Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2004/Sep-Dec

New Article: The algebra of sets - request for comment.
I've just created a new "set theory" article: The algebra of sets I'd be interested if anyone has any comments. In a sense it's an expanded version of Simple theorems in the algebra of sets the latter being primarily just a list. One could argue that consequently the latter article is no longer necessary. But I can see the possible use of an article which simply lists results. Comments? Paul August 03:53, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - a few questions relative to the integration with the rest of WP. What you mean mostly is 'here is some explicit information about the Boolean algebra of sets'. Which might be useful to some people, indeed. Since the 'set of all sets' is chimerical, your 'algebra' is not precisely a Boolean algebra; the subsets of a given set X would give a Boolean algebra. I think this kind of placing would be helpful; and probably renaming the page. Charles Matthews 08:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Charles, thank you for your comments. As to the title, I took my lead from Simple theorems in the algebra of sets.  The word "algebra" here is not being used as a technical term, as say in "Boolean algebra" or "linear algebra" but rather as a descriptive term, for this collection of facts concerning "the basic properties and laws of sets, the set-theoretic operations of union, intersection, and complementation and the relations of set equality and set inclusion."  The motivation for using the word "algebra" beyond it's descriptiveness, is to help the reader make the connection to the perhaps more familiar notion of algebra of numbers.  It is a relatively common way of describing this material. For example Robert R. Stoll in Set Theory and Logic has a section titled "The Algebra of Sets", as does Seymore Lipschutz in his Set Theory and Related Topics (Schaum's Outline Series).  Having said that I'm not opposed to finding a better name for the article. I had also considered simply "Set algebra" as an alternative name. What name are you proposing?   As you say, and as is pointed out in the article, the power set of a given set is a Boolean algebra.  As to your other suggestion of "this kind of placing would be helpful" I'm not sure what this means, could you please be more specific? Thank you again. Paul August 16:41, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to see even more analogies with usual algebra. A) You never say explicitly which operation is the analog of addition and which of multiplication (does this make sense? If not, the article should explain that too). B) Analogs of (a <= b) => (a+c <= b+c) should be highlighted. C) perhaps to put to the right of every inequality the anaolg (if it exists) in usual algebra? Arrange everything in comparison tables? I feel I'm starting to float. Think about these. Gadykozma 12:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gadykozma, thanks for your comments. As far as the analogy holds, union is the analog of addition (in fact the union of two sets has been sometimes called their "sum") and Intersection is the analog of multiplication.  The article used the order of their mention to try to make this clear (perhaps a well placed "respectively" is needed.) As I partially said above, the use of this analogy is to help motivate these ideas for the reader, and to help place these facts concerning set theory in an appropriate setting. Including the fact that A &sube; B &rArr; (A &cup; C) &sube; (B &cup; C) is probably good in it's own right, that it continues the analogy is also nice.  But I think we should be careful about relying too heavily on the analogy.  It is not meant (by me at least ;-)) to be an article about the analogy. Paul August 16:41, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

cdot and times
In LaTeX markup, does \cdot equal \times?, that is do they represent the same mathmetical function or is it just a center-aligned dot? -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:08, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

\times: $$5 \times 5 = 25$$ ; \cdot: $$5 \cdot 5 = 25$$ -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:08, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are both multiplication. \cdot is more appropriate for advanced texts and \times for beginner level texts. Also \times is used in advanced text to denote "special" kinds of multiplication like vector product or Cartesian product. Gadykozma 14:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

variable letters
Probably doesn't matter, but is there any standard for variable letters? For instance, most people use i for the imaginary number and f(t) for a function vs time, but I am used to engineering convention, which uses j for the imaginary number (because i is current), and x(t), since f is frequency in fourier transforms, etc. should we just use whatever variables are conventional in each specific topic? and what about a topic like fourier transforms which are used in contexts with i for current but also used in unrelated contexts where the majority of people would be used to i for imaginary number? - Omegatron 01:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't use j for the square root of -1, unless the article has a strong engineering flavor, and in this case warn in the beginning.
 * Other issues you raised are pretty free. Not that I like x(t), but I don't see it as very distracting to understanding. Gadykozma 02:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ok. should you mention this on the wikiproject page?  yeah, and x(t) is confusing because of f(x).  but then it would be confusing when you transform to X(f), etc. etc. - Omegatron 02:21, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * In some cases, x(t) is the most appropriate, e.g. the vector-valued function of time x(t) = (x(t), y(t), z(t)). Revolver 05:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simple formulas

 * Some of what you say just isn't true: "If you enter a very simple formula...this will not be displayed using pgn but html, like this:", but this does display as a PGN for me. If you ask me to change my preferences, then many legitimate LaTeX formulas will becomes emasculated (see pi.) To see what I mean, you say the L^infin is "horrid", but it looks exactly the same as the L^p above to me! Why is one horrid and the other not?? Revolver 20:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Moved from project page 23:15, September 22, 2004 by Gadykozma)


 * It depends on your preferences, browser rendering of HTML, etc. I have tentatively converted to the "everything in math tags no regular text in italics" camp, and even switched my preferences to "render everything in PNG".  It takes a couple articles to get used to but then I liked it.  Most math websites look like that anyway. - Omegatron 20:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) (Moved from project page 23:15, September 22, 2004 by Gadykozma)


 * That's what I have now!! I've had it for weeks or months that way and still hate it. Perhaps it's my HTML text size relative to PNG. The PNG's are just TWICE as tall and FOUR times as big as HTML. This is what he meant above by "horrid". Revolver 21:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Moved from project page 23:15, September 22, 2004 by Gadykozma)


 * Actually, I think they were showing that the HTML rendering of TeX (not the PNGs) and the plain old HTML letters look different. The TeX rendered into HTML is in a serif font and kind of weird sizes, so it doesn't match with the rest of the text.  I guess some people like it like that.  You can change it in your user css if you really want, although you, Revolver, have always PNG, so it doesn't matter. - Omegatron 23:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, does it do this for you?: do the PNG's go below the bottom justification of the HTML text? It does for me. It's just the size of them, it's that they protrude below the line of text, so that e.g. the "p" in L^p is no longer a superscript, it reads horizontally on the same level as an HTML "p" (or very close). Revolver 21:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Moved from project page 23:15, September 22, 2004 by Gadykozma)


 * They look centered in the middle of the line to me. I used Firefox.  Bigger than the rest of the text, but I am used to it, and it looks better than the TeX rendered as HTML.  You see it like that on webpages all the time. - Omegatron 23:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I guess I didn't write it quite as well as I intended. What I had in mind was to convey two points: Anyone has a better idea how to convey this information? Gadykozma 23:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How Wikipedia displays simple formulas with the default parameters, which is what most users use (this need to be said!)
 * That people don't like when you change their text from one to the other (the only thing that everyone agreed on in the very very very very very very very long discussion).

Upright differential operators
I was extraordinary happy when I saw that subscripts that are not variables should be upright Far from everyone has understood that. Another thing people, even here at Wikipedia, don't put uphright is the differential operator, and I dislike it from the bottom of my heart! ;-) Wouldn't it be a good idea to advocate such "d":s, in integrals and derivatives, too be put upright rather than in italics? - Jolson 17:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, the "d" is upright in England but italicised in the United States. Being a United Stateser myself (my own personal conventions notwithstanding), I've seen quite a few examples of italics in the US and no exceptions. (More precisely, every time that I've ever noticed an upright "d" in published material, it turned out that the material was published in a foreign country.) Speaking more broadly, I'm against instituting unnecessary conventions on Wikipedia, and caution you (to avoid upsetting some people) against editing articles to fit your conventions. But by all means make your own "d"s upright when you write a new article (or rewrite an old one), if you wish. -- Toby Bartels 01:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pages for review
Hi guys. Could you review my page Marcinkiewitz theorem for correctness, fullness and especially readability? I tried to write it so that it will be readable (enjoyable?) by any graduate student or equivalent. Thanks Gadykozma 15:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the name is usually Anglicized as Józef Marcinkiewicz. I've changed the links accordingly. Terry 06:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. Gadykozma 14:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is another one I'd love input on, especially since I have no clue about the topic: Hearing the shape of a drum Gadykozma 14:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, you want research pages here is one loop erased random walk. Tell me what you think. Gady 19:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another to review, if you please, for completeness and especially accuracy: Small set.&mdash;msh210 22 Nov 2004

And another: Modulo. &mdash;msh210 21:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Math 1.0
I found Math 1.0 in a dusty corner. I think the goals and information needs to be merged with this WikiProject. Please take a look and salvage what you can. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)


 * Well, it's kind of optimistic. It would be great to have the mathematics of the 1990s, and the twenty-noughties even, properly covered here. In many cases that would involve just writing articles with 'long words' in them: red links to concepts that we don't have. So, sometimes it looks like we should just expand coverage of 'core areas', with the long-term goals of getting to the frontier of research. Sometimes I add surveys of topics, to move things ahead; or add isolated (at present) theorems or conjectures. What really does need to happen is that the coverage as a whole stays balanced, even if it's a bit humiliating that the Atiyah-Singer index theorem is 40 years old, and we really still can't state it exactly, yet. Charles Matthews 19:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem
Looks like the math formula need some work in this article - Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem, figured someone here could fix them. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)


 * Yes, the second had an inequality reversed, thanks. Charles Matthews 07:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Computability logic
As I have been editing a lot of articles in theoretical computer science lately, I noticed many references to computability logic on the pages. The ones I checked were inserted by User:Kntg. He is also the main editor of the computability logic article. My guess is the real name of the user is Giorgi Japaridze and he is hyping his own stuff. I am unable to decide whether his ideas should be included in wikipedia or not, they seem to be relatively new. What do you think ? MathMartin 18:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Since nobody responded, I looked into the matter though I do not know that much of either theoretical computer science or Wikipedia policies. As the article on computability logic explains, it is a new theory proposed by Japaridze in 2003 (MathSciNet lists only two papers on computability logic, both by Japaridze and published in 2003 and 2004; I've found no other references). User:Kntg has inserted a lot of references to Japaridze's work: they may be the same person or related (academically). I think there is no harm in having the computability logic article, though the status of the theory should probably be explained better. In my opinion, some links to the computability logic article are over the top (for instance, those at algorithm and computer science). Can somebody please give some further guidance to MathMartin? -- Jitse Niesen 13:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this for a while. The papers (or at least the one(s) in Annals of Mathematical Logic) are respectable. The links are not worth the prominence they are sometimes given; but I haven't done much about it except to tone down the coverage a little. At the moment it falls into the category of being a little bit annoying. We do have at least one active logician (User:Chalst) who could be consulted. Charles Matthews 13:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My main objection are the links he inserted in many computer science articles not directly related to the computability logic article. I will remove them where necessary. I will leave the computability logic article as is, althought I do not think recent research material (2003, 2004) is appropiate for wikipedia inclusion. MathMartin 14:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Japaridze and Computability Logic
I only just noticed this discussion. I had seen the disproportionately high profile the topic has taken, and wondered if maybe Japaridze was promoting his own material. A few points: PS. A point about the "no research" rule: the interpretation given at the authoritative Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says:
 * 1) While I'm sure that whoever did these edits has some investment, careerwise and/or emotional, in the topic, there are reasons to doubt it is Japaridze, namely whoever it is hasn't done a terribly good job of summarising the topic; I would normally expect a researcher to do a better job than this;
 * 2) I don't follow the detail of Japaridze's work myself, but a close colleague of mine does, and it is the real thing: solid research work that is well-motivated and perhaps has the potential to make a real impact;
 * 3) The edits are gung-ho and lack perspective but they were not abusive and they have stopped. Take care when reintroducing appropriate perspective not to throw away perfectly good content: that cure would be worse than the disease.  Charles Stewart 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See No original research.

which I understand as saying that once ideas have passed the test of peer review, they are fair game for summarisation on Wikipedia. So Japaridze's work passes that test. Charles Stewart 22:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I think the business has been handled adequately, so far; the edits have been 'POV', obviously, but the WP response has been 'professional', i.e. proportionate, patient, and not too reactive. Charles Matthews 08:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trace
I'm wondering if we have an article on trace as it pertains to my understanding of it in crypto. That is, if $$\beta \in GF(2^m)$$ then $$\operatorname{Tr}(\beta ) = \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \beta^{p^i}$$ (forgive the crappy LaTeX, this isn't an article, just trying to get my point across ;)). I see trace (matrix) and field trace, but neither seem to be a good fit.  If someone who understands these trace articles better can confirm that neither is what I'm speaking of, let me know and I can write up an article about the trace and its properties.  Thanks.  CryptoDerk 00:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's the special case of the field trace appropriate in a finite field of characteristic two (notation here: I think you mean that with p = 2, or GF(pm). That's because any trace map is the sum of images of an element when you apply all elements of the Galois group to it; and here the Galois group is cyclic, generated by the p-th power map. Charles Matthews 08:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CryptoDerk 15:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Zech?
Does anyone know who Zech's logarithms are named after? I tried various google searches and the only thing I can find is that there's some guy Boris Zech who published something in 2004 (although since the title is in German, I don't know what it's about), but MacTutor doesn't seem to have any info on anyone named Zech. Mainly, I'm just curious but it'd also be nice to have that info in the article. CryptoDerk 20:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Topological spaces and List of manifolds
It seems to me that Category:Topological spaces and List of manifolds largely duplicate one anoher. (More accurately: they would duplicate one another if they were full.) Seems like an unnecessary redundancy. Perhaps we can do as follows: Add Category:Manifolds as a subcategory of Category:Topological spaces; list manifolds only there (not in the parent category, per WP:CG), and get rid of List of manifolds. What say you all?  &mdash;msh210 15:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No. We have had a similar discussion. Lists are in general more useful and flexible than categories. I don't understand the argument, actually. Redundancy is not a criticism on a wiki. Charles Matthews 17:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SKI combinator calculus
I just created the beginning of this article and would like to invite my fellow mathematicians to contribute and edit. I've just started to learn Wiki LaTeX, but I think I did a pretty good job with things. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:01, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to break the news, but it doesn't seem that there's anything in SKI combinator calculus that wasn't already in the article on combinatory logic. Perhaps SKI combinator calculus (and SKI calculus) should redirect to combinatory logic, and anything in SKI combinator calculus not already in combinatory logic should be merged there. -- Dominus 18:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking at the two articles, I'm not sure that they are redundant, even though they do cover some of the same information. If a merger is necessary, I don't know where to begin.  However, I think that an article on the SKI system could exist independently from the article on combinatory logic in general.  --L33tminion | (talk) 15:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

User:Jim Slim vandal attack
User:Jim Slim, clearly mathematically literate, has been adding plausible nonsense to general topology and functional analysis page. Please will all look out for 'tweaks' of mathematical articles that are jargon-filled rubbish. There was a whole hoax page. This is an exploratory vandal attack, testing us. Charles Matthews 14:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Since the user page claims that none of his edits are good faith, I suggest that we don't seek any good addition he has made amidst the rubbish, but rather have an admin block the account and do a blanket automatic revert. BACbKA 14:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I blocked him right after Charles put the note on the page. CryptoDerk 15:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

There was another hoax page created recently, which I deleted. Can anyone verify that Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix is genuine? I now think it is suspect. Charles Matthews 22:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I checked it on google (and also "Bayleigh equivalence") and only references I found were copied from wikipedia. I think it's a hoax. Samohyl Jan 00:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is now at VfD: Votes for deletion/Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix. Please come and vote - there are good reasons. Charles Matthews 22:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We now have an 'admission' of the hoax nature of the page. I am taking this forward at User talk:ExplorerCDT. Charles Matthews 12:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears this isn't the first issue with this user, see Requests_for_comment/ExplorerCDT. Terry 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current position re User:ExplorerCDT
See User:Charles Matthews/Hoax investigation for deleted user talk

User talk:ExplorerCDT is now being purged of what I write there, allegedly unread (fingers-in-ears and adolescent abuse). The current and unsatisfactory position with this user and hoax material is this:


 * claims has edited here only since September, and as an anon only as the presumed User:66.171.124.70;
 * claims no sockpuppets;
 * claims mathematics background not much more than some calculus;
 * claims has not edited mathematics pages;
 * claims not the author of the hoax CNOM page;
 * claims no knowledge of that page;
 * claims no associates or easy access to mathematically-educated persons;
 * claims no knowledge of other recent hoaxes here;
 * no explanation of behaviour at Vfd;
 * no explanation of allusion to 'clues' at Vfd.

Certainly no apology at all. Standing against this user are a number of things. User page has a number of loudmouth points, in particular against civility and 'hatred' of conventions on lower-case (a possible gripe?). In effect it admits user has tested the system with pages to see how quickly they are deleted.

The 66.171.124.70 edits include vandalism and cutting mentions at Vandalism in progress. Starts with edits to a secret society page, a recurring interest (which is one reason why thinking a 'conspiracy' to hoax is not really far-fetched, at least to me). Abuse in edit summaries, edit wars, tasteless edits, generally obnoxious behaviour. There is no real reason to doubt this is the same user (cf. continuity of the Rutgers University edits) given that the first half of the IP number has been admitted.

The whole pattern is suspect, to me. There are some scholarly edits. If you asked me 'is this a potential malicious and disinformative editor?' I would say yes. No smoking gun as far as hoax mathematics, though.

Oh yes, and claims inside knowledge of the Mafia.

Well, happy holidays everyone.

Charles Matthews 19:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't need to answer to you, with your Torquemada-esque Inquisition, sneakily worded insinuations, and boldfaced accusations (without merit). I've given you the answers your required.  No matter what I say, you will still think I'm responsible for the CNOM hoax. I didn't even know Wikipedia existed when it was created.  Sure, this is going to be rude and hostile behavior but take it on its face value. Go fuck off you pompous windbag! &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is being mooted that the ArbCom should be brought into this. Now, that really would be inquisitorial, and an adversarial process where just about anything you ever wrote here could be brought up. Think about it. Charles Matthews 20:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have, and everything points to you on a crusade, and being an ass about it. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that disinformation added to WP by bad faith editors is a potential problem to which there is no single, simple solution. I think hoaxes are no joke at all. What do you think, sir? Charles Matthews 21:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree, except I take your question as a loaded allegation that I'm responsible for the hoax (which I am not). &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hard to explain your behaviour at VfD, then. You don't have a particular interest in mathematics here. You don't have that much background in it. You decide to make circumstantial claims that the page is genuine, citing a classic text which just happens to be one of the longer works you could have mentioned. Given your remarkably arrogant approach generally, and your specific evasiveness about the 'clues' ... Ah yes - reminds me to ask, what were the 'clues'? The thing does fit together like a crossword; while


 * matrix = womb

is general knowledge, the


 * John von Neumann -> John Newman -> James Newbirth

and


 * Bayleigh -> Cayley, Caesar cipher/caesarian

things (assuming I'm not imagining it all) requires a certain kind of puzzle-oriented thinking.

Charles Matthews 22:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The user page itself didn't sound that aggressive to me, but ExplorerCDT certainly seemed like he tacitly admitted he knew about the hoax. His behavior since then has been very odd. -- Walt Pohl 22:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Waltpohl. I left a comment at ExplorerCDT's talk page, which was quickly deleted .  Dbenbenn 22:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, ExplorerCDT's actions seem very odd. I, like many other editors I suspect, would like some explanation of them from him. Paul August &#9742; 22:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * At this point in time, I don't trust ExplorerCDT enough for an explanation by him to be sufficient. I feel that a third-party investigation should be undertaken. --Carnildo 08:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He has claimed that his initial support of the hoax was based on a misreading of Ablowitz & Stegun, and has almost promised to back this up with a page reference, see User_talk:Paul August and User_talk:ExplorerCDT, although he claims currently that his copy of A&S is packed away due to a move. If that page reference is provided and checks out then I think that would be a satisfactory explanation of events and no further action or investigation would be necessary.  Benefit of the doubt, etc.  Terry 23:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, he's obviously lying. Here's why I think so:  Anyone with even a moderate amount of mathematic sophistication would have immediately recognized that article as being pseudomathematical nonsense, and a number of the other participants in the VfD discussion did point this out.  ExplorerCDT not only claims to own a copy of A&S, but also implies that he spends enough time actually reading it that he can not only recognize that the topic is covered there, but also that he can recolect that it is referred to in "several mentions and footnotes", without even having to check.  But someone who owns and browses A&S with that degree of seriousness has far more than enough mathematical maturity to immediately recognize that the CNOM article was nonsense, and that even if it weren't nonsense, it is not the sort of thing that is covered in A&S.  What we have here is someone who has heard of A&S but who is not sufficiently familiar with its contents to realize that his claim was an obvious lie.  -- Dominus 01:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Dominus, you're a jackass who hasn't seen straight for years...that's the problem with your head so far up your ass. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Your comment would be more convincing if you actually refuted his argument. I suggest you try this before resorting to insults. Isomorphic 07:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no sense refuting the deluded close-minded rantings of someone (Dominus) who should have been institutionalized long ago. Only the insane engage in exercises of futility, and I'm not close to being driven insane (yet). Just rage. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 07:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further point, though. 66.171.124.70 comes up as Herndon VA when I do a whois search. Given the data below, do you really expect us to regard that as a coincidence? Charles Matthews 11:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wonder if in your investigative work, Detective Matthews, you came to realize that IP address is one of a block of IP addresses owned by Verizon. The Virginia legislature gave benefits an tax write-offs to computer companies, and most large internet providers have located their headquarters there (including AOL, fyi).  For someone who appears to be somewhat intelligent, you really are clueless.  I live in NYC and haven't been to Virginia in 4 years. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that my limited technical knowledge might be exposed. This was, however, one way in which your lack of complicity might have been supported. I am still interested in the Virginia connection. Charles Matthews 17:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Traceroute indicates a location for 66.171.124.70 near Newark, which would be consistent with the interest in Rutgers. Geobytes confirms this with a Jersey City result (right near NYC). Michael Ward 17:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've opened an RfC on this: Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2 --Carnildo 23:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:199.248.201.253
This IP number clearly had a close interest in the CNOM page, wikifying it and linking from Arthur Cayley. Later this IP number created the hoax Bryleigh's Theorem page. Other vandal edits (I'm going to ban anyway on the strength of a long track record), including impersonations. Geography: Maryland/North Carolina? I'll do a whois on some of these IPs. Charles Matthews 10:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's Frederick MD for 199.248.201.253. 65.177.73.18, original creator, comes up as Reston VA. Charles Matthews 10:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Text of the Bryleigh's Theorem page:

In differential equations, Bryleigh's Theorem is associated with the existence of and validity of solutions to these equations.

In general, Bryleigh's Theorem states that if we have a solution to a differential equation, and this solution satisfies the differential equation, then the solution is a "valid and true" solution, no matter how we may have obtained this solution. Among other important guarantees, Bryleigh's Theorem guarantees the validity of the guess-and-check method of solving differential equations, in which we try to guess elementary antiderivative solutions.

Bryleigh's Theorem is first noted in a 1785 work of English mathematician Jayne Bryleigh (1720-1801). It is an important generalization of Kimber's Third Theorem and Bonnie's Slope Field Lemma.

Bryleigh's Theorem is often also applicable in other realms of mathematics, such as linear algebra and group theory.

Charles Matthews 11:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also a possible link to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Charles Matthews 11:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Qualculus
"Qualculus is a branch of mathematics involving the modeling of changes in state...." Google turns up only 5 hits, none to academic sites. search. This smacks of hoax to me. See also Roidiphidol by same anon author, with no Google hits. If none of the math experts around here have heard of Qualculus, I will vfd. Michael Ward 18:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This has actually been used to design computer systems but is not well known. Some companies where it has been used are Lucent, IBM and OCLC.


 * The update to this shows some significant material which demonostrates factual computer knowledge. It also has examples of how it would be used to design a database. This is not out of line with computation.


 * The past projects this has been used on include IBM's Corepoint SA, Lucent Technologies 7RE PTS switching system, and OCLC RMS intergration project.


 * It has been mostly used by computer consultants. There have been some white papers on this but not widely distributed. Since it was originally developed by University of Wisconsin students, it is regarded as public domain.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.133.16 (talk • contribs) 19:14, December 27, 2004


 * Note, above comment is by 24.145.133.16, one of the two anon ip's to Qualculus.  Both ip's resolve to Columbus OH, suggesting the possibility that this anon is actually the orginal author of Qualculus. Michael Ward 19:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Both articles look bogus to me. A couple of "white papers", do not, a branch of mathematics make. Either a hoax or "original research". Unless better references are provided both should be deleted. Paul August &#9742; 19:38, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks very bogus. I'll ask a friend who's at Wharton later today, since this isn't my area, but "baka" (the Baka matrix) means stupid in Japanese, I believe.  CryptoDerk 19:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * In this case, Baka is a person: 24.145.133.16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.133.16 (talk • contribs) 06:42, December 28, 2004


 * I agree that it is very suspect. Note that Qualculus says that the project was listed in Apple Computer's "Wheels for the Mind" in the winter 1986 edition, while (follow the link, then click on "Wheels for the Mind" in the sidebar) suggests that the first issue of this magazine was in Nov 1998. However, I would recommend waiting a few days and making absolutely sure that the article is bogus before listing it. Note that we also had to argue a bit before the article on Cayley-Newbirth matrix was accepted as a hoax.


 * Wheels for the Mind came out about the time the Macintosh came out, which was around 1984. 24.145.133.16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.133.16 (talk • contribs) 06:42, December 28, 2004


 * To the anonymous contributor 24.145.133.16 (cross-posted to User talk:24.145.133.16): This should be rather easy to resolve, since you are apparently familiar with Qualculus. Could you please give some verifiable information, like precise references to the white papers or the participants of the Wisconsin project and any reports they wrote? Thank you.


 * Jitse Niesen 20:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 24.145.133.16's answered as follows:


 * "A draft of the white paper can be be found at: http://www.angelfire.com/movies/heme/Math/Nadair.htm


 * David Baka was the lead of the project.


 * The discussion on "Wheels for the Mind" is incorrect, It was started well before 1986. I have hard copies of it. Of course that was before the internet."


 * I verified that the magazine was indeed around in 1986. However, I'm still looking for more verifiable information, like answers to any of these questions. Do you know the title and/or author of the article in "Wheels for the Mind" in which the Wisconsin project was described, or perhaps the page number? Where did you get the magazine (separate editions are published in different countries). Is this design methology described in other professional or scholarly journals? In which department and context did the Wisconsin project take place? What is the current occupation of David Baka, and what was his position in Wisconsin? Thanks again, and sorry about giving you such a hard time. -- Jitse Niesen 15:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I asked my friend who is getting a Ph.D. at Wharton. He states "This is bullshit.  I've never heard of any of this and... my area IS matching supply with demand".  CryptoDerk 20:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * This has got to be a hoax. It looks like they took SQL as the model, and then added a bunch of vague verbiage. -- Walt Pohl 05:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * SQL is a common database language so any subject about databases would probably fit SQL. The purpose of the example is to use something that is familar and build on it. I have used this method to design databases. I have also used it to design Java programs.


 * I have found it much more useful then flow charts or UML because it lends easily to asking questions, where as other methods tend to pigion hole you into a particular design.


 * If no one here uses it, that's fine with me. I don't need a PHD from Wharton to figure out how to design something.24.145.133.16


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.133.16 (talk • contribs) 06:42, December 28, 2004

Compare details above with details from this profile of a David Baka with those of a David Baka listed as a speaker for the 2011 Columbus Code Camp (CCC) which has a presentation on Qualculus. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

White paper
The "white paper" written by David Baka and posted at seems to be somebody's (bad) attempt to model a query access and processing language. Whatever it is, that white paper is very badly written. David Baka appears to be a real person, however. According to his summary at Amazon
 * Dave Baka has written code for almost every major telephone company in the US. He has been a consultant to several Fortune 500 corporations including IBM and Lucent Technologies.

However, whatever Qualculus is, if it is anything at all, it is not "a branch of mathematics involving the modeling of changes in state. It is related to computation and discrete mathematics". The way it is described in the article, it is at best a graphical database query access language for commercial use. Also the following post at [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/838576/posts free republic] makes the whole thing look very suspicious.CSTAR 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A search for "Baka matrix" finds only the Angelfire pages. A search for "Baka matrices" finds nothing. This is either an idiosyncratic concept with no references elsewhere, or a hoax. And this suggest pseudomathematics at best. -- Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.225.12 (talk • contribs) 18:09, December 28, 2004


 * Yep, basically agree. Although I was more inclined to regard it as an idiosyncratic concept,  the URL path is certainly strange...movies? www.angelfire.com/movies/heme/Math/Qualculus.htm.  There is no reason to be sure it is even Baka's "white paper" at all. CSTAR 18:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, baka in Japanese means crazy. Charles Matthews 13:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"I am taking this to vfd"
I am taking this to vfd. None of the math-savvy editors here have heard of it. Possibly some computational experts over in vfd will recognize it, but I doubt it. No verifiable info given. No references given. No google evidence found. Article is not intelligible. Sole anon defender is likely orginal author (based on ip location). Original research at best. Probable hoax. Michael Ward 18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Using images from the St.Andrews Uni. they believe are public domain?
There are a lot of [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/BiogIndex.html mathematicians' biographies at the Uni. of St. Andrews], featuring photos that they believe are in the public domain, yet haven't kept appropriate records about every image history. Is it OK to upload such images to Wikipedia? How should I tag them? BACbKA 21:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't provide a reference page on this, although maybe someone else can, but I recall a user contacting them about using materials from their website and they said no. That being said, I'm not sure if that applies to materials that even they may not have permission for, or if they were referring to text only.  I believe that the user that contacted them did post their reply on their user page or a subpage of their user page. CryptoDerk 13:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Look at User:Wile E. Heresiarch, bottom of the page, for this. Charles Matthews
 * Thanks for your reply. I would presume this is about the biographies proper though, and not the images they themselves describe as public domain to the best of their knowledge. Have you followed through the above link on copyright and read what they say themselves about their images? BACbKA 14:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My opinion, FWIW, it that a fairuse tag would be appriariate, since its wording mentions the public domain; and I would take the trouble to point back at (and copy the text of) the St. Andrews webpage in the Image page. In the event that an issue is ever raised, at least we will have an audit trail which supports our contention of fairuse. Just my opinion, though. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Why fairuse and not pd, if the wording mentions the public domain? I've tagged commons:Image:Aleksandrov_Aleksandr_1950s.jpeg as PD meanwhile and did like you suggested wrt pointing back and copying the text. Everybody is welcome to re-tag/re-annotate there if I did smth wrong. Thanks a lot to everyone for the guideance! BACbKA 22:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Considering that they seem conscious of image copyright issues, I'd wager that these images are quite likely to all be public domain. We have enough images falsely marked public domain that if we did use them in print, some careful filtering would be necessary in any case. Independent verification for each wouldn't hurt, though. Deco 20:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK, I've asked around various people about the only specific image I have uploaded from there so far for the Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov article, and they also think the image is in the public domain since they believe they've seen it in the Soviet media back in the 50s. Independently, I am working to get a solid specific permission to use a much better image from [1]  depicting A.D. in 1952, so it's temporary in any case. BACbKA 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I came across the University of St Andrews site independently (googling Paul Halmos), then remembered this discussion. I agree that what they say about PD is probably fine. While at st-and.ac.uk, I looked up Eugene Dynkin, an old advisor of mine. The picture they have of him is just a lower-quality version of the picture he has on his personal web site. Just another data point to keep in mind. Dbenbenn 02:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)