Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
David Eppstein,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
.
The article Reuleaux triangle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reuleaux triangle 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Binary logarithm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Binary logarithm 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 Jfhutson -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
but I didn't get an email. Do you think you could resend it? Thanks :-) Serendipodous 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stars (M. C. Escher) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
A very fine article, one of the most professional I've read in a long time. You being a computer science professor explains it I guess. Keep up the terrific work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
dear first consider if it is not reliable mention the reason without reason every edit you delete why...... lot people are here for editing wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannuMannu (talk • contribs)
On 6 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Binary logarithm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that binary logarithms can be used to determine the number of octaves between two musical tones? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Binary logarithm. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
Hello professor!
You recently undoed my edit with the change description "linkspam", where I linked to a website where I implemented the recursive maze-solving algorithm as written in the wikipedia article. Two years ago, I added the recursive algorithm to the "maze solving algorithm" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_solving_algorithm#Recursive_algorithm), with sample code in Java. I recently learned javascript, and was able to recreate the same algorithm visually, and I thought linking to it as a sample implementation was appropriate. Please let me know why what I did was not allowed, and if there is any other way to provide readers with a better understanding of the recursive algorithm.
Thanks in advance, Ofek Gila!
Ofek Gila (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In reference to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuckoo_hashing&oldid=prev&diff=698589296
"Cuckoo hashing is not as fast as quadratic probing in general-purpose hashing applications on most modern processors. However, cuckoo hashing may outperform the alternatives in various special cases, when there are other constraints on the design of the data structure."
(Undid revision 698587282 by Aaron Will Claims like this cannot be included unless they are backed up by reliable sources. Also the studies I've seen show linear probing as fastest, not quadratic probing.)
Quadratic probing is just a generalization of linear probing; linear probing *is* quadratic probing. If the hash function is perfectly uniform, quadratic probing has no benefit; in the academic references linked from the page, the authors are typically just using random data, and side-stepping the hash function itself. So they will just compare to linear probing as representative of both linear and quadratic, because there's no difference. But perfectly uniform hash functions are slow; faster compromise hash functions that are actually used in practice are prone to 'funneling,' and quadratic probing is the mitigation. So a real-world hash table will always use quadratic probing, not linear probing; but they're approximately the same thing. But I think it sounds goofy to say, without qualification, that "linear" is faster, because no high performance table is using linear probing, because it gives poor results with fast hash functions.
This is not a novel or controversial result, as far as I'm aware. It's been well-known for decades, and I'm sure it's discussed more carefully on the main hash table page.
I am happy to word this any way you want. But the article is misleading in its current state without containing some form of this remark, making irrelevant claims about how much faster it is than chaining, which is sort of like saying how much faster Shell sort is than bubble sort. I'd honestly be much happier if, rather than reverting my edit, you reworded it to address your concern. What do you think? Aaron Will (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Stars (M. C. Escher) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stars (M. C. Escher) 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the foolish bunny who perpetrated this change you reverted about the connection between the maximal cliques and connected components in the graph representing an equivalence relation. I think of the clique as a set of vertices with a property (distinct vertices connected) and the connected component as a graph (set of vertices + set of edges). Even taking a clique as a graph, it still doesn't seem to be equal to a connected component: each connected component has a loop on every vertex due to the reflexivity of the equivalence relation; no such loops are implied by the clique. Could you explain in what way "the maximal cliques *are* the connected components"? Frentos (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC) PS As a matter of form, should I have created a discussion on the talk page for equivalence classes and just left a comment here directing you to the discussion? Frentos (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop changing my edits to tetrahedron Ghostasylum (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Professor Eppstein, you asked whether a Bitcoin block processes data. A Bitcoin block is a group of transactions confirmed by the world's most powerful computer network (See Forbes article). The network processes financial transactions through the blockchain as a linked list. This leads to a competitive race using proof-of-work to verify transactions were not double-spent, something only previously possible with a clearing house or other financial trusted third party. There has been considerable talk around using DAG data structures in crypto currencies, particularly Bitcoin, rather than a linear linked list. This adds complexity to the system, but reduces confirmation time by orders of magnitude with network latency and CPU power become the only bottlenecks. At this time, DAGs are only in the proof of concept stage, but it is a potentially revolutionary use of the data structure.
Perhaps this use case belongs in another section, but I believe that prior to the discussion of DAG usage in Bitcoin, many people who are not data scientists, myself included, had never heard of this data structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfactor (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up Caleb Frank Gates. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, David. The above-mentioned user has recreated two articles, Local cosine tree and Cohen's class. Neither article was ineligible to me, but I found two other articles which seemed suitable redirects (Trigonometric functions and Bilinear time–frequency distribution) and have converted accordingly. Since the previous articles were deleted as copyright violations, I am not certain how these two new articles compared— in any case, as redirects, copyright issues have been obviated, but I wanted to give you a heads-up on the business so you could keep an eye on what's happening in the world of, er, of abstruse mathematics! Cheers! KDS4444Talk 06:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not obvious that it is true for rationals too. At least, I can't see it. The only thing I did was to follow what's written in the article that was referenced to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurwitz%27s_theorem_(number_theory). Take a look and tell me what you think.Wisapi (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your job of doing what few have dared, which was to close this move review. Thanks for the tireless effort and extensive reading and reviewing you certainly had to endure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
The problem is that "up to" isn't clear. It may have a precise mathematical meaning, but it's meaning in general usage isn't so clear. I think a casual user would translate this more or less as "depending on". But "depending on" in which sense? Inclusion or exclusion? A wording that is very explicit about whether the redundant games are being included or excluded would be better. Probably better to just say something like "xxxxx games, if including all mirrored and rotated versions of the same game". Battling McGook (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Packing_problems&oldid=prev&diff=700952485 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovasoa (talk • contribs)
Hi David;
It's been a while and I haven't had much (any) time to spend on Wikipedia recently but I know you spent a lot of time on the GA review of the Grodziskie article. I've responded to your comments on the GA review page if you'd like to take a look. Neil916 (Talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A policy needs written coherently. Here's what the text modifies:
“ | Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb | ” |
If we're going to take such an extremely hard line, we also need to note at least the uncontroversial cases where using upight is simply impossible. I don't think it's out of the range of policy to say "however, uprgiht can't be used when you're looking at things that need more than a 10px level of specificity, such as very small images, and also, some of our features requeire px" when the policy would otherwise be read as "use it anyway, event hough it won't work"
User:Only seems to be the suckpuppet of User:GiantSnowman which seems to be a Wikipedia master eraser: Max Merkel, Alex Notman, Slaven Bilić and many others articles, he has a really long edits history, this user needs special watching ! Also User:Only acuse people for vandalism and deleting referenced text, User:GiantSnowman prefers to deletes around instead of doing the job properly, they have a mini band and act like superior users which is meatpupetry, is like mafie of wikipedia in my opinion !--176.221.34.226 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.90 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) GiantSnowman deletes massive content of Wikipedia and expect other people to do the work, even if you go on other language wikipedia you can probably find reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.90 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I am worried for ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA PROJECT ! English wikipedia articles will be "white" blacked with no information because of this attitude !--103.1.149.90 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
People are to busy to block sockpuppets instead of helping the quality and quantity of articles !! ANd because of this people will not edit anymore !! or will get block !! is a major problem in my opinion !! (I want the best in a bright future for Wikipedia !)--103.1.149.90 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering, whether you, since you are a computer scientist yourself, thought an h-index of 48 on Google Scholar is enough to establish notability for Stephanie Seneff under WP:PROF#C1. I know the h-indices needed to establish notability vary from field to field, and sciences require higher ones than the humanities, so I wanted to hear what you thought. Note that the article is up for AFD. Everymorning (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I came across this reference in "Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist". Can you give me an English wording so I can at least look it up.
Well I was going to paste a picture but I'm not able to. The best I can do us describe it: uE'vEgig. The u is probably mu. The first g may be a summa. It is in Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider's essay "Presuppositions and Anticipations". Gsteel57 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
How do I get this article you recently deleted undeleted (as a draft is fine). I was in the middle of improving it with better references (which was the previous consensus for having deleted it). For example, I was going to add a link to one of his recent interviews: Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli. It probably should be named "Andrew Andersen" too since though he has used the name Andreas, that does not seem to be the name he is most notable for. Thanks. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi David Eppstein (talk). I am wondering how we can somehow keep the information about the YouTube videos and knowledge claims in the videos by Ross McKitrick. Could we mention that they are self-published? They are very revealing in regards to scholarship or lack thereof. They were cited in our local newspaper recently and I listened to them all. I am surprised a university professor would produce them. I suggest we keep the material and ask other editors if the content needs to be deleted.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not just remove nonsense posts from talk pages. It makes it harder to identify users who need to be removed from Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are trying to keep talk pages clean, but just deleting nonsense doesn;t help. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the super quick COI edit! Ron Schnell 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please reconsider, David. Your knowledgeable, well-written and lucid contributions are very necessary on that discussion page to counter the welter of ignorant, impenetrable and illogical contributions of the cantankerous. The MoS will end up being far worse without your continuing contributions... BushelCandle (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi I think the final line of the quickselect pseudo code has an error on the Quickselect page:
return select(list, pivotIndex + 1, right, n)
should be
return select(list, pivotIndex + 1, right, pivotIndex - n)
because n = (pivot index - n ) when n > pivot index
eg: n = 7 pivotIndex is 5; we want to search the right for 7-5 now not 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:200:2FBA:2815:1A84:7D0:CC2E (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that greatest prime factor should get its own page, or that it should start out as a section of something else like prime factor?
This is of course a loaded question, because I would like to put on the practical number page:
From the above characterization by Stewart and Sierpinski it can be seen that if is a practical number, and is any number such that , then is a practical number. It follows that if , then is a practical number. Also, because all practical numbers are powers of 2, perfect, or abundant, if , then is a practical number.
I haven't seen these statements anywhere else, so I'm worried this might border on original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eassin (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, David Eppstein I remove the link: http://www.gf.org/fellows/16630-steven-s-gubser, since I can't open it. Or say when I open it, the page show 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND for me, so I remove it. (Excuse me for I didn't explain at that time) If you find new available link, please update it.
1. Editor of Wikipedia Lute88 several times posted photo sculptures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Shmatko#/media/File:Shmatko-statue.jpg of Shmatko (original) http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/en_vers/w264z.html , inventing a name. This can be seen in the pages of history.
2. Editor Lute88 at his discretion voiced sense of sculpture
1/ I ask to show permission from the author who can offer to place images of his sculptures for public review.
2/ I ask provide the description of the sculpture, voiced by the author.
3/ Please show an authoritative source, where the sculpture (original) http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/en_vers/w264z.html is presented as kunniligus. In the photograph we can see, a kiss on the belly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerter 2 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
--Rerter 2 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I understood that Wikipedia editors that support their desire to use any information without permits and in its sole discretion to change the name, invent the sense of not having to do with authorship.
I understood that Wikipedia refuses to show any permit. --Rerter 2 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The question can be removed. If Wikipedia editors themselves come up with the name - evidence that is in the pages of history.
If he is using someone else's sculpture, coined the name and inventing meaning. Maybe you'll place their sculptures, and I'll come up with their name and the meaning???? --Rerter 2 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You can confirm to me that this sculpture http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/en_vers/w264z.html is a sculpture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Shmatko#/media/File:Shmatko-statue.jpg "Cunnilingus"??? Is recorded in the page history
Please give me a link to a reputable source with description sculpture "Cunnilingus"! I want to see it!
I give you a link to the site sculpture author and there is no description of the sculpture "Cunnilingus" http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/en_vers/w264z.html "Foreplay" (Ural marble, 66x125x67)
We see Kiss in the tum (belly), not the genitals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe the editor need to wear glasses to read and learn ????????
--Rerter 2 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Your position is clear. Distortions done intentionally. I have not seen any reference that would confirm the description of the sculpture as "Cunnilingus"
David, the Giso campaign looks like it will work. 189.5.144.212 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Jendiroba
David,It is best to request the termination of the page , but not with that excuse189.5.144.212 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Jendiroba
I would like to ask for your advice on a mathematics and logics matter. I could do this here, but I prefer to write to you by email. I am not an experienced wikipedia editor. Could you give me an email address so that I can contact you directly or could you drop me a line at arhitectul at gmail dot com? Thank you. --Arhitectul (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There has been another polymath project solved! Can you add this information to the "Problem solved" section of the article please? I think it can go under the heading of "Polymath proposal problem" under "Problem solved" section. This problem was going to become a polymath project, but someone else proved it so quickly before it becoming a polymath project (with number). However, I think it is another achievement worth mentioning in the article. Due to my limited mathematics background, I don't think I'm able to write about it as well as someone like you. Thank you! Pendragon5 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am stunned. I cannot believe all the tags you have added to the Mary Amdur article. I will go through and address them all - though many you could have addressed yourself by reading the source? Adding talk page messages would have been less brutal. Can you stop, think before adding so much unhelpful criticism? As an experienced editor I am sure you could have just edited? ツStacey (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Its 1 word. Have you seen how much research we did - there are 19 sources. ツStacey (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your work on the Article "Global Digital Mathematics Library". Maybe you can improve the article further and prevent that it gets deleted. Physikerwelt (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
On 25 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zvezdelina Stankova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zvezdelina Stankova brought ideas from her Bulgarian mathematical education to California by founding the Berkeley Math Circle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zvezdelina Stankova. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Recently submitted this post with no intention of it being overly promotional, which of course is a typical COI problem. As per your suggestion of a rewrite to remove any promotional wording (though I see a few editors have already made minor changes), was wondering if you could be of help in this area - being a completely unbiased source? I would look to provide the necessary citations where possible, of course! A bit difficult as not everything is online, but would do so to the best of my ability. However, I'm sure you are plenty busy, so perhaps you could suggest a way to move forward i.e. moving this post into a draft space for others to edit?
Thanks so much for your time, and also for not being as harsh as some others. I look forward to hearing back from you!
Best,
Carly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlyt28 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein.
You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. |
You undid (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesseract&oldid=prev&diff=708684864) my edits (I add link to http://multator.ru/toon/gsaj1gfeel61) with message "linkspam, doesn't look helpful enough". 1) This is not spam! 2) Why do you think that this link doesn't look helpful enough? I found only one gif(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Net_of_tesseract.gif) on the page, were you can't stop moving and were tesseract looks like two 3d cubes one in other. FeelUs (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are fine, I'm currently developing the date palm article in Arabic Wiki and noticed that there is no pictures of American date varieties (like Abada, Blonde Beauty, or Brunette Beauty) on Commons. So, It would be quite helpful if you provide some. thank you --Ahmed1251985 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This part makes sense to me: "as can be seen in the highlighted subsequence of π = 391867452 (or π = 391867452 or π = 391867452 or π = 391867452)." I can see how the following sequences 91674, 91675, 91672, 91452 are included in π. However, I don't understand this "the permutation π = 391867452 contains the pattern σ = 51342." How does π contain 51342 with the same relative order? That means 5 has to come first then 1 then 3 then 4 then 2, which I don't believe is correct in this case. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
Professor, please tell me why You deleted my edition to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickselect I mentioned about linearity of avarage case and provided equatation, which show why it is true. What is more I provided citation from truly respected book. Quick Select, in fact is linear in avarage.
Greetings M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michocio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you for your great work here on Wikipedia. From it I know that you are a very intelligent, good and honest person. Long live to you. Sincerely, Lauri Poncet (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Integer sorting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KSFT -- KSFT (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Integer sorting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Integer sorting 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 KSFT -- KSFT (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.