User talk:David Eppstein/2018b

Is this^[1] a sufficient reference for the edit? —Hobart (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To me that is clear evidence that it is off-topic for the Conway's Game of Life article. Because something in "a cellular space of dimensions higher than our spacetime" is a different cellular automaton; the Game of Life itself can only be two-dimensional. So it belongs in Category:Cellular automata in popular culture (where it already is!) but not in the Game of Life article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the review! —Hobart (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to mention (since you were involved in the talk pages about Opeyemi Enoch's attempt at a proof of the rh) that the Riemann Hypothesis is now proven by a Wikipedia editor (me). The proof is in an 8 page paper on viXra, with full details in the follow-up, unlike Enoch's papers these are online http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0703vF.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0317vD.pdf . The proof uses nothing beyond second-year calculus techniques (double integrals) . There won't be an attempt to modify the Wikipedia article since viXra is not a reliable source, but I thought you'd want to know about the outcome anyway, that the rh is true. Createangelos (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Good of you to let us know first. EEng 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So the writeup is not fully detailed, not peer-reviewed, and not even on a reputable server? I think I'll wait. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're just jealous he proved rh. But if you hurry you could crack NPC. EEng 23:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(found my mistake, never mind)Createangelos (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well keep up the good work. EEng 23:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Related article pseudomathematics now up for AfD. But in my mind the distinction between cranks and honorable amateurs is that (unlike CA here) the cranks refuse to admit their mistakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grothendieck got upset with Deligne because his proof of the last of Weil conjecures circumvented the use of standard conjectures. Similarly many would be upset with an elementary proof of Riemann hypothesis as to quote Michael Harris it is widely believed that the completion of Langlands' program is intimately connected with it. The article currently does NOT mentions the word Langlands at all (it didn't even mentioned Complex analysis(!!) until I introduced it). I have added many quotes related to this topics to Wikiquote however the aesthetics of this particular Harris quote (in an appendix with number 49(!)) does not satisfy my tastes. I won't add it but won't revert if any of you do add it. Solomon7968 05:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That Burton quote is bizarre. How could it be "so unexpected, connecting two seemingly unrelated areas" to link number theory and complex analysis? They've been linked since Euler's solution of the Basel problem using the series expansion of the sine function in 1735, over 100 years before Riemann formulated his hypothesis. As for Langlands, it seems relevant to point out that Langlands program doesn't mention the Riemann hypothesis, either. Surely when there are two connected topics, we should hope for the more advanced one to mention the more well-known one, first? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably either of them doesn't mention the other because few Wikipedians (ONLY ONE?) have grasp of this connection as this is just too too deep. I say only one Wikipedian who uses a three letter user name separated by dots and a Fields Medal winner. I won't link to his user page but I see DE that you have posted on his talk page congratulating for being elected to the NAS and he replied back. He didn't replied to me (twice) and I wonder what made him do so in your case as he (to my neutral eyes) has NOT revealed his identity. Your research interest and university affiliation doesn't intersect either so I guess it is unlikely you discussed Wikipedia/Math in real life/on Email. How is it, I am genuinely curious to know. Solomon7968 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I think he got driven away as one too many of his articles was put up for deletion. He hasn't edited for over a year. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see. But to think in other way maybe it is better that he can do the more important task of producing original mathematics without distraction and maybe solve a millennium problem to gain immortality. That's the real world's future which may take decades. The future for the Wiki math project seems to be completing bios of AMS fellows and ICM speakers which should take few years NOT decades from now. BTW you still didn't answered my question if you interacted with him in real life. You are in CS and he pure math. Solomon7968 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've interacted with plenty of pure mathematicians off-wiki, but not him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the rollback on your talk page...my error, fat finger syndrome. Apologies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries...I was working on something else and didn't even notice until seeing your message. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Did You Know...?" Reviewer's Barnstar

Thank you for your work in evaluating articles that are submitted for review so they can be mentioned in the DYK section of Wikipedia’s Main Page. I have often wondered why reviewers often don't get accolades for their work since they often put in as much time as those who improve content. The effort needed to participate in this area of Wikipedia is significant. I don't think most other editors realize what a service you are doing to help showcase new, expanded or recently promoted GA articles. What you do provides an incentive for new and experienced editors to continue improvement and creation of content. I find my curiosity piqued by the DYKs. You do a great job and help me gain insight into the range of topics that Wikipedia covers. You’ve put in the time and effort to improve content and therefore deserve recognition and appreciation.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome for the reviews! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you see any other pardon (NOT biographical) articles, e.g. Pardon of Richard Nixon, in Category:Pardon recipients or its many subcategories? The person is already in Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, for someone with your number of edits, I'm a bit surprised that you'd violate WP:ESDONTS. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The context: Clarityfiend somehow thinks that Pardon of Joe Arpaio should be removed from categories about pardons. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction: pardon recipients. Also, this is a diffusing category, so this article doesn't belong for a second reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've found a solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there; I'm a first-time reviewer. I've suggested what might be a better hook for Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye on the Nominations page. I wonder if you'd mind checking it and seeing if you agree. Cheers, —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT is quite clear on non-duplication of articles in parent and child categories. That being said ...

For Yuriko Renardy - possibly:

• Category:Australian mathematicians should have a non-diffusing sub-Category:Australian men mathematicians
• Category:Australian mathematicians should be a {{container}} category, with all articles sub-categorized by gender and/or century.

For Thomas Gerald Room - possibly:

• Category:Australian cryptographers should be a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"What about the men?" Really?? Women form an important subcategory of mathematicians because of the historic and extreme discrimination against them. No such thing is true for men. You need to learn about what non-diffusing categories are for, and why. They are a clear exception to the parent category rule. As for Room: he was a mathematician, period. We don't keep Alan Turing or Andrew M. Gleason or W. T. Tutte out of the mathematician categories because they also did crypto. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consult someone listed at Category:Category theorists. EEng 19:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't keep Alan Turing or Andrew M. Gleason or W. T. Tutte out of the mathematician categories because they also did crypto.

• Alan Turing is in Category:20th-century mathematicians, Category:English mathematicians and Category:British cryptographers but Category:British cryptographers is not a subcategory of either of the other two.
• Andrew M. Gleason is in Category:American cryptographers but not the supercategory Category:American mathematicians.
• W. T. Tutte is in Category:British cryptographers but not the parent Category:British mathematicians.

... non-diffusing categories ... are a clear exception to the parent category rule

Category:Australian cryptographers is not currently a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. As I explicitly suggested previously, perhaps it should be. If you think it should be, tag it as such.

In any case Thomas Gerald Room should probably be moved from Category:Australian mathematicians to the more specific Category:20th-century Australian mathematicians, which would also resolve the issue. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by using Category:20th-century Australian mathematicians. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch! Although to me the fix seems so far removed from the "problem" that it seems clear to me there is something wrong with our definition of what constitutes a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

the fix seems so far removed from the "problem" ... — Agreed! But it ought not be too difficult to resolve the underlying problem.

1. If all cryptographers are necessarily mathematicians (I think that they are) then Category:Australian cryptographers is rightly a subcategory of Category:Australian mathematicians, and (per WP:SUBCAT) articles should not be listed directly in both categories (unless one of the exceptions applies; see #3 below).
2. If all cryptographers are not necessarily mathematicians, then Category:Australian cryptographers ought not be a subcategory of Category:Australian mathematicians.
3. If all cryptographers are necessarily mathematicians, but cryptographers are a "subset which have some special characteristic of interest" (which I think is reasonable), then Category:Australian cryptographers should be marked as a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} of Category:Australian mathematicians, and the duplication is "allowed". I've mentioned this a couple of times already, and you've alluded to it as well, but you've not explicitly stated whether or not you think Category:Australian cryptographers should be a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} of Category:Australian mathematicians, nor have you tagged the former category as such.

Do you think that cryptographers should be a non-diffusing subcategory of mathematicians?

Or is there some other flaw in my reasoning?

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian cryptographers should only be treated as a diffusing subcategory of Australian mathematicians if there are sufficient other subcategories of the form Australian specialist-in-some-other-mathematical-subtopic so that we can list all cryptographers-who-also-do-other-mathematics by all of their specialties. As it is, the categorization creates the false impression that someone known for work in multiple topics, or worse someone like Room known mostly for other mathematical topics, would be hidden away in the cryptographer category where people seeing his name would wrongly assume that he is known only as a cryptographer. And in general a "fix" that would be immediately unfixed if we ever created a category of 20th-century Australian cryptographers seems to me like no fix at all, but merely a kluge on top of another kluge that makes the categories right temporarily but is unstable and does nothing to fix the underlying badness of this partial and incomplete categorization by intersection of nationality and mathematical specialization. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian cryptographers should only be treated as a diffusing subcategory of Australian mathematicians if ... — Is that a yes or a no to "Do you think that cryptographers should be a non-diffusing subcategory...?", given the current existence or not of other subcategories?

Or do you have an alternative specific change that we should make? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the category system is hopelessly broken. We should not be making categories that intersect unrelated criteria, like nationality, specialty, and timeframe. When we do, this sort of mess happens: we can't properly categorize this guy by nationality+specialty because only one of the nationality+specialty categories exists, it's one that only covers a minor aspect of his expertise, and your mindless pedantic insistence on following pointless rules about category diffusion then kicks in and takes him out of the more general nationality-without-specialty category that is more descriptive of what he actually did. I think you should spend more effort on getting the category system right in the first place and less on enforcing a wrong system. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the category system is hopelessly broken. — Feel free to propose changes at WT:CAT.

We should not be making categories that intersect unrelated criteria, like nationality, specialty, ... — WP:NARROWCAT agrees with the assessment, at least in some cases. Feel free to propose deletion of Category:Australian cryptographers, if you think it appropriate.

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, David Eppstein! As a mathematician, could you chime in Talk:Proportion, I would like to create an entry for this concept and I have been consistently shot down. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My edit on a special property of primitive Pythagorean triples was removed and reinserted by Anitat5196 upon review. It is found to be removed again by yourself. What do you mean by a "reliably published source"? The source along with the link is given. The source is a well known math periodical in India and is available on the net. The result is established by proof in the source article along with two examples. The result is also verifiable mathematically. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity. I feel bewildered by such frequent interventions on grounds that are not tenable. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I mean a mathematics journal indexed by MathSciNet. But more generally, see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The source here satisfies the general WP:RS criteria as it is a published material, published by an academic institution, and directly supports the claim; and it also meets the requirements of WP Verifiability. The link to the source is given. Regarding the "significance" of the result that you asked for in your comment to Anita5192 it may be said that the result, like most other known properties of Pythagorean triples, establishes a relationship between the three members of a triple of a particular kind. It is a modest contribution to the existing knowledge about Pythagorean triples. Denying it a place in WP would mean denying place to a property that is true, established by proof and examples, and verifiable to the cited source. I think these considerations call for a review. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Three-gap theorem at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This was the fault of Gatoclass, who removed the approved nomination from the DYK queue for bad reasons and failed to re-link it anywhere else. I have asked Gatoclass to undo their mistakes; in the meantime, I'll keep this here on my talk as a reminder to check back and make sure this gets fixed. Thank you, bot, for telling me about this: I unwatch closed DYK noms and so would not have otherwise noticed the re-opening. And un-thank you, Gatoclass, not only for your bad re-open but for failing to notify me of it as the edit notice on DYK noms suggests you should do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Mark Barr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mark Barr for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh darn, there goes my record for longest still-active GA nomination, and it didn't even drag out for a full year. Thanks, all! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if you revert me (and insist on machine-based date formats for accessdates and human-readable dates for publication dates, all lumped in together, although that is an incredibly odd thing to actually edit war over), but direct quotations need attribution, i.e. who actually said them, and that's need in the prose. So please do that as soon as you find a convenient moment. Much obliged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not biased opinion, I don't even look at whose articles at sitting in the DYK queues, I just look at the potential issues. That you have clearly conflated WP:V with WP:ATT is not my problem, and you should know that once challenged, a source is required. But thanks for fixing it, eventually. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE emphatically does not say that all quotes need to be attributed in inline text. In fact it says the opposite: "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote." FOOTNOTE. Not prose. It does say later that potentially-biased opinions must be attributed in prose, but a description of the writing style of a book does not strike me as the sort of thing that is aimed at. (And for anyone else who cares, the context is Márta Svéd.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It was challenged, you edit warred over it, and finally did the right thing. No further commentary required. Except sorry for changing your odd mix of date formats again. I did say I would't do that but I didn't check who owned the article at the time of my edit. While I still have no clue at all ever in any way shape or form why anyone would expect the natural language readers of an English language encyclopedia to want to see YYYY-MM-DD dates, I do accept that I said I wouldn't do that. So at least, on those grounds, you have my regrets. You also have my complete and utter bafflement, but that's not important. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, re this rather-combative edit summary: I still disagree with the initial placement of the tag, but the "pointless" in my earlier edit summary merely referred to the fact that I neglected to remove the tag when I was adding the dubiously-required inline attribution, and that after the attribution was added the tag became pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well your comment there entirely sums up the problem. It appears you have some real issues with some of the guidelines and policies around here. Never mind, we can move on, but rest assured that the next time one of your own articles gets to the queues and suffers such genuine issues, I will take the same course of action. So it's better you acknowledge the shortcomings of the article, and ensure we don't have to go through this all over again, particularly the distasteful edit warring by you after a challenge, and particularly the SHOUTING IN EDIT SUMMARIES which is usually a very bad sign (TM). Nothing was "dubiously-required" in any sense, and the sooner you realise that, the easier your DYK nominations will become. I did note that others had actually help you fix up your own article to comply with the DYK rules. Maybe it's worth re-appraising yourself on the rules of the DYK project and the overall Wikipedia guidelines and policies to help prevent this in future? I won't be commenting further here, but like I said, if I see any more erroneous articles going to the main page (regardless of whether they're your's), I'll be conducting the same level of scrutiny and exacting commentary. Cheers now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If you take any disagreement with your interpretation as a disagreement with the guidelines themselves, I can see why you might continue to be at loggerheads with people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be in violation of WP:CIR right now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Bring it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to, it's self-evident from your current editing pattern, failure to understand the difference between verifiability and attribution, failure to understand edit-warring... I don't care really, you're the one who made such a stink about me changing your precious date formats and asking for attribution, you're the one failing here. I'm all good. So, until the next time, bienvenue. (P.S. instead of "bring it", maybe next time it'll be "to the max!" or "get real!") The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

On 30 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Márta Svéd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hungarian mathematician Márta Svéd earned her Ph.D. at age 75? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Márta Svéd. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Márta Svéd), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The article however tells us nothing about the OBVIOUS question for the reader if 75 is the (till now) upper age limit for earning Ph.D. (not just in mathematics!) Solomon7968 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Far from the oldest PhD. I can't easily find sources on other old mathematics doctorates, but Christine Ladd-Franklin was a little older. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

On 1 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three-gap theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the three-gap theorem explains both the spacing of leaves on plant stems and the intervals between adjacent tones in certain musical tuning systems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three-gap theorem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Three-gap theorem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand your inflexibility with respect to the logarithm article. I hate to be ad hominem, but as a computer science guy, you out of anyone should see the virtue of using the TeX typesetting system. But beyond this relatively trivial issue, given you academic stature, I'm also surprised by your defense of the status quo of a mediocre article, for the sake of "consensus", whatever that means. I am still waiting for an objection to my most recent edits, other than "they were disruptive." Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So now you are going WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with respect to the objections already raised to your edits? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop hiding behind a rule book. You appear to be incredibly inflexible and doctrinaire. User:Jakob.scholbach objected to my edits, and being reasonable objections, I took into account his objections. Other users like User:Dmcq have supported some of my changes, including the integral definition and the general need for a concise rigorous definition.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the only the second user to voice opposition to my edits, which is hardly a consensus. Moreover, you have given no useful suggestions, other than to say that I haven't been following the rules. I am well aware of them. Just as I am well aware I shouldn't call you an a**hole, but will anyway.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet, instead of using the integral definition, you re-added material like "If rational number ${\displaystyle q=m/n}$ (m, n positive integers), ${\displaystyle b^{q}}$ is defined as the nth root of ${\displaystyle b^{m}}$, ${\displaystyle {\sqrt[{n}]{b^{m}}}}$. For a real number y, ${\displaystyle b^{y}}$ is defined as the number approached by a sequence ${\displaystyle (b^{q_{1}},b^{q_{2}},\ldots ,b^{q_{n}},\ldots )}$ for rational numbers ${\displaystyle q_{1},q_{2},\ldots ,q_{n},\ldots }$ that are successively better approximations of y." to the article. No, they are not defined that way in modern mathematics, and we should not pretend they are. It does not assist high school students (at whom the level of the article should be primarily aimed) to confusingly switch back to old-fashioned definitions. This is a featured article, meaning that it has already gone through a significant level of careful review, and you are changing things haphazardly and without attention to whether they are actually improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OMFG, you are dense for a well-known CS professor! I made these changes because User:Jakob.scholbach didn't like the integral definition. He suggested it would be reasonable to use the continuity property to fill in the gaps to extend the function to the reals, as an imprecise, intuitive definition. Thus, I gave a definition for the rationals and took his suggestion. My god, you accuse me of being heavy handed, and when I take someone else's suggestion, you now say my definition isn't rigorous enough! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so he's dense. But is he compact? EEng 05:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, E! After an infuriating past few hours defending my edits, you made me laugh for the first time. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Language, please. But the short answer is that I think that going from calculus to real analysis is a step in the wrong direction if we want to keep things simple and less technical. Rigor is very important in some contexts. Explaining basic concepts to high school students is not one of those contexts. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the language. But I disagree -- there should be a formal definition given somewhere in the definition section, or at least a hint as to how that would be done.

To defend the definition I gave, a continuous extension of a function defined on the rationals (or any dense subset) to the reals is unique, so a sequence like the one given certainly is a valid definition for irrational arguments of b^y. However, I actually liked splitting the section up between a motivation and informal definition and then a formal one, before that was inexplicably reverted. Would you be open to reviving that version instead?

Anyway, given how obstinate you've been and your penchant for jumping to conclusions, I'm just glad that we're in different fields, and you can't influence my tenure decision. ;-) Respectfully, Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to a wide audience, but if everything in it is high school level, it would be no better than a high school textbook, especially if it tries to shove things under the rug. Details, caveats, and technicalities should be pointed out (though not necessarily presented in detail), so that it is not misleading to people pursuing tertiary education and beyond. Even for high school students, wikipedia should prod them to go beyond what is in their textbooks. There is also no rule saying that high school students are our target. (Otherwise, I would've stopped learning things from Wikipedia ages ago.)Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is, actually: WP:TECHNICAL. It doesn't specify high school students (some subjects should be lower-level than that, others higher) but I think high school is when students typically first see logarithms, and our articles should be readable by them. It doesn't mean keeping out advanced material, but it does mean avoiding unnecessarily technical ways of explaining non-advanced material. Which is what you have been doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

By which you mean, there isn't any rule, just your opinion of who you think the target audience is. In any case, please see the new section on the talk page of logarithm. I would like to see you defend how the definition section is currently written. Alas, faculty members become absolutely insufferable when they haven't had to defend anything they say in a decade. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks are not particularly helping persuade me of whatever points you are trying to make. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You've behaved in such obtuse and moronic way towards me, in a manner highly unbecoming of your station, that I frankly don't care about your goodwill.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care about getting blocked from editing here. That can happen to people who remain persistently uncivil after being warned that it's against the rules, as you already have been earlier in this thread. See also Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In any case it wasn't my goodwill that I thought you were seeking, but my agreement with changing the article along your preferred lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DePiep and DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just added five citations as external links (which shows what I think of their reliability). (Google turned up several more hits; I only listed sites which aren't obviously trying to sell you things.) Metatron's cube doesn't look like a WP:HOAX: those citations look pretty much independent of each other and of our article. The Hopler citation itself cites four books by different authors, spread out over several years, not all of which are obviously self-published, and all of which are on Amazon. I suspect that the topic may sneak through WP:GNG. What do you think? Narky Blert (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Those look like junk woo web sites to me — I agree with you that their reliability is dubious. So I don't think they contribute much to notability. Galobtter's re-redirect is an improvement, but still problematic, as the link target makes no mention of this design. There are reliably published books on sacred geometry, and if we could find this in more than one of those, I think it would be notable enough, but I couldn't find it in any. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The whole concept looks very modern woo to me. Of course, that is no argument against notability. Narky Blert (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. And as always (even though we don't always agree), thank you for your thoughtful and inciteful comments at AfD. Saw your edit on the above article, where you added additional material was provided by Holly Davidson Lewis. Is this the same Lewis? I can't find a connection between Holly M. Lewis and a Holly D. Lewis. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered that too, but the CV linked from the article clearly shows that the Plato editor is the same as the Texas State assistant professor, and the Texas State philosophy faculty listing clearly shows her name as "Holly M. Lewis". So I have to assume she changed her preferred middle name at some point, for unknown reasons. Presumably this has some connection to the name of her co-director on The Terrorist She Freaks of Texas, Bug Davidson? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe Davidson was her husband's name, and she wasn't hyphenating it, and now they are either divorced, or she's remarried. Regardless, thanks for the detective work.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• EEng 11:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You're back! How was the South China Sea? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now somewhere between Tokyo and Nagano. Turns out they have the Interweb in Japan. EEng 03:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:. I agree with you that my edit on Kerrie Mengersen did not point to a publisher. However, I do find the current citation unsatisfactory since it fails to show that it is her doctoral thesis. I think it would be helpful if that information were part of the citation... (I didn't know where to put it, under wiki's citation guidelines...) Perhaps you could help?MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't look at the subsequent article history, where I did exactly that? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern working with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please reply to this message or email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview. .

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Carl Størmer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carl Størmer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The links are important because 1) there are hardly any links (scientific ones) in that article and 2) one of them explains it in a more simple way (the author of that page is also a known one with a wikipedia page, so it is not some random page). The other link is to a pdf that is rather important because it gives a nice overview in general about this law. And I also added a link to the wiki explaining the part you removed. These things are not fake or whatever. They are actually interesting facts and might even help people find it interesting because they are linked with a very nice historical story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnhami (talk • contribs) Garnhami (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Ah, I think I see what you ment. The last part is indeed not a good way to say it, I removed that. The second link, I however kept it since it seems a nice way to have people read about it in an easier written way. Garnhami (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have placed something in the way of contradictory quotes from Scott Aaronson's blogs concerning his stance towards what might otherwise be called 'God' on the Scott Aaronson talk page. In particular, he is not necessarily an atheist according to the verifiable information we have on the blog (please see the Scott Aaronson talk page for an indication of some sort of analysis of what Scott Aaronson states). Of course, if Scott Aaronson's blog were NOT contradictory, I would have no problem accepting that he is an atheist. It seems that he tries to have things both ways (and I accept that there might be good reasons for why this is - but such reasons warrant an explanation for some sort of clarity, or, indeed, sanity). Would placing the 'clarify' tag back on the article be acceptable? The "Compare selected Revisions" but yields the following website address (I am unsure of what you mean in your introduction by links in reference to edits as all I can easily see is the web address): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Aaronson&type=revision&diff=842935244&oldid=842930573

ASavantDude (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tennis ball theorem at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi David, do you know something that I don't here? The Sylvester-Gallai theorem does not apply to finite projective planes (as is stated in the Generalizations section). All the projective plane proofs that I am aware of are set in the real projective plane and do not carry over into the finite versions. I'm currently working on the Fano plane page, and I will include a proof of the non-realizability of this configuration ... but it doesn't use SG. Once I've got it spelled out, I'll try to give a brief summary on the incidence geometry page. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Sylvester–Gallai theorem applies to realizations of incidence geometries regardless of whether they are finite projective planes or something else. It says that a realization can only exist if there are at least two points that do not belong to a line of three or more points. The Fano plane has no such two points, so it has no realization. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening me out. I got blind-sided by my own failed attempts at generalizing GS to finite planes as a grad student and didn't look at the realization issue correctly.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You continuously undo my edits on Langley's Adventitious Angles saying it violates wikipedia's no original research rule. Where would I have to have my research posted so that I would not keep violating this rule? AndersonMoffitt (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You would need it to be published in a peer-reviewed mathematics journal (a legitimate one, i.e. one that is indexed by Mathematical Reviews, not one of the fly-by-night predatory open access publishers). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@AndersonMoffitt:There is a simple error in your reasoning. You start out with ${\displaystyle BF=CE,}$ but this is false. Angle ${\displaystyle BEF}$ is definitely 30 degrees. If you are not convinced, you could try setting ${\displaystyle BC}$ to 1 and using the law of sines to find angle ${\displaystyle BEF.}$ Jrheller1 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Back to the ol' drawing board! EEng 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, David Eppstein. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Logan State Park.
Message added 08:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but the nominator explicitly asked for someone else's opinion. And after finding clear plagiarism the first time around I'm going to be very reluctant to change my mind merely because the plagiarist covered their tracks a little better after being caught. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Deborah Bial at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

GTG SusunW (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wishing David Eppstein a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. There are people that remember the dates of other people becoming admins? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:BIRTHDAY, part of WP:RETENTION. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you know anything about…

Epstein, E.: Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, London, Sydney, Toronto. 1972.

Author? Biologist? With full name to Epstein?

--Maschinist1968 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (German Wikipedia)

Nope, sorry. There are lots of people with that name. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Emanuel Epstein EEng 16:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On 12 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rubens' painting Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye (detail pictured) does not depict the right kind of snail? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On 13 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deborah Bial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Deborah Bial uses Lego to test whether students are ready for college? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deborah Bial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Deborah Bial), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, an article I worked on yesterday, Michael Hendricks, was proded. I've seen you in AfDs on academics and am curious what your thoughts were because I am not very experienced with fellows of organizations. I thought Hendricks met NPROF#3 due to being a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and possibly NPROF#1 due to co-authoring 3 highly cited academic papers. Is a fellow from the APA different (just a membership) than a fellow from another organization like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers? I tried reading this link and am unsure if it is much different from Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hallo David,

Angle trisection quadratix hippias

Hendecagon, exact construction using the quadratrix according of Hippias as an additional aid

I need your help. Please look at the two pictures. I do not understand why in this case you think: Still no reliable source, and without one this may be original research. This application is, in my opinion, using a long-known knowledge. As in the article Quadratrix of Hippias, can also be read in WolframMathWorld: It can be used for angle trisection or, more generally, division of an angle into any integral number of equal parts, and circle squaring.

Do you still see a possibility for improvement, or do you basically do not like this construction? Greetings Petrus3743 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I need you to find a book where the construction is described, and then use the construction (in your own words) from there, referenced to the book, rather than just making up something related to the quadratrix yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was obviously mistaken, I thought if the knowledge exists of:

• Basic principle of the quadrix of Hippias (n-equal angle parts)
• Division of a line segment

then is an application of these construction elements no original research. Unfortunately I did not find a book with this construction. But I (not a mathematician) can not imagine, that I be the only person in the world who has drawn this thought on a paper. Too bad, that this construction now ends up in the trash ... Petrus3743 (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've faced the same frustration (of wanting to add something that is easy mathematically but more than just a routine calculation, but not being able to find adequate sources to justify its inclusion) many times. On at least one occasion I resorted to writing and publishing a journal article in order to have a source for something I wanted to include. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

On 17 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tennis ball theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the tennis ball theorem concerns curves that, like the seam of a tennis ball, cut the surface of a sphere into two equal areas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tennis ball theorem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tennis ball theorem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Prof. Eppstein,

I believe that article must be improved than to be deleted. The minimum criteria of notability is satisfied and hence, attribution and expansion of article appear to be of our need. You, as an administrator, better understand the implications; so, I request you to please refresh some opinion on it, as it satisfies other criteria of Academics.

You are also from the field of science, some abrupt comments were disheartening but keeping them apart, I expect for the better. The subject is 18 years old and yes, COI is an issue and so will refrain to edit, but notability has no question as even wikidata projects it. Notability being time independent is very evident on minimum caricature and thus, of major concern.

I hope, you will edit here on AfD page for some good. I strongly believe, article must be protected against vandalism no matter kept concise and should be improved with time but not abruptly deleted. That would be an injustice. I have a good faith in you. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You can think what you want, but your bludgeoning all comments on the AfD, walls of text, special pleading, and false claims of notability are not helping your case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so in my preferences, the time offset is set for America/Chicago (UTC−5). The time/date stamp I see in on a TP is the same, but when I look at the edit history, there are discrepancies in the time stamp. Random example: TP=15:21, June 24, 2018‎ vs edit history=20:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC) for this edit. What ends up happening is that when someone refers to an edit, based on the timestamp of that comment on a TP, and I go to edit view to find the diff, I cannot find it based on that same timestamp because they're different. Is there a fix for that issue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The only "zone portable" way to copy a talkpage timestamp is to open the thread in edit mode and copy out the timestamp you see there e.g. 20:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC) and then paste that, unchanged in any way, into the discussion. Each logged-in editor's browser, at the final stage of page presentation, automagically finds all timestamps on the page that are in that precise (UTC) format and rejiggers them to that editor's timezone preference. Thus you will see the following time adjusted to your timezone, while I see it in my timezone: 20:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC). But it only works if the time is in exactly the right format.

The copy-paste technique I just described works only for timestamps copied from the edit-window text of talk pages. Offhand I don't know how to pick up timestamps from e.g. a page's edit history in the right format so that you can paste them into a discussion and they'll be automagically adjusted as just described. Also, I'm unaware of anything anywhere explaining all this. David? EEng 17:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh, me neither. I know how to adjust my preferences to new time zones when I travel and that's about it. (My pet peeve about calendar software is the lack of a special time zone meaning "this time in the local time for wherever I happen to be that day". That's what I'd want for my display preferences too; the closest Wikipedia offers is that I can set the time zone to my browser's local time zone, but then it will stay that way until I explicitly set it again.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so diffs rule. Thank you for the input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick facts Three years! ...

Precious

Three years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi David, I don't strongly object to your revert of my revert on this page, but I thought I ought to set the record straight. It wasn't my wording, that belongs to Deacon Vorbis. His wording was reverted on the authority of a Wikipedia page, and we both know that that is inappropriate, so I reverted. While his wording could be improved, I do believe that the essence of what he was trying to do is correct, but that argument belongs on the article's talk page and I'll put it there. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I figured I should further explain myself after being reverted, so this is why I converted the slapdash wikimarkup at MOS:MATH#TONE to HTML, and then just removed it when you reverted. In short: yes, we have wikimarkup for a reason, but it doesn’t always work. Sometimes we use HTML directly for a reason.

The lines here are numbered for illustration. The left one is how I found it; the right one is what I did with HTML, and impossible with wikilists (though really, it could probably use some restructuring regardless). Each time you see a 1, it’s starting over with a whole new list. Bear in mind that everything’s supposed to be part of the same list. Even some of these sublists weren’t part of any larger list.

—67.14.236.193 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed content from P versus NP problem with the edit summary "remove unsourced" when the content that you removed included valid source information? I have since reverted your edit. nagualdesign 20:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant that the source was inadequate for the content. It mentions P=NP only in a decorative way, as an equation, with no indication that the episode would be any different if any other equation were chosen in its place. I think we need a stronger connection to the actual problem, and not just to the name of the problem, to include material there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The content you removed was entirely factual and your edit summary was misleading. I also find your explanation here a little wanting. One of the other two In popular culture items states, "In the sixth episode of The Simpson's seventh season Treehouse of Horror VI, the equation P=NP is seen shortly after Homer accidentally stumbles into the "third dimension"." It's literally just shown in passing. Wikipedia only requires that content is referenced using reliable secondary sources, which it was. In my opinion, removing content that has just been added to in accordance with WP policy is likely to discourage new users like Zaktan2319, and I suggest that you think twice before making such edits. You may also wish to brush up on WP:OWN. Sincerely, nagualdesign 20:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy if the Simpsons trivia were removed as well, but because the source is higher quality that will be more difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)