition of limit.   Katzmik (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)  P.S. See also Kevin Houston. Katzmik (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Houston
Hi, I certainly appreciate your interest in non-standard calculus. I gather from your recent deletion there that you do not feel that the non-standard proof of non-uniform continuity of x^2 is any simpler than the standard one. I would be happy to discuss this at the talk page. I think we should avoid another round of trigger-happy reverts at this page. Carl and I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, as well of working on the related articles. There seems to be a consensus that the quantifier complexity issue is a legitimate one. Perhaps you disagree, but in wiki it is not the preferable custom to express your disagreement by unmotivated reverts. Please believe me that I am thrilled people are interested: and perhaps reverts are preferable to indifference. At any rate it would be helpful to discuss this at the talk page first. Katzmik (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Poisson kernel
Hi,

I noticed that you keep changing K to P at the article for Poisson kernels; perhaps we should discuss this some more on the talk page? My gut instinct is that K is fairly universally used for kernels, whereas P is used for projections. Since it is not uncommon to talk about projections and kernels at the same time, it would be unfortunate to use the letter P for a kernel. More generally, if you have something constructive to add to that article, please do so; however, please don't make stylistic changes "just because". Thanks. linas (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

L^p for 0 < p < 1
Dear Thenub314,

After your edit, the article has two sections on the subject (rather: a section and a subsection). I tried to merge the two things into the "section". If you feel that I did not destroy your edit, we might consider deleting totally the subsection of "property of L^p spaces".

Best wishes, Bdmy (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WPM
Hi, you wrote: "It might have been nice if you had let me know you were discussing my edits and their reasons." This is a perfectly valid point and I apologize. I seem to have assumed that everybody has WPM on their "watchlist", but now that you mention it there is no logical necessity for this. Katzmik (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bishop-Keisler controversy
Please could you put this article up for deletion? It is pure WP:SYNTH. The paragraph describing the book review is one of the strangest contributions to WP I have ever seen. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I was just reading the wikipedia guidelines for nominating articles for deletion, just make sure I understand the process. Thenub314 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that your removal of the Gillies secondary source is not appropriate, if you are going to do anything such as an AfD nomination that others will judge to a large extent by the citation of secondary sources. In other words you have clouded the proper discussion process by that editing. Secondary sources matter greatly to the compilation of Wikipedia, as evidence that a topic is widely known and discussed. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your absolutely correct, it was a bit of carelessness on my part, I didn't intentionally remove the source. I thought it was in the references section, looking back I see I also left an empty notes section, which just looks bad.  Your right to reprimand me, and I will try to be more careful.  I care a lot about making sure articles are well sourced.

Deleting or editing other people's comments
I don't think you should be deleting my comments, as in this edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

constructivism and NSA
Hi, I intend this comment to be completely separate from the current AfD discussion (hopefully this is possible). I find your comments on the relation between constructivism and NSA very interesting, but I am afraid I find myself disagreeing with them completely. If you are interested in having a mathematical discussion of this apart from wiki politics, please let me know. Katzmik (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to have a mathematical discussion. Thenub314 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me state a position that seemed self-evident to me before I read your comments. After reading them, I realized I can't take such a position for granted, but it still seems correct to me, so at any rate feel free to criticize. To summarize, I maintain my position that Bishop and Keisler are at opposite extremes of the spectrum of mathematical sensibility. To offer a simplified model, I would view such a spectrum as a line where one's location is determined by how conservative one is in allowing certain mathematical tools as part of a proof. In such a model Bishop would be a right winger (obviously no political implications are meant here), a traditional mathematician would be a centrist, while an NSA adherent would be a liberal left-winger. To be more specific, the mathematical toolkit is emptied of both "proof by contradiction" and "Axiom of Choice" by Bishop, while of course a traditional mathematican accepts them as legitimate. On the other hand, a traditional mathematician tends to relegate AC to the domain of pathological examples in analysis (unmeasurable sets etc), and is typically unaware of, for example, the following facts: (a) proof of the existence of a maximal ideal relies on AC; (b) proof of the countability of a countable union of countable sets relies on AC. An NSA adherent feels free to use AC in all endeavors and constructions and is typically more comfortable with basic notions in mathematical logic than a traditional mathematician. To take the metaphor a bit too far perhaps, one could describe as an extreme left-winger someone who uses the axiom of the existence of an inaccessible cardinal in his work. Katzmik (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we will need to pick a constructivism. There are three non-equivalent schools of thought.  Bishop was the founder of one of them so lets focus on his.  I don't think one can really draw the line that you'd like to.  For one thing, I think most mathematicians are more aware about statements that are equivalent to AC, and have accepted it.  While analysts grumble about odd counter examples that arise because of AC, few are willing to live without the Hanh-Banach theorem, Banach limits, etc.  So I feel that most mathematicians are fairly comfortable with using the Axiom of choice.  (Or existance of Harr measure, or some other statement that is partically equivalent to it.) I think what stops more mathematicians form a complete understanding of NSA is the background in logic.  You have to be very careful about how you translate statements to their non-standard equivalents, and it is not always easy to know if you've gotten it right (for me at least).


 * As for Bishop's constructivism, he makes clear that it is not an issue of the axiom of choice. He felt that mathematicians that focus on this are missing the point in some way.  (He doesn't accept it, but it is confusing a theorem with an axiom).  At the heart the matter for Bishop is the meaning of the word "exist".  His philosophy is not entirely clear, but mathematically it amounts to deleting the law of excluded middle form your system of logic.  He was careful to make clear that he was not sure if NSA had any less meaning the other classical mathematics.  He also said proceeding with mathematics classically was useful, if not rigorous to his logic. It gave you a guide as to which theorems to prove.  This is one of the special aspects of his constructivism, every theorem that he proves is true classically, so if it is true classically the there is hope that it is true constructively.  Unlike other forms of constructivism, where you have theorems like every function is pointwise continuous.


 * There is in fact close relationships between constructivism and Non-standard analysis. (See for example or "A nonstandard proof of a lemma from constructive measure theory", by David A. Ross.  So it doesn't seem to me that NSA is at the opposite of the constructivism of Bishop.  Now, Bishop would not have allowed for the far left point of view that there exists an inaccessible cardinal, or anything else beyond the integers.  But he would also not claim they don't exist (remember he is working without the law of excluded middle).  In the end, for him it would be indecidable (in much the same way trichotomy for the reals fails.) Thenub314 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all this information and I see that you are certainly far more knowledgeable about constructivism than I am. If I understood you correctly, you argue that Bishop's constructivism is not necessarily related to his criticism of NSA.  I disagree with this particular point.  At any rate, secondary sources have connected the two.  Katzmik (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think you misunderstand me. He never criticized NSA, directly.  He criticized all mathematics, but did not have a special interest in NSA and did not see NSA as any better or worse than (to pick something he did discuss more directly) topology.  He did strongly object to teaching NSA in introductory calculus courses, but from the pedagogical point of view that the students wouldn't have an concrete sense of what a non-standard number was, so all it trained the students in was (in his view and not mine) formal calculation. Thenub314 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Thanks for your edit at extreme value theorem, I am glad you like the proof. Perhaps we should add a source (Keisler page 164). Katzmik (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply because I edited the page after you doesn't mean I endorse anything. Both proofs are fine, but I am still mulling over whether I think they are good for that page or not.  Do they really illuminate idea in this theorem? Thenub314 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ball multiplier
Hi. Thanks for your message. I am not sure we exactly agree on this multiplier thing.
 * Do you agree that the Fefferman result means that fR is simply not in Lp for some f that are in Lp.
 * Yes. Absolutely.


 * How can Duoandikoetxea discuss convergence of something that does not belong to the space? I don't get it.
 * A priori you don't know. So maybe the question is better phrased rigorously in some other way.  Like "is fR in L^p and does it have a limit", or maybe "for nice dense set of functions do you have L^p convergence"

Bdmy (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But you can build regular functions for which fR is in Lp but with bad control of the norm, and by adding pieces with worst and worst behaviour you can have a function f for which the statement fR does not tend to f makes sense. That's what I tried to write, but is it reasonable?
 * I'll take a look in the morning, your extermely precise mathematically so I bet it makes perfect sense. But do take a look at Javier's book, in general it is really excellent.  And this specific page you can preview on google books.

I have no real problem with what is written there now. I was trying to keep the approach to the material very pedagogical because the readers of Fourier Transform come with varied mathematical backgrounds. In fact after I changed the article to use more standard mathematical notation and include some more of the theory there was some talk about starting a new article.

What do you think about this rough approach:


 * Basically I agree. But since you mention "partial sums", it makes me think about multiple Fourier series, where the first thing you try is not summing on couples of integers inside a circle&thinsp;! Perhaps could you add something in the following direction (I have inserted in your text) Bdmy (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One notable difference between the Fourier transform in 1 dimension versus higher dimensions concerns the partial sum operator. Let fR ...


 * In n=1, fR converges to f in Lp by the boundedness of the Hilbert Transform. Naively one may hope the same holds true for n>1.


 * Then still Ok for cubes (I presume) but if trying balls, problem...


 * In order for this to converge it is necessary that the multiplier for the unit ball be bounded in Lp(Rn).  For n ≥ 2 it is a celebrated theorem of Charles Fefferman that the multiplier for the unit ball in never bounded unless p = 2 (Duoandikoetxea 2001).  In fact this shows that not only may fR fail to converge to f in Lp, but for some functions f, fR not even an element of Lp.

I should also point to Kaykea here, and failure of Riemann localization would be a nice addition as well. Thenub314 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good morning. I was probably wrong to include my answer in the middle of your text above. Not sure you had seen it. Bdmy (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good morning to you. I did see it, and I have been thinking about the best way to formulate things.  I was thinking when we define f_R we could integrate over a set SR.  Then in n=1 define SR=(-R,R).  For n&ge;2 we could point out that two of the naive choices for SR are "cubes" and balls.  Then point out as you say that cubes are fine, but balls are not.  (Maybe or maybe not we could go on to say that any regular polygon is fine, but any SR whose boundary has a point of non-zero curvature will fail.  But maybe this is getting a bit too technical).


 * I agree with too technical, although if it is just a side remark in a small corner, why not?

Am I making sense? That way we can talk about different partial sum operators. Thenub314 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. Bdmy (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The new section seems reasonably clean and interesting to me. For the notation of exp, I have been told that mathematical constants (like e = 2.71828..) must be written in roman, but I don't really care. There is still a small problem: I added the condition 1 < p < &infin; in the discussion, but the Fourier transform can be defined when 1 <= p <= 2, not when p > 2, and the formula for f_R uses the Fourier transform. Although the multiplier exists, the way it is written (my fault) is a little incorrect. What do you think? Bdmy (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We could just initially declare that &fnof; is a Schwartz function. Then everything will be well defined and it still makes sense to talk about Lp convergence later in the paragraph.


 * Yes, but for Schwartz functions it is well possible that the L^p-convergence of "partial sums" holds for the ball, and what follows say "In order for THIS partial sum operator to converge", still a small difficulty. I did make a small edit assuming f  to be integrable to begin with, but I am not sure that is is perfectly OK (it would not be, if the L^p-convergence of partial sums always holds for functions that are both in L^1 and in L^p).


 * Perhaps could you add a localization to a chapter or page, in the reference to the book by Duoandikoetxea? Bdmy (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will work on it after the holidays. Of course, your correct.  The way it is written we need to limit ourselves to a dense subspace and on this dense subspace the partial sums may converge.  I will think about if there is a better way to express this section, but aside from the minor point above I am fairly happy with how it is written.  Thenub314 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your "satisfaction", and also with your edit summary: WP somehow acts like a drug on us. It is not a serious problem for a person of my age (I guess: more than twice yours) but you ought perhaps to be more careful on how you spend your time... Anyway, nice holidays to you! Bdmy (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well met! I will keep my focus on writing papers, at least until I have tenure. And maybe when I am in France this spring I will take you out for the drink I owe you. I take my debts seriously ;).  I hope you have a nice holiday as well. Thenub314 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Decimal representation
Actually, I started out with limit of Sigma, but then thought that the .a_1a_2...a_n notation was clearer. Katzmik (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I liked using the explicit sum. Otherwise, one should explain what 0.a1a2…an means.

Monads
As per your recent edit: which monads are you referring to? The link you included points to a disambiguation page. Katzmik (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked Germ (mathematics); the notion seems more appropriate than monad. Please comment. Katzmik (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the term from Kiesler's "Foundations of Infinitesimal calculus" Defintion 1.2. Though to be honest I thought halo was the standard term, I took this term because it was in the reference we give.


 * I see. Well, I don't think it is very standard.  The term "germ" is explained on wiki and has the advantage of being linkable, let me know what you think. Katzmik (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The speaking of germs functions seems like the wrong idea to me here. Germs are not something discussed in Non-standard calculus.  I suggest we add a red-like either under halo or monad that would point to the use of these terms in non-standard analysis.  Then, when we have the energy put the definition up and let people expand apon it. Thenub314 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The germ at x is the equivalence class of functions which agree on an interval [x-h,x+h] for all h. Non-standardly speaking we allow arbitrary nonzero h, including infinitesimal.  There is no great mystery about this.  The other two terms are more of a mystery to me.  The link to monad still seems to point to a disambiguation page.  Katzmik (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there are a few questions I have, (usually one takes the open intervals when defining germs). Can one prove this is the same as allowing only standard h defining the open intervals but looking at the equivalence on the non-standard natural extensions of h?


 * Here you are testing the limits of my knowledge of the hyperreals, but it seems to me you may run into problems with internal sets here. Namely, once you pass to R*, the set-up of non-standard analysis in general allows you to work only with internal objects.  I should point out that this is not a weakness but the main strength of the theory.  Namely, one of the basic ideas of Robinson's theory is that we interpret a certain class of logical statements as applying only to internal sets; with respect to such an interpretation, it is possible to say that whichever properties are satisfied over R, will be satisfied over R* as well (transfer principle).  Otherwise you certainly cannot expect anything of the sort: you will not have completeness, for example, since R is characterized by its completeness.  Katzmik (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your last sentance is a common misconception. R is not characterized by completeness.  There are complete ordered fields which are not R. It is the unique archimedean complete ordered field.  I am of course taking the usual notion of completeness that every Cauchy sequence converges.  Thenub314 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are right. It looks like I did not tell you anything new.  At any rate, what may be even more interesting is that there does exist a model for R* that's "minimal" in a suitable sense, through the recent work of Shelah and Kanovei.  Shelah needs no introduction.  Incidentally, Kanovei has a recent survey paper containing many, many results of the non-standard approach, including applications.  People who believe NSA fizzled out as a research area simply have been listening to too many tea room conversations in math departments with no hyperreal representation, it seems to me.  Katzmik (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Katzmik's previous statement: R (as an ordered field) is characterized by its completeness.  "Complete" as applied to ordered fields means that every nonempty set bounded above has a sup (and hence dually: below &rarr; inf).  In contexts where this definition is either not applicable (e.g. Hilbert space) or coincides with Cauchy completeness, the latter is indeed the usual notion of completeness.  However in contexts where both are defined and mean different things, for example non-Archimedean ordered fields, Gelbaum and Olmsted in "Counterexamples in Analysis" respect the distinction by not contracting "Cauchy-complete" to "complete," as I pointed out just now elsewhere.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference that you know of that speaks about germs of non-standard functions? Anything we use should be well referenced.  I haven't had a chance to add a new page on the non-standard use of the term, but if I am begin too slow your more then welcome to add it. Thenub314 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I 'fess up, I am guilty of OR. Never saw a treatment of hypergerms.  Will keeping looking here, too.  Katzmik (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your questions…answered!
Hello Thenub314,

You ask an interesting question at:
 * Talk:Gibbs phenomenon;

I’ve answered it there, and in rather more detail at
 * Gibbs phenomenon

Briefly, overshoot occurs because the kernel has negative values.

Enjoy!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nils. How are you these days? I am in Edinburgh, are you still in the UK? Thenub314 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Integral
I think calculus should still be mentioned in the first sentence. I have moved the bit about areas to a new second sentence, which hopefully gives broader context to the integral as well. Regards, Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy
Many thanks for the corrections to the article.

Am I just being horribly obtuse, or is there something very fishy with the assertion that absolute summability of the Fourier series does not imply continuity of their sum? Do you have a more specific reference for the Katznelson example? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a second reference off of the top of my head but I'll look for one for you. Your certainly not being obtuse or at least your in good company, because this bothered me for a little while before I made the cange.  Of course absolute summability of the Fourier series certainly implies continuity of the sum.  The trouble is that the series defining &phi;T may not converge to a continuous function, even in the case &fnof; is continuous. Instead what we know is that the Fourier series for &phi;T converges to a continuous function.  It is a bit of an unusual situation, &phi;T must agree almost everywhere with a continuous function, but without additional assumptions (decay of &fnof; or assuming the left had side converges uniformly, etc.) &phi;T need not be continuous.


 * Philosophically speaking, we get used to this notion of identifying functions a.e., so it becomes very easy to say that &phi;T is continuous when it has an absolutely convergent FS. In the particular case of this formula, a specific function is singled out by summing the values of &fnof;. And while that function must agree with a continuous function almost everywhere, it doesn't have to be continuous. Thenub314 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. I thought it must have to do with poor convergence in the summation defining &phi;T.  It would be nice to have a page number in Katznelson so the example can be examined more easily.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. The page numbers are 142 and 143 (or 129-131 in the second edition) .  He makes a comment on 142, whose proof he leaves to problem 15 on page 143.  The problem guides one through the construction of a function that has the following properties:
 * &fnof; is continuous and integrable.
 * $$\hat{f}$$ is integrable.
 * &fnof;(2&pi;n)=0 for all n in Z.
 * $$\hat{f}(0)=1$$ and $$\hat{f}(n)=0$$ for all n in Z such that n&ne;0.
 * Thenub314 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

limit merge
Hi -- I seconded your merge proposal at Talk:Limit of a function Joriki (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I don't know how community consensus is supposed to work when no one comments. Maybe we should be bold and just start doing it?  What do you think? Thenub314 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, you know me from Wikibooks. I put my thought on Wikibooks and Wikipedia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, which you might find interesting. -- Taku (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm also here because of that topic (and because I'm also from Portuguese Wikibooks, and because I usually collaborate with math in the wikis when I have time =) ). I just want you to know that I share your concerns about crosswiki collaboration...
 * By the way, recently we have started to review a geometry book on Wikisource... It is here. Helder (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do find the discussion interesting. A daughter was born last evening so it may be a few days before I can rejoin the discussion, but press on.  I will comment soon. Thenub314 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

About Wikiversity and NPOV
I noticed that you commented on NPOV and Wikiversity not being mentioned there. That is, indeed, deliberate. Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, but it allows resources to exist that are not neutral; it is the overall wiki which is neutral. This was an alternate approach that Wikipedia elected not to take, and some think it was its ruin.

(i.e,. you might have two or more articles on a topic, one from each notable point of view (and radical inclusionists would not include "notable"). There might be a meta-article that places those views in context, and that page would need to, within itself, follow NPOV. It would provide for "due weight," explaining, hopefully with sources, how the balance of opinion is among the knowledgeable. Wikipedia strongly discourages this forking, leading to endless conflict over a single scarce resource. Wikipdia also doesn't allow subpages in mainspace, so both Wikiversity and Wikibooks can be far more flexible in how they present a subject. Wikipedia, to some extent, did not follow the hypertext vision of the last part of the twentieth century. It's flat, with no hierarchical approach to speak of.

It certainly takes Wikipedia away from being an academic project. It's an encyclopedia, but normally encyclopedias are written by academics who know the field intimately. And academia has, as part of the training, a strong understanding of neutral writing, academic style or tone.

I haven't seen conflict on this at Wikiversity yet. There was conflict in the past, where users asserted their positions by revert warring and the like. Some of this may have been due to Wikipedia editors bringing habits from Wikipedia, I don't know for sure.

Where you commented may be a place setting a bad precedent about linking to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. Wikibooks has NPOV policy, but, given what's happened here, an attempt to link to a Wikibook, if editors here didn't like it, would run into the same. I was rather naive, in fact, I should have been able to anticipate the problem. But I didn't. --Abd (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose my question was because there are also other resources left out of the list. For example, wikispecies is not mentioned, and I was a bit curious if they omisions were known to be deliberate or could they be accidentally.  I went and did some fact checking and found that the meta document is as it should be.  Though an NPOV policy as been suggested at wikispecies, it currently has none.  As far as forking goes, I wonder if the choice to not allow article forking has been a boon to wikipedia.  While it may lead to fighting it also forces people to interact.  I think the social aspect of wiki'ing is key to a wiki's survival.  If every time two people disagreed about an article/resource/book you end up with several pages on the same subject which have all stalled out.  I suppose this is why the language of b:WB:FORK is as strong as it is.  As far as links to wikibooks/wikiversity being removed, I suppose it is up the the editors of any particular article to decide if the resource is helpful.  To be honest I wasn't too upset when reverted my edit at Cold fusion was reverted.  Anyways thanks for the note, sorry I couldn't keep up and throw my two cents in at other places.  But when the quarter starts everything gets busy :). Thenub314 (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Newton on limits
Hi, perhaps you would care to comment at Talk:The_Analyst. Tkuvho (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

what constitutes a constructive activity?
Instead of enforcing prods, wouldn't it be more helpful to look up some links? Tkuvho (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In two cases I did a quick google search for proceedings from a birthday conference or something similar that would have a little bio to cite and came up empty handed. Same question to you, instead of just ignoring the prod couldn't you find some link find one link to make them go away?  It just takes one according to the prod notice.
 * I responded at my page. Don't be impatient, little by little these references will materialize. You could also signal this at WPM, other editors are very helpful sometimes.  Tkuvho (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Trying out the WikiLove feature.

– Adrignola talk 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 

Pourciau paper
Hello,

I noticed you added the citation (Pourciau, 2001) to the article (ε, δ)-definition of limit. However, it does not follow the style of the other references, nor does it provide the exact work (Bruce Pourciau wrote multiple papers on the topic in 2001). Could you please tell me which paper you used? Inverse Hypercube 01:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it was done here by Tkuvho. But I do have the reference he is referring to somewhere and so I will clean it up.  Thenub314 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. The diffs were all scrambled so I thought it was you. Inverse Hypercube  02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem and I understand. Tkuvho and I have problems... and so articles tend to bounce back and forth a bit when we both get involved with them.  I have been trying to be better about this sort of thing, but it really seems to be escalating.  Probably both of us will end up topic banned before long the way things are going.  So I can see how the diffs get to be a bit much to sort through. Thenub314 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem and I understand. Tkuvho and I have problems... and so articles tend to bounce back and forth a bit when we both get involved with them.  I have been trying to be better about this sort of thing, but it really seems to be escalating.  Probably both of us will end up topic banned before long the way things are going.  So I can see how the diffs get to be a bit much to sort through. Thenub314 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

your recent administrative action
Your recent administrative action is not productive. In general I noticed that when people run out of arguments they resort to clubs, see a recent example at the talk page of Torsten Carleman. Tkuvho (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(ε, δ)-definition of limit
Hi there.

With regards to the aritcle (ε, δ)-definition of limit, recently there's been some disagreement over the content; I'm not at all bothered about who is right or wrong, but I'd just like to ask you to, please, in future, consider discussion on Talk:(ε, δ)-definition of limit before making edits that anyone might consider controversial. Thanks very much,  Chzz  ► 13:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chzz, I will do my best. Thenub314 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your pursuing the administrative track to resolve content issues is simply disgraceful. Now it turns out this applies to all pages not just epsilon-delta.  You are allowed to revert without explanation, I am not.  Tkuvho (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue was not content related but behavioral. I did not mean to suggest I should be let off the hook.  The page on edit warring makes it very clear that anyone reporting a 3RR violation will also have their behavior examined as well.  I consider myself under the same warnings you are under, and out side of the delta-epsilon page I have specifically been avoiding reverting your edits.  Though removing well sourced comments particularly bothered me.  You'll see outside of that I did not revert any of your edits for quite a while, even when you inadvertently removed information about Bolzano, Heine etc.  I have done my best to follow chzz's advice on this page as well as others.  Thenub314 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the old versions of the epsilon, delta page and did not find anything about Heine. Are you sure you are not confusing it with a different page?  By all means the information about Bolzano and Heine should be added.  Verifiably incorrect statements by historians should be avoided even if they can be sourced, as there is a lot of gibberish in the literature on the subject.  The reasons for the gibberish are similarly analyzed in the recent literature.  Tkuvho (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to reverts globally, not just at the delta epsilon page. You did remove sourced information about Bolzano  but what is really worse it shows clearly how far things have degraded.  You clearly didn't carefully read the diff, or the article after your revert.  Otherwise you would have seen that you were not removing the information you intended to.  It simply read something you disagreed with and reacted.  I am not claiming I have behaved any better.  But we are both professionals and should be above this.
 * Could you list a few examples of things that you consider to be gibberish? Thenub314 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to follow chzz's advice. Recent scholarly studies indicate that talk of "cauchy-weierstrass definition of continuity" is gibberish.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have said I would try to follow the advice. Is there some reason your reiterating this? I have thus far followed his advice to the best of my knowledge. If there is a place you feel I could have done better, please point it out.


 * Which scholarly study? Do they really call the previous work on the subject gibberish? Thenub314 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My firm opinion is that the term "gibberish" should be reserved solely and uniquely to talk pages. Scholarly literature would employ suitable euphemisms.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I wasn't about to go placing this comment in articles. I just was wondering which study, and what they said.Thenub314 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In alphabetical order: (1) Barany's recent article clearly argues that Cauchy's approach is tied to the 18th century. I am not sure he used the word "kinetic" or "kinematic" but this was certainly what he had in mind. (2) Brating's scholarly study from a few years ago analyses Cauchy's sum theorem and comes to rather different conclusions from the received ones.  Incidentally, she refers to a null sequence as "generating" an infinitesimal, and compares Cauchy's approach to some modern approaches.  You won't catch her interpreting Cauchy as if he had read Weierstrass already, in Grattan-Guinness's memorable phrase.  (3) The recent article by Borovik et al is an exhaustive analysis of the issue.  There are some additional recent articles, one of them in the highly respected scholarly journal perspectives on science. Tkuvho (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Message from John Gabriel
Further to discussion on infinitesimal page regarding disclaimer.

There is inconsistency even in terms of published works. For example, there are articles that contain "facts" not published anywhere. I think of Arthur Rubin's article on Wikipedia. It contains much personal information that has not been published anywhere else. And then there are thousands of articles that contain sources which are only URLs, that is, nothing published in print.

So it seems to me that your policy is pretty much driven by how you feel regarding certain articles. In other words, Wikipedia is the world according to "you". This is why many search engines now have the option of turning off results returned by Wikipedia.

In my opinion, anybody editing is not a good idea. Also, allowing edits because "facts" have been published is bad. I personally know many academics who have been turned off by your policies and your administrators. Seems like Wikipedia hasn't exactly worked as planned. 12.176.152.194 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey don't shoot the messenger. I am not primarily even a wikipedian, I have contributed far more to its sister projects.  The policies are in no why my own, nor do I necessarily endorse them.  But they are what they are.  The standard is "Verifiability not truth" according to WP:NOTTRUTH.  The system isn't perfect there is no way to stop people from adding things that are not verifiable and not true.  And lots of that happens.  It has even got me into trouble during a job interview, when I looked up some information on a university and discovered during the job interview that the info was completely bogus.  I apologized, told them the source of the info, and they said "Yes our wikipedia page contains many inaccuracies."  I corrected the one I was aware of, but you have to take what you read here with a grain (and often a truck full) of salt.  All I can say for myself is that, outside of talk pages, the statements I add are verifiable.  I almost never edit wikipedia without a book in my lap. Thenub314 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Limit of a function, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperreal (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) 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Hi, is there any chance you could clarify what this sentence means? (And hopefully supply a page number.) Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, it meant to give explain that if $$f\in L^p(\mathbb{R})$$ then $$\lim_{R\to\infty} \int_{-R}^{R} \hat{f}(\xi)\,d\xi$$ converges to $$f$$ in $$L^p(\mathbb{R})$$. I will add the appropriate page number and think about if it can be reworded. Thenub314 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Infinitesimal knowledge. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, the situation was rather out of hand. Thenub314 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hilbert transform
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Hilbert transform you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. See Talk:Hilbert transform/GA2. Dolphin ( t ) 04:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I was just working on some of the sourcing issues brought up by a few of the commentators today.  I am glad it is getting a fresh set of eyes. Thenub314 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that a review of Hilbert transform was started on 22 November but nothing became of it. See Talk:Hilbert transform/GA1.  As a result, your nomination was re-listed at WP:GAN, or perhaps it was never de-listed.  (You made a number of edits to the article on 26 November so perhaps you were aware of the comments made during the first review.)  Either way, I have initiated a second review (called GA2.)  The citation of sources throughout the article looks inadequate so I have asked for a second opinion before proceeding further. Happy editing!  Dolphin  ( t ) 07:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again Thenub. On 21 November you nominated Hilbert transform as a Good Article.  A reviewer opened a Talk page and made some suggestions about the article.  See Talk:Hilbert transform/GA1.  You did not acknowledge any of those suggestions or engage in any discussion on that page.  As a result, that first review lapsed.
 * On 29 December I opened a new Talk page and made some suggestions about the article. See Talk:Hilbert transform/GA2.  Again you have not acknowledged any of those suggestions or engaged in any discussion on that page.  Good Article reviews should make some progress within 7 days or they are likely to end with the review failing the GA nomination.  You may be under the impression that you nominate an article for GA status and other editors do all the work to make any necessary improvements.  If so, that impression is incorrect - you have nominated Hilbert transform for GA status and so you are volunteering to do any work to make necessary improvements.  If the nomination is not to fail it is also necessary that you engage in discussion with those reviewers who make suggestions about the article.
 * If you are presently too busy with other activities there is no problem with re-nominating Hilbert transform at some time in the future when you have more time. I look forward to reading about your intentions for this article.  Happy editing.  Dolphin  ( t ) 21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reluctantly closed this GA nomination for the reasons I posted at Talk:Hilbert transform/GA2 - see the diff. Thanks for working on Hilbert transform and nominating it for GA. You are welcome to re-nominate it for GA at any time in the future when you have more time to devote to the review. Dolphin ( t ) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

merge
Hi TheNub,

are you taking on the task of merging infinitesimal calculus into calculus? I saw an edit summary a while back at the first article, saying "merge into calculus", so probably I assumed that the task was complete, but now I see you've removed some more stuff, and yet there's still a substantial amount of material at infinitesimal calculus, not just a redirect. There's no hurry, of course, but are you planning to bring the task to completion yourself, and eventually leave only a redirect? I just want to make sure the project doesn't get dropped. --19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Trovatore. I am taking it _very_ slow.  Over the years I have gotten into a fair amount of conflict (particularly with Katzmik and Tkuvho).  Some of which followed me into real life, which I really didn't appreciate.  If I see the word "infinitesimal" I have a knee jerk reaction to be cautious. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, and some one to start yelling at me and reverting everything I do.  Thus, I figure if I take my time, and give a chance for everyone to say their piece, I might not end up blocked.


 * But personally, I think WP has bad situation in regards to some some of these subjects, after Katzmik stopped editing he started publishing his point of view in general science/philosophy/history journals, and Tkuvho adds _all_ of Katzmik's papers nearly as soon as they appear online, giving his point of view (in my opinion) undue weight.  But a source, is a source, is a source and I think I will publish actual mathematics then continue my disagreements about whether or not Cauchy was invoking microcontinuity when he stated the point-wise limit of continuous functions is continuous, or if he made a mistake.  So I gave up, and moved on to other projects. Now I am very cautiously putting my toe back in the water. I thought the goal I was helping with was to end up with just a redirect, so that is the direction I am moving in.Thenub314 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Strichartz estimate


The article Strichartz estimate has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTHOW

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, please notify me if my nomination was made in error. Keep up the good mathematical work. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have taken too or three steps back today. But I will keep this in mind. Thenub314 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember your signature
Remember to sign your posts.  Lightbreather (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks. Thenub314 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (You were a participant in a talk-page discussion given as evidence in this discussion.) The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion...
Unfortunately, I seemed to have reached and impasse with Scalhotrod regarding statments about the rise of the militia movement in the United States. While I added both references that were both primary research articles as well as secondary survey articles, Scalhotrod feels these statements are speculative. Unfortunately the vast majority of social analysis is speculative by this metric. The survey article reviewed books with both pro and anti militia themes and concluded that all four books agreed as to the root cause of the rise of the movement. How is this not up to WP standards? Thenub314 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit more research and found a less speculative source "Militias in the New Millennium: A Test of Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior" by Weeber and Gilbert, which provides polling data, and references to approximately 14 distinct articles supporting its claims. I will add this sentence back, bringing it in line with what this reference states. Thenub314 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored the material in a slightly modified form, attributing the "speculation" to Chermak, Crothers, Freilich, and Gallher. If we were to remove everything from this article that some consider speculative, we would likely end up with no article as Thenub points out: we're talking about politics here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the these people are WP:NOTABLE. Having a source that says "They say this..." is meaningless without establishing what's important about them saying it. WP policy is frustrating, isn't it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chermak and Freilich are criminologists. Crothers is a political scientist. Gallaher is a political geographer. They're as notable as any other academic/scholar cited in this article. Instead of just deleting things, it would be more WP:CIVIL to tag them, or discuss them. Why do you go to deletion first? Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagging, IMO, just mucks up the article. Its seen by everyone, Readers or otherwise, and it just makes the article seem (regardless of how controversial WE make it) less credible. I'm far from being alone in this opinion. We're not editing for ourselves. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to Scalhotrod. Quote from WP:NOTABLE: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article."  We are not testing to see if any of these people can have their own article. Articles on WP regularly reference otherwise not notable academics, because the vast majority of academics are not notable.Thenub314 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to quote someone's opinion, yes you do have to establish their expertise on the subject and one of those ways is through Notability. Otherwise we'd have idiots running around the site, citing any number of random people "who said this or that" and then quoting them like they are the perfect source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "one of the ways", what are some other ways? Being a university professor publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't cut it? Thenub314 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuation...
OK, so let me start by saying something you already know, we're discussing WP:RS reliable sources. The Overview section of that page pretty clearly lays out who is reliable, but gets into a grey area in defining what is not. One way is WP:PEOPLE, if an author has an article that demonstrates that person's authority on a subject, then they are considered reliable.

So to answer your question about "other ways", if a WP article does not exist then in order for a person (a university professor publishing in a peer reviewed journal or someone from any other walk of life) then they must be acknowledged directly by others as an expert. This usually comes in one or both of two forms, their work in a field is acknowledged by others in that field, or, journalists/writers/media sources/etc. cite that person's work sufficiently often (what is "sufficiently often" is debated from topic to topic here on WP) to make that person a defacto expert in the field even if they are not regarded by their peers in that manner.

For example, if enough mathematicians have the opinion (and its published so that we can cite it) that Mr. X is an expert on "hyperspace calculations" then its perfectly acceptable to state in an article, "According hyperspace calculations expert Mr. X, its not possible for the Millennium Falcon to make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. On the other hand, without establishing notability/reliability for the expert in question, the above statement has about as much credibility as "Mrs. Butterworth said that the world is round". I'm using completely silly examples, but I hope you still get the point.

So is "a university professor publishing in a peer reviewed journal" automatically accepted as a WP:RS, nope. At this point, a deeper examination is required of the person's expertise, background, and work in that field to make any further determination. This is where sources begin to be debated ad nauseum on WP. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, so if we want to get down to brass tacks, one of the papers in our current discussion was published in "Social Problems" which has an impact factor of about 1.7, which is very good and a very [decent ranking among US journals http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=0&category=3312&country=US&year=2012&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd] in that subject. The particular paper was cited over 100 times according to google scholar, over 60 times according to Web of Science.  And I also included citation to secondary sources which made similar claims for completeness.  Would this be in your opinion up to snuff?


 * Believe it or not, I really agree WP needs to be stricter in its sourcing requirements. On this talk page you'll find plenty of arguments that lead people to publish papers (in what are my opinion low quality journals) which then immediately get cited and included into WP.  These are journals I can't even find impact data on, and represent some fairly fringe POV.  But sadly you can't win 'em all. Thenub314 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so we're essentially on the same page about this. BTW, it wasn't until somewhat recently that I found out just how "messed up" the academic journal publishing world really is. I had not idea that was such a volume of "junk journals", the low quality ones that you're referring to.

And yes, I agree as well that there needs to be stricter guidelines, or if nothing else, just better, more detailed explanations of what is not just "reliable", but a "quality" source.

Back to the paper in question, I read the article on impact factor and granted this is a new concept to me, but 1.7 doesn't seem terribly impressive considering all the press and media attention that a subject like "gun control" receives. If the paper had anything really cogent to say, wouldn't it be much higher? Are their journals that publish papers on similar topics that receive higher impact factors? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Impact factors vary a lot by subject and type of journal. And some journals have been known to game the scale.  Which is why I also gave a ranking.  But 1.7 is better then even the cream of the crop mathematics journals, and if you expand from 2 to 5 years the number goes up to 2.3.  Now, as far as press and media attention goes, that in general shouldn't really impact the academic publishing world.  But even if it did, that 1.7 is not for the paper itself but the Journal as a whole and the journal also publishes papers on much more esoteric things.  So basically I am suggesting that the paper is published in a good journal, so it will have a real editorial review process.  But I noticed one of the secondary sources I gave might meet your requirements more easily.  See your talk page. Thenub314 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can understand the variance in factors from journal to journal and I'm not surprised by gaming in the slightest. So if I understand this correctly, the journal articles on average have been cited 1.7 times in the last 2 years or roughly once a year. Some articles more than 1.7, some articles less than 1.7, and some possibly not at all. Do we know if the particular paper was cited or are we basing the credibility of the paper on the reputation of the journal it was published in?

What's the secondary source? After all the edits, I'm a little lost in the minutia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We do know how many times this was cited. (You can scroll up, but I will repeat it here) Google scholars listed over 100 papers citing it, Web of science listed over 60.   The secondary source was Chip Berlet's book review of 4 books: "Searching for a Demon"; "Rage on the Right", "American Militias"; "On the Fault Line" that he did for the journal "Contemporary Sociology".  The books cover a broad perspective on the subject of Militia's in the US.  Some saying that they are being demonized, Rage on the Right clearly gives a less favourable view, etc.  He comments that all 4 books agree that gun control legislation, ruby ridge, and waco gave rise to the militia movement in the US.  He is an expert on this, he has a wikipedia page, etc, as I commented on your page, he should be a reliable source by all the criteria we have discussed.

Ah, got it, sorry I missed it, and admittedly its impressive. OK, so what is the content that the source supports and is its placement in context for the article and the section? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence added to American politics case
You referred to Azrel, rather than Arzel in two places. I have corrected it.

As you note, the evidence phase is, in theory, closed. However, there are some complications, so I will query the arbs to see how to proceed. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks and thanks!Thenub314 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have confirmation that your evidence is fine as to timing. We will formally close the evidence phase soon.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)
An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice
A discussion you recently participated in has resumed here:


 * Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States

Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost surely and Almost everywhere
Recently you tagged this articles as proposted to being merged, but forgot to give a motivation and start the discussion on the linked talk page. I therefore removed the tags. KKoolstra (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Do you object to me adding the tags back and starting the discussion?  From my point of view these two articles are about precisely the same thing, they just represent a slightly different nomenclature in different sub-areas of mathematics. Thenub314 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, of course. It is just that somethimes merger proposals are posted on the articles without any followup. KKoolstra (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

CharaChorder moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to CharaChorder. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because '''This article and sources provided appear to focus on a specific product, rather than the company, which means its notability criteria per WP:ORGCRITE in current form and the article is not ready for mainspace. However, given press coverage and potential impact of the product, it might be worth to use this content for a new article on the CharaChorder keyboard only. I am moving this to draftspace to give the author an opportunity to rewrite and see if it might fit criteria then. As a general advice, always consult WP:MOS to make sure formatting and citations are properly included.'''. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Ppt91 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree, so I am being bold and moving it back to article space. The article is a stub, but as far as I can see, meets the criteria cited.  In particular the Dallas innovates article the companies fund raising, origin, and the size of the potential market.  I disagree it is about a single product. Several of the other articles discuss other products not just the "keyboard only". If there are other specific issues you see, let me know and I will work on correcting them. Thenub314 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

CharaChorder moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, CharaChorder, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the button atop the article. Silikonz 💬 22:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous mover's rationale. Most to all of the sources are about the company's products, rather than the firm itself. I would greatly encourage an article about the keyboard itself instead, which appears to be much more notable. Silikonz 💬 22:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thenub314 I did not have a chance to reply to previous message before the page being draftified again, but just wanted to echo the words of encouragement by @Silikonz and think this is valuable material which could make for an engaging article dedicated to the product. Ppt91 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 The "told you so" is bullying and discouraging. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by commenting further beyond confirming for yourself that you were indeed correct?

Don't worry you'll get your way. I am thoroughly chastised. You can return to scaring off other editors, your work here is done. Thenub314 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thenub314 I am sorry to hear this. There is no "I told you so" and I am unsure as to how reiterating my encouragement for your new article in any way constitutes bullying. Ppt91 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ppt91 Look, I am not hear to create wikidrama for anyone. You say your unsure. I'll explain, if your interested, and you think I'm someone worth listening to. But I'll wait for consent before I go dropping walls of text. Thenub314 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thenub314 The ultimate decision to move without redirect was made by another independent editor based on the same criteria and concerns I had outlined earlier. That said, I offered my explanation as NPP in this case and reiterated my support for high-quality content. You are welcome to disagree with me, but any insinuations of my malice or "scaring off other editors" are entirely misdirected. I am sure you are worth listening to, as I am sure you continue to make valuable contributions to this website, but I am not interested in hearing and/or responding to any further unfounded character assassinations. Ppt91 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ppt91, For my part, I at least want to acknowledge my wording was too harsh. It was a bad moment both IRL and on wiki, and I should have taken a breather and toned it down. I hope you'll accept my apology. I still think will 'scare me off' and if your curious read on.
 * Without malice here's my perspective. My own objective and goals where to write a page collaboratively and get a few new editors on board. I stub an article and started recruiting on discord to get other people (and briefly had some success). That fell apart when the page was moved to draftspace, and it was frustrating.
 * The initial move also felt patronizing. I view it as essentially a soft delete that bypasses WP:AfD.  At least if it had been brought up there, there would have been 7 days, I could make a case.  Then if community consensus demanded WP:ATD-I, so be it.  Indeed I thought the WP:AfC stated "Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the project with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers." I have a similar number of edits as you, and cross-wiki I was once fairly active (CU, 'crat, etc, etc). So I think I meet the 'Established users in good standing...' clause, but this seems to be the process I am subjected to.  It does leave me asking, why does a single editor get to unilaterally decide to take down a page by an experienced wikipedian without an AfD? Without discussion or consensus?
 * Your second post was upsetting. We had a dispute, it was resolved in your favor. I was not edit warring. I hope you'll forgive my summarizing your comment briefly as saying, "Yeah, what they said." It added nothing new, and so came across as piling-on because the issue had been resolved.
 * I believe you meant well. But your an academic like me. I suspect you'd like to know when your words/actions don't have the impact you expected.  I am not going for character assassination, this is my talk page, not an WP:ArbCom.  I am not shouting to the world that Ppt91 is a bad guy.  I am telling you personally I had an issue with your reply. Would you rather an editor didn't tell you when you did something to upset them? (Again, I should have taken a softer tone in doing so.)
 * Anyways, I hope this post is in some small way helpful to you. Thenub314 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thenub314 I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to explain (and I am grateful for your apology). I know from my personal experience how frustrating it can be to work on a page for a long time only to have someone look at the page in what seems like a fleeting moment and make an apparently hasty determination as to whether the page is "worthy." However, that is not what it looks like from NPP standpoint (or, at the very least, it does not for me).
 * Despite not being nearly as experienced as many other reviewers who have been doing NPP for years, I take the task equally seriously and my main and only goal is to maintain high quality of articles according to the platform's criteria. I read your article knowing you are an experienced editor, I found it really interesting, and it was evident you put a considerable amount of intellectual labor into it. At the same time, I felt strongly that the article did not meet notability as a business but that it would certainly be a great candidate for product; going through AfD did not even cross my mind, because to me it was a matter of reorganizing the page that had potential and merit to meet the appropriate criteria.
 * Note that, as of now, I am not a PMR and do not have the authority to move a page without redirect (the pool of NPPs if less than 800 and the pool of PMRs is less than 300, which goes to show how few people even feel up to the task given the huge responsibility). I moved your article to draft, knowing that you have a right to contest--which you later did, along with explaining your rationale. I figured that you have a strong reason to do so and I was actually planning to reply to you later on, letting you know that I would still be adding several tags to ensure I follow the protocol re notability per earlier explanation.
 * By the time I was able to log back on and actually respond, another editor with PM rights had already reviewed the page independently and moved to draft without redirect, concurring with my original assessment. Did I think it was the right decision as far as the content and notability are concerned? Yes. But not because I wanted to prove a point or put you down, but simply due to the way I interpret and apply the rules which govern reviews. I never thought it would upset you so much to see that my additional note of support. I genuinely thought my reply was a kind and tactful way of acknowledging the validity of your project and never suspected that it would be received as an affront or something patronizing, let alone bullying. If that was hurtful, then I am sorry and I will make a note of it for future reviews.
 * I don't think of myself as better or more experienced or more academically capable etc.; there is no point in bringing up stats, either, because they are not a uniform measure of one's commitment to editorial integrity. Some people (and I am not saying you fall into that category) make editing seem like it's a race of some kind, producing a flurry of new articles with a lot of pride and with very little humility. When their decisions are challenged, as is often the case for those who prioritize quantity over quality, they get very upset because they feel a high edit count is a measure of authority.
 * My opinions and decisions have been challenged dozens of times on Wikipedia, often in a very frustrating way, and I have learned to not take it personally; 99% of the time, the serious and considerate editor on the other side is only trying to do what is best for maintaining high quality content. Please know that your perspective as an editor is important to me because the process is, as you have noted, inherently participatory.
 * I hope this explains things a bit more from my perspective. And I trust this message makes clear the respect I have for your work and contributions. Ppt91 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)