User talk:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive1

Please write here any comments you might have related to any articles I modified or anything else.

---

Stochastic gradient descent

Hello, Oleg. Could you perhaps clarify your comment about that page? Did you mean I should define on-line gradient descent in addition to stochastic gradient descent? (They are both the same). Or, did you want to see math? I think I defined it in words, but it it is not clear, let me know. -- hike395 03:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Stochastic gradient descent

Hi Hike395,

Maybe you should mention that on-line gradient descent is the same as stochastic gradient descent. Maybe it is because I know nothing about this, but it was not clear for me from reading that page that they are the same. What do you think?

Newton's method

I thought about it for a long while, and I think you are right, 'to find' is better than 'to finding'. --Oleg

I'm not a native speaker of English, so I had to consult some dictionaries before I was sure about it. But I still find it hard to explain exactly why the infinitive ('find') should be used.

By the way, thanks for the nice pictures and other edits. A bit of housekeeping: if you replace a picture by another picture with a different name, and the first picture is not used on any other pages, you can make sure that it is deleted by following the instructions on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I did this for the picture in Newton's method. -- Jitse Niesen 12:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion about the picuture. I thought it was going to be deleted automatically after a while, probably not. I will know this from now on. --Oleg Nov 24 10:05:18 PST 2004

Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation

Hi Oleg, sorry, I didn't mean to offend or anything. In my edit summary, I wrote "changed parentheses (again)..." because you had just changed the parentheses, and then I changed them again. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 23:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Integer square root

Hi Olegalexandrov. I was planning on editing the page again, but wanted to consult you beforehand. I think that the apostrophe in the bottom link needs to be escaped; otherwise Wikipedia fails to recognize the enclosed text as a link. On the flip-side, thanks for cleaning up after me! I messed up on standardization of 'x' and 'n', 'x_n', and 'valid' is much better than 'correct'. I am wondering, however, about your excess of links. For the words (take 'number theory' for example) that are throughout the document, I personally think that only one reference should be linked, presumably at the top. Since that was a bulk of your edit, though, I decided to ask you beforehand; I didn't want to completely reverse your edit! ('Recursive function' is also linked more than once.) Also, I completely realize my ambiguity in the statement, "The beauty of Newton's Iteration for finding the integer square root of a number n is that it can use solely integers," and was wondering what you thought about this statement: "The beauty of Newton's Iteration as used to find the integer square root of a number n is its inherent ability to stay within the set of integers, requiring no use of floating-point arithmetic." That was definitely what I trying to get at. Thanks! --Iamunknown 08:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the excess links; I will be reverting that soon. I do mean that every operation can be performed in integers. About the statement,

The beauty of Newton's Iteration as used to find the integer square root of a number n is its inherent ability to stay within the set of integers, requiring no use of floating-point arithmetic,

I mean the function itself is wholly algebraic. It uses fractions, yes, but fractions are merely two integers placed atop and beneath one another. Keeping that into perspective, you could retain their integer identites and continue on with your calculation (still remaining in the set of integers) and when you have reached the desired accuracy, then do your final division.

--Iamunknown 21:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I love your complete edit of the page now. It is a lot better, I must say. Where did you learn to write so expositorally like that? I feel like I'm reading a research paper; it's so well improved! Thanks! --Iamunknown 16:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oleg, you said in my user talk page that you worked out a proof of the necessity for error compensation using Newton's method for finding the integer square root. I personally don't know how you would go about proving it, but if you feel that it is appropriate for the article (if it isn't too long or complex, I would assume), then feel free to put it in there. I personally would love that; I find mathematical proofs enjoyable to create! Thanks! --Iamunknown 18:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Level set

I understand where you're coming from, though Wikipedia's math articles are not a set of math papers, however. Having the proof in it's own subsection is only set to logically organize the page, though your point about mentioning a theorem without describing which it is, is well taken, and I'll twiddle the page again. Dysprosia 05:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You also don't need to remove talk from my talk page :) Welcome, by the way! I hope you like the place and choose to stay. Nice to see another math person, even though you are in Applied ;) If you've any other questions don't hesitate to ask me or make a note on the (albeit massive) Wikipedia:Village Pump. Thanks, and happy editing... Dysprosia 05:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have a reputation for being difficult to understand by the layperson. That wording was aimed to try to make it less so. Dysprosia 05:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The removal thing may well be a bug, since we've just upgraded to a new version of the software. Dysprosia 05:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We've stated the theorem and said it's a fact, rightly so. Consider placing the word "theorem" before - a layperson who would not know what a theorem is would be put off by this. Alternatively one could say "There is a fact (a theorem), that ...", but this sounds strange. I'm saying the proof section should go in a new subheading, not the "This fact" section. I thought it would sound more like a discussion or textual (I can't find the word right now) by using a single paragraph, but that can probably be twiddled around. If you've got a good idea, be bold and try it out :) Dysprosia 01:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are complicating things. OK, I see your point, we should not confuse the lay people. But you cannot simplify things indefinitely. Anybody going to the level set page would first see a mathematical definition of level sets, which includes a set notation in n variables, which is not encouraging for lay people, but this is life! I would not want that thing changed. Now, if your supposedly naive layperson was not put off by that, when that person moves to the section called "level sets versus gradient", s/he will be sufficiently hardened not to faint when seeing the word "Theorem". Do you agree?

Now, you put the proof in a separate subsection. This is not good I would say, and for two reasons. First, you need to then put the theorem itself in a subsection, otherwise it does not make much sense. Second, people visiting that page will not figure out why the proof is in a subsection, because there is not too much material to be organized in the "level sets versus gradient" section. What they will see is the word "Proof" put without punctuation and with a fat bold font almost in the center of the page. This is a big lack of style, and no, our layperson would not like "Proof" in big boldface more than that person would like proof in small bold face at the beginning of paragraph.

All that said, if that lay person is not smart enough to gloss over technicalities and to look just at the paragraph about the hikers, that person is hopeless. Let us not converge towards the lowest dumbed down denominator, and keep things clear. I reverted the page to its original condition, linking to the word theorem. --Oleg Alexandrov 16:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also put a picture. Hopefully this will compensate for maybe too much math lingo (although I see no way to avoid it in this setting, and I am not sure we should). --Oleg Alexandrov 23:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you are happy, I am happy. However,

What they will see is the word "Proof" put without punctuation and with a fat bold font almost in the center of the page. This is a big lack of style, and no, our layperson would not like "Proof" in big boldface more than that person would like proof in small bold face at the beginning of paragraph.

Articles need to be structured, with the heading markup. This means a table of contents will be generated. Whether or not the font is too large is not really the issue - that is the responsibility of the CSS. Unfortunately, we don't have one CSS for the non-math articles and another for the math articles (which would be ideal). Regardless, I'll leave the article alone for the time being.

Thanks Dysprosia 00:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do agree articles need to be structured, and have nothing against tables of contents :) It is just there is not much to structure there. If we put the proof as a subsection, we will get an article with one section which contains one subsection. If this article gets bigger, more structure might be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov 01:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pekeris and the Helium atom

Hi, I just noticed your addition of a request for Pekeris and the Helium atom, and I was wondering what that one's about - it doesn't sound like your typical mathematical term. ^_~ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 12:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, it was not me who mentioned "Pekeris and the Helium atom" in the Calculus of variations page. There was even some kind of improperly written link to Pekeris and the Helium atom. So, all I did, was to put that link in good shape, and request the actual article. There is something about Pekeris and stuff on the following page: Graduate Course: Quantum Physics, but I don't know anything of this kind of things. If you think the request is inapproapriate, we can remove it. --Oleg Alexandrov 19:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have an idea. The page Graduate Course: Quantum Physics I mentioned, was last updated less than a year ago. I bet that the prof who wrote it is alive and well, and might even be willing to contribute that text or a rephrased version on the actual page. Should we ask him to do that? --Oleg Alexandrov 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think it was inappropriate - I was just wondering what it was about. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 10:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Got it. So, from what I saw on that link I mentioned above, a guy called Pekeris made great contributions to modeling the Helium atom, and that thing seems to be a very important example of the variational principle, about which the page which links to Pekeris and the Helium atom is taling about. --Oleg Alexandrov 16:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism

Oleg, do you realise that the influence of Christianity has led to the decline of Buddhism in Korea? I tell you why:

• Christianity exceeded Buddhism as the leading religion. The current statistics is that Christianity is followed by South Korea's 35% of its total population while Buddhism had only 26%.

• The Christianity in Korea is expanding and will not decrease. Generally, Buddhist can convert to Christian, but not Christian to Buddhist. Seeing from Christianity in Korea that they want to establish Christianity in Korea at this rate, the future of the Buddhist influence will be overshadowed by Christian influence.

• If you find it relavant, then please put it back. Thanks.

• Well, this suggestion is good, but place it there first in the meantime. Help me to put it up the question again, but in an differnet orientation. Furthermore, Buddhism has generated a lot of culture upon Korean culture, but with Christianity it might destroy to some extent its culture, and at this rate, the Koreans may be the first group of Asians like the Hawaiians to face cultural destruction. I'm not purposely condemning about Christianity, even though I was a Christian. If this offends you, then I"ll apologise.

• If there is anything wrong gramatically wrong in my sentence structre, I strongly urge you to help me correct the sentences into proper English.

• There it is, Talk:Korean Buddhism. Please help out whatever you can. I tell you, I'm not an anarchist. Neither do I have the intention of pushing one's agenda or condemning Christianity by purpose. It is just my intention, as a Wikipedian, to reveal the true facts about thr fate of Buddhism, though someone's harsh words have to be added in. Improve it if you can. Thank you.

User:Chan Han Xiang

De Moivre's formula

Thanks for cleaning up my proof. I am, after all, just a lowly undergrad (a Software Engineer, no less!), but one with an interest in mathematics. Just a question: wouldn't this more aptly be called De Moivre's Theorem?-- Revived 04:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The standard name is De Moivre's formula and there is nothing we can do about it. You are right, it is a theorem. Oleg Alexandrov 04:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Spectrum of an operator (respose)

Yes, I agree the spectrum article could use a lot of improvement. That's why I put a link to Self-adjoint operator which is more complete in my opinion. CSTAR 21:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lambert's Cosine Law

Hello - you wrote in Lambert's cosine law:

"In other words, a part of a body which faces you straight on, will appear brighter than the part which faces you under an angle."

This contradicts what I wrote a bit later:

"In other words, when looking at a Lambertian area element, it always looks just as bright, no matter which direction you look at it from, and the only reason that you get less total light from it is because you are looking at it from an angle, which makes it appear smaller that if you looked at it head-on."

I am quite sure that the first sentence is incorrect and should be removed. I will do this soon, unless I hear from you, ok?

Paul Reiser 01:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right that I did not pay very careful attention at what you wrote below. Sorry. That paragraph was just so long I could not concentrate my attention until the end. I have a question to you. You say that something looks just as bright no matter what the angle. But then you say that you get less light if you look under an angle. How do you reconcile these? I mean, if you get less light, it must appear less bright, no?

Please remove my text (sorry and thanks). But it would a mistake I think to put the text back into one or two big paragraphs. My main motivation for what I did is to make small paragraphs, and jump early on to the point of what this law is about. So that text needs some rearrangement. Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will rewrite it. I will try to put in a clearer explanation of the apparent contradiction as well. Paul Reiser 15:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Essential spectrum

I think more on essential particularly for self-adjoint operators would be useful, particularly some stability prioperties under compact perturbations. Maybe in another article. I'll try to get around to this sometime soon. CSTAR 09:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Until I started the article essential spectrum I did not know anything whatsoever about that :) I just wanted to have an article on that, to remove it from Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics. I am sure there is much to be said about essential spectrum. Also, the page on spectrum itself badly needs reworking. There is more to spectrum than just point spectrum and everything else. So, good luck! Oleg Alexandrov 16:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

modulo (computing)

I've made this a redirect page. If it really needs to be separate from modular arithmetic, it should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that people in computing are not the only ones who used this term nor the ones who invented it. People in computing find it VERY DIFFICULT to understand that some things were invented more than 25 years ago, and by people who are not in computer science. They think they invented mathematical induction, numbers, geometry, and language, and reading and writing, all within the last 25 years. Michael Hardy 00:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Replied to you on your talk page (atually, I started writing to you at the same time you started writing to me). Let's continue there. Oleg Alexandrov 01:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi,replied to your talk asking about the link to additive polynomials on the modular arithmetic page. Not sure what to say. The modular arithmetic page provides an extremely narrow definition of an absolutely giant and very hot topic of current mathematical research. I don't know how to reconcile what's there with the broader reality. Maybe have two different pages on the topic? For example, it almost manages to mention that every abelian group factorizes into Z/Zp and is thus isomorphic to the integers, but then ducks for cover before actually completeing the sentance. This article doesn't even link to module (mathematics) which is one of the key concepts under the idea of modular arithmetic. linas 21:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, your last edit to the page modular arithmetic introduced a number of errors. Fields are not the same as rings, although they are similar in many ways. Next, modular arithmetic is defined not just on integers, but also on polynomials, on polynomial rings, on fields, on modules, and very importantly on function fields, which is where many of the results of modern mathematics are coming from. In particular, modular arithmetic is defined on both finite and infinite fields, and many of the important properties hold only on infinite fields. These infinite fields contain Fp and the correct notation is Fp and not Z/Zp, even though to a novice it may appear that Fp and Z/Zp are "the same thing". They are not.

This is similar to another error with the article on modular arithmetic makes over and over. It persistantly confuses the abelian group Z/Zn with the ring Z/Zn. Although the same notation is used to denote both items, they are not the same thing. In particular, the abelian group Z/Zn is isomorphic to the abelian group Z/Zp1 x Z/Zp2 x Z/Zp3... where the integer n has the prime factors p1,p2, p3... This is an important theorm due to Abel, which is why they are called "abelian". This isomorphism does NOT hold for the ring Z/Zn. Thus, the group Z/Zn is abelian, the ring Z/Zn is not.

I'm frustrated that I have to explain this; please don't revert my edits unless you actually happen to understand the topic in sufficient detail to actually correct the mistakes that I do make. linas 01:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the previous message: Whatever does this mean?

"Thus, the group Z/Zn is abelian, the ring Z/ Zn is not."

Z is a commutative ring then so is any quotient. (I'd better have a look at that article). Also the Chinese remainder theorem is a theorem about rings. And abelian groups are called abelian because of Abel's contributions to the solvability of equations. Hmmm. CSTAR 04:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest reading the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Edit summary. To summarize:

• "Always fill the summary field. Even a short summary is better than no summary."

If you have a problem with the policy I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Edit summary and not with me personally.

Again, thanks. Hyacinth 03:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please notice the "please" and "thank you" in my original message, and the link to Wikipedia:Edit summary hidden as "edit summary" in the sentence, "Please provide an edit summary."

As to the specific unsummarized edit I noticed, I believe it was on 17:01, 3 Jan 2005 to Modular arithmetic. You can easily verify that both of us have left edits unsummarized by clicking "My contributions" ([1]) or going to User:Hyacinth and clicking "User contributions" ([2]), respectively. Given this and that I politely asked you to provide an edit summary and directed you to Wikipedia:Edit summary, I do not consider my message an accusation but a request. Hyacinth 04:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truce. Hyacinth 04:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General convention and policy issues. Hyacinth 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

modulo funtion

Hi, I'm a bit short of time at the moment. I have never seen "n mod m" (whatever the notation) used in a mathematical paper except with m > 0. In the case of m > 0, n mod m is periodic in n - that means it is >= 0 always and satisfies (n1+n2) mod m = n1 mod m + n2 mod m. In the case of programming languages, the rules vary. In C, it used to be that both n/m and n%m were implementation-defined for m<0 but the latest standard requires n/m to be truncated towards 0 and n%m is defined to equal n - m*(n/m). I'll look at sequence soon. --Zero 13:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Matrix vs matrix theory

Hi, I have noticed your discussion on Talk:matrix (mathematics). I am having similar problems with graph (mathematics) and graph theory. Perhaps you want to have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Graph_.28mathematics.29_vs_Graph_theory where I started a discussion on this subject. And welcome by the way :) MathMartin 12:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your msg headed Real

In creating User talk:Jerzy#Real, it would seem you confused me somehow with User:Redux. --Jerzy(t) 03:34, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
(P.S.: In case it was a spelling error rather than a typo, "curios" is a plural noun (whose O is pronounced as a "long vowel", and whose S is a voiced consonant like nearly all Zs) having to do, i think, with collectibles, and had me scratching my head about cruzeiros. But on reflection, no doubt you meant "curious" (whose OU is pronounced as a schwa, and whose S is an voiceless consonant like nearly all initial Ss and all double Ss (and many but not most terminal single Ss). I don't mean to presume to lecture, and please accept my apology if this tip is redundant or otherwise unwelcome.)

slope

Yeah, now thst I look at it, "undefined" is the correct term. Thanks. - Evil saltine 06:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Real

Hi. Actually, VampWillow was the one to put the currency article at the top, which he probably did because the article about it used to occupy that denomination (and was moved to its present location in order to make room for a Disambiguation article). But in any case, it was a random placing, since VampWillow did not do it for any particular reason other than that being the article that used to be there. He also entered the few first meanings, which he listed at random also, and every other entry after that was made at the bottom of the existing list. This ensures a neutral list, and avoids contestation. I do not believe that any list on disambiguation pages are organized by "usage frequency" (on which I'm not quite clear as to what it means), which makes it an unestablished criterium (thus would need to be proposed before being implemented, exactly to prevent controversies). Personally, I found it particular that a whole new criterium would entail only one shift in the list (that, again, had been organized at random), which led me to suspect bias (sorry if that was not the case). It would appear to be better to leave the randomly organized list as it is, so no one can contest it, after all, there's always someone with a criterium they think is better to organize an article, a list, etc. About the sock puppet, well your user name is Oleg Alexandrov, and I noticed, in the History Page, that the edit before yours had been made by a user by the name of Olegalexandrov. The similarity of the names leads to the conclusion that both accounts belong to the same person, which would make one of them a sock puppet, something discouraged at Wikipedia (sorry again if that was not the case also). Regards, Redux 13:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red links

In your recent edit at European Union, you stated that it was inappropriate to link to an empty page. As far as I know, there is no policy against linking to non-existant articles. To the contrary, editors are encouraged to use wikilinks in appropriate places to show that there is not yet an article on that subject. Many articles are the result of someone seeing a red link and deciding to help expand Wikipedia. Do you think that the name "Status of the European Union" is itself inappropriate, or are you objecting to something else?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Saxifrage#Red links. Oleg Alexandrov 02:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Period at end of equation

About putting a period at the end of an equation, you may be right. I couldn't find anything on the Wikipedia pages for style. I will find a style manual and check it out. Michael Hardy might be a good person to ask too. Paul Reiser 09:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg - According to Michael periods are correct. Paul Reiser 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Essential spectrum

Are you sure about the definition you wrote? I have a reference (Sandstede, Stability of travelling waves) which states that the essential spectrum of the operator T is the spectrum minus the point spectrum, and the point spectrum is where the operator $T - \lambda I$ is Fredholm with index zero. It is of course well possible that different definitions float through the literature. -- Jitse Niesen 21:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of term "vandalism", and (in my opinion) inappropriate deletion

Reviewing your recent change to Aircraft, it seems to me that an addition to the reference to the movie Airplane! of the use of the word as an alternative to the band Jefferson Airplane by User:66.177.33.232 does not constitute vandalism. In the context of the paragraph, it appears to me to be an appropriate addition, owing to the redirection of Airplane to Aircraft, which should probably be changed to a disambiguation page to contain the two off (aircraft) topic references. Any objections? Best wishes, Leonard G. 06:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and disambiguation addition. I had browsed edits by that IP# and it appears that it is not fixed (or perhaps in use by various family members), being used by a number of editors with various styles and interests. Leonard G. 19:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parzen window

Hi Oleg. I looked at Parzen window and it seems like a good stub to me. I don't see any problems with the existing material. Of course it can be expanded; I'll put it on my to-do list. The most obvious related concept (to me) is the Gaussian mixture model; maybe you or I can add something about that. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 07:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know nothing of the latter topic. Sorry. Thanks for your attention. Oleg Alexandrov 08:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rouche's theorem

Thanks for your efforts to clean up Rouche's theorem! It's always better when another's looking and editing a page. Dysprosia 10:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do prefer the proof method that simply relied on using the rules of differentiation and a little basic algebra. Regardless, I have tried to derive

${h'(z) \over h(z)}={\frac {f'(z)}{f(z)}}+{\frac {\left(1+g(z)/f(z)\right)'}{1+g(z)/f(z)}},$

in the article, but I don't believe it is the best, nor an absolutely adequate explanation. It would be best if you personally filled in your derivation. Could you do so? Thanks Dysprosia 00:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I know it's not odd, that was poor wording on my part, but I didn't like how it looked, nor it providing yet-another-acronym. Even the QED article itself says it's not commonly used. I tried to do the pipe as a compromise, but I think I'll switch back to the square, as it's a little more subtle. Dysprosia 23:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Don't bug me, man. -- CYD

Rate of convergence

Thanks for the reminder. I now checked some references and added a bit to the article. -- Jitse Niesen 19:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The references all use mu > 0, except perhaps the Burden and Faires book (I don't feel like going to the library to check it). Note that the sequence 1 / 2^(n^2 2^n) is quadratic convergent under the "extended" definition even when we add the requirement mu > 0, because it is dominated by the quadratic convergent sequence 1 / 2^(2^n).

Re essential spectrum: I checked and we only need Banach space. Of course, self-adjoint only exists in a Hilbert-space setting; thanks for spotting that.

Re Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics: I agree; actually, I thought about rewriting the page myself but I decided that there are more important things to do at the moment. The only detail I disagree with that I don't see the need to split the page up. Perhaps we should split out the participants that are no longer active (while of course being careful not to step on somebody's toes). -- Jitse Niesen 11:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polynomial ring

Hey, Oleg,the problem with "the" ring is that it fails to define what polynomial multiplication is. Quick: what is x^2 times (x+1) ? well, it could be x^3+x^2 using canonical multiplication, or it could be (x+1)^2 = x^2+2x+1 if compostion is taken to be the way that multiplication is done. The latter form is not isomorphic; but it is also a polynomial ring.linas 06:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion about modulo and modular arithmetic

"Invitation to a discussion about modulo and modular arithmetic" is moved to Talk:modular arithmetic

Happy Number Code

Sorry it got voted for deletion. Don't worry about it, it's not a problem, no harm done, everyone understands that the submission was well-meant and was made in good faith. Hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, sorry if you got a rough introduction. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arghh

Oleg, I get angry every time I have to communicate with you, and I do not enjoy being angry. I think you are wrong on a lot of issues, and I think that things would be a lot better if you stop editing the articles that I work on, and I will make a point of not editing any articles that you start. OK?

I think you introduced a number of errors in the additive polynomial article. I have been struggling to understand what they are and how they work. I have produced many graphs of them, they are on display at the web page Numberetic. I am currently trying to use geometry to understand them, and for you to come in and make these edits and just go "oh these are trivial theorems, except I don't understand what the field F_p is" is just plain wrong. linas 05:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

A saw you changed [Newtons difference method|Newton's difference method] to [Newton polynomial|Newton's difference method] to bypass a redirect on polynomial. I do not consider this a good change. A redirect is inexpensive and provides more information than a direct link. Before your change I could have used the what links here function in the toolbar to show me all links to Newton polynomial and the redirect Newtons difference method would give my a hint as to what sort of information the user is looking for when he visits the page from polynomial. Now this information is lost. MathMartin 15:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

reply from LiDaobing

OK, I got it.--LiDaobing 02:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing--LiDaobing 02:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

You say, “removed the technical analysis part, that should be in a dictionary,”

Maybe so, but how is this any different than the definition that you left in Statistics?

• In Statistics, a trend is a long-term movement in time series data after other components have been accounted for;

• In technical analysis the existing general direction of movement of energy expressed as the relationship between prices. "the trend is your friend!” Dr George Lane GT

Trend Quotes

Should the second quote, made by the same person who made the third quote, be separately attributed to the quoter?

Nice job, thanks!! GT

Trend Quotes 2

Aloha, I put the quote. I was wondering what was the correct way to quote it. The bullets seem to separate. GT

Got it now. I don't know what to advice though. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Questions

• Where can we post a page that needs attention so that someone can fix it?

• Do you only highlight a word the first time it is used on a page, or in a sentence etc?

• I usually read web pages from the bottom up. Scan down, read up. If I do not understand something I want to click on it then not go looking on a part of the page that does not interest me to find a link.

• It does not seem right to use a word in its definition. When you do not understand the word it can only confuse. What is the story on this? GT

=== you better obey=== GT

Happy number

Hi Oleg, I removed some text you added to happy number. Please see Talk:Happy number. Do you actually have proofs of those facts? It appears from happy number code that you only checked 163 cases; I'm surprised you would think that simply checking could constitute a proof.

Curiously, dbenbenn | talk 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PM exchange lists

Oleg: Before you go to the trouble of generating all the PM Exchange lists, It might be good if we made the "announcement" I suggested first, to make sure anyone who hasn't been following the discussion here, and wants to comment on it gets a chance to. Paul August ? 05:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 06:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

For work on WP:PMEX CryptoDerk 16:24, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

For all your work in driving the WP:PMEX project forward at a fast pace, discussion on talk pages, and generation of the list of articles when not asked, I award you this barnstar. Feel free to put it on your user page. CryptoDerk 16:24, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, well. It was lots and lots of joint work, and all I did was to write a text-eating and text-spitting perl script. But you lifted my mood this morning! :) Oleg Alexandrov | talk 18:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeterminate

I thought about indeterminate a while. The way I saw it, it fit best in the polynomial article (especially since indeterminate has a link to polynomial and the polynomial article didn't use the term once). What I inserted was basically a restatement of the first sentence of the PM article. Maybe there is some nuance of indeterminates I don't understand, but what I basically get is "If you have an equation involving polynomials, some variables are either indeterminates or one can solve for them" and "Knowing whether some variables are indeterminates or not may allow us to gain knowledge about other variables". I'm not sure if that even warrants mentioning anywhere, and if it does, if it should go in the polynomial article or somewhere else. CryptoDerk 19:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, gotcha. Yeah, it may be best to copy it over and even expand on it a bit. CryptoDerk 19:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

release notes or details

I don't know whether anyone has written about this, nor exactly where to find the release notes. Please add that information if you find it. Questions about this are probably best directed to the mailing list for the MediaWiki software - that's where the people who implemented the change are to be found. Jamesday 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov | talk 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

What is the story here? If we find stuff on the net we can use it in discussions but not on the main pages? GT

Replied on your page. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I thought history would hold it. GT

Congrats

Could not resist. Congratulations! It seems you want it really badly (unlike other people :) From my past experience, you will do a good job! Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov 05:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! dbenbenn | talk 06:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Oleg, are you sure you are not Zundark?

Thanks for fixing my typo, I don't quite understand how this error occured. By the way, are you standing over my shoulder, watching everything I do? I'd better put some clothes on I quess ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...

I didn't think it was such a taboo. Besides, I just didn't want the Wikiportal to end up like so many projects- long-forgotten or never started. Once again, I apologize. ral315 04:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly overreacted. But the right way to start a new math project should have been accomplished by going to the existing math project (which has been here for at least several years), putting in your idea, and looking for feedback. You decided to first make a project yourself, and then "advertise it". It is harder to attract interest this way. Oleg Alexandrov 05:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Encoding issues

Thanks for the correction of my WP:PMEX edit. I analysed "Erdös" and found out that it is a UTF-8 byte sequence of "Erdös" interpreted as an ISO-8859-1 byte sequence. Are you interested in fixing the mojibakes?--Tokek 11:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WWW::Mediawiki::Client

Thanks for the feedback on my client lib and mvs. I'm writing here as a test to see if I can update your page using mvs. I'm not sure why it would work for me and not for you though. -- UchuHu 15:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Testing mvs

Failed from the school machine. This is from the home machine. Seems it works. Oleg Alexandrov 05:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

\phi vs. \varphi

Hey. Wow that was a quick response. I think that the norm in mathematics is to use the $\varphi$ symbol instead of $\phi$. I think this looks better. Maybe we should change this across multiple articles?

--Jacobolus 05:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm adding a talk item to the mathematics project. I'll see if I get any response about it before I change any other pages. I wonder if there's been previous discussion about this, because the \varphi symbol really is the norm in mathematics that I've seen so far, with \phi reserved for other purposes. --Jacobolus 06:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with all special characters (and greek symbols) in my browser (Mozilla), of course not latex "images", but HTML entities (problem probably discussed elsewhere, but didn't find it), but: If I put it in italics, they come out nicely! This is especially true for \phi, which becomes a very nice \varphi (while in roman, it's a nasty huge boldface "F"!)...

Statistical Software - removal of SigmaXL link

You seem to have a problem with links to commercial sites, but in a inconsistent manner. Why then don't you remove STATA's link? The rules of Wikipedia do not forbid links to commercial sites.

See Talk:Statistics. Oleg Alexandrov 16:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for welcoming me and thanks for the (deserved) re-directing, shall we say (no pun intended). I guess I'm still a novice WP-ian, so I often forget to add the edit descriptor. As for the modern Latin, I guess some day I'll start the article and when that day comes we can change the link back to "modern latin" instead of just "Latin." So you work with mostly mathematics articles? Pretty cool. Good luck in the future. What are you doing in the real world now?

Replied on User talk:Dpr. Oleg Alexandrov 20:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I forgot a stupid thing that I already new--the tilde signing trick. I'm new but not THAT new. Anyway, you're patient like a good professor. No doubt you'll be successful in the world of academia. Good luck. So are you from Russia? Dpr 04:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Math

Thanks for the work you've done categorizing math articles. However, try to keep articles out of the root category Category:Mathematics, as its best we keep this as a sort of "gateway" category. HTH Dysprosia 05:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I'll have to go through it all a bit later. Dysprosia 05:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your "Welcome"

Thanks for your welcoming message... In fact, it came so quickly after my "post" that I first thought it was done by a robot.

But then I noticed that you changed my ..."sequences" not indexed by... into ...a generalization of sequences... (a bit less rich in information, but well, I accept as it's "your" page, and I understand you don't like the "sequences" in quotation marks... ;-)

Q: Is it the normal way to "send messages" to somebody, by editing his "User talk" page? Should I now leave your message (I mean, the default "Welcome" stuff) on top of my user talk page?

Q2: adding a "post" (sorry for the maybe improper vocabulary) to a "User talk" or "Discussion" page, should it be marked "minor edit" or not ? MFH 16:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics

Hi Oleg, thanks for you message. I see that you have a lot of edits on this page, so you probably consider it your pet project. I disagree with your opinion about notation, but I'm not interested in an edit fight. I think the upright d is much clearer since sometimes there is a function d or a distance d involved and I also like to think of it as exterior differentiation. So while there may not be a need to use upright d, I think it is cleaner. About the := sign. Do you ever use it? I would personally also like to eliminate the argument of the functions involved, like so: $f:=\sin \cdot \cos$. I only use simply = when both sides have meaning. In the present case f does not have any meaning, so I consider f = sin, meaningless, but f := sin, makes clear what you want, even if you didn't have the accompanying text. 145.97.223.187 11:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be very happy to discuss with you these matters. What matters above all is consistency. Could you please make yourself an account, so that we can talk properly. The IP address is a very unreliable thing. Oleg Alexandrov 15:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is me. MarSch 16:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:MarSch. Oleg Alexandrov 21:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hidden line removal

Hi Oleg - you wrote: You made me curious. You fulfilled my request for a better stub category within hours, but you don't have that page on your watchlist!

I'm one of the drudges who goes through Category:Stub looking for things to categorise further. Sheer chance I did this one :) Grutness|^hello? 05:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are doing noble work! :) I tried going through stubs several times, but could not resist for too long. Way too much stuff I care little about. Oleg Alexandrov 06:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

table for list of participants

Very nice! I had thought the usernames could be in alphabetical order, but maybe that's too compulsive :) They probably wouldn't stay that way anyway. So does this mean you're warming up to the table idea? Or are you just showing off :) I wish I could trade my little knowledge of table syntax for your obvious (Perl is it?) expertise ;-) By the way, after all of us taking a PlanetMath break, I see progress is once again being made, plus we have a new helper! Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. sorry to have disagreed with you on the "Boundedness debate", I was a bit concerned that you misread my feeble attempt at humor there ;-)

Liouville's Theorem (Hamiltonian)

(I've run this issue past Charles a couple of times and I'm sure he's sick of it).

The article is a classic one where Mathematicians and physicists speek the same theorem in very different languages. I've approached it as a physicist (who first learned it in Natural Sciences Part 2 over 30 years ago). Either of the two 'proofs' I give (the convected dp.dq element and the 'fluids flow' proof) have adequate structure for a a physics undergrad to 'accept' I feel. But the maths guys coming from symplectic manifolds should really have a say, and it should be more than, 'for a symplectic manifold this theorem is trivially true!' It would be useful to say why it's so and what the analogous ideas are. Eg I suspect it's because the symplectic group has antisymmtric properties, just like those that Hamilton's equations produce. I found a useful page in Penrose, which I tried to 'convect' across (by 'parallel transport' :-) ??) - but then I noticed a danger - expressed too simply, this idea seems NOT to give _total_ d by dt (phase space volume) =0 . (At least one earlier maths-based contributor has fallen into this trap). The fact that it's the convective derivative two is of the essence to a physicist or chemist, trying to use it to support his stat mechanics.

Can you see how to write a symplectic space (sub) section which is comprehensible to a physics-major (with say 2 or 3 years of maths methods behind her, but no deep understanding of differential geometry). Linuxlad 12:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything at all about this stuff unfortunately. So I can't help. Good luck with that. Oleg Alexandrov 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pity! you sounded just the chap :-)80.177.213.144 20:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for following my traces and deleting spaces I leave on beginning of lines and so. (How do you to to track my "contributions" (I put quotes because mayb its not always an enrichment...))

To track somebody's contributions: go to page history, take a diff involving the desired person, then you will see a link to contributions of that person. But in this situation it was easier, I think I either had that page on my watchlist, or I followed it from another page on the watchlist. So relax, I am not spying on you :)

PS: is it easier for you to find my messages if I add it in the end, or do you prefer if I put all my blabla into the same section ("Thanks")? MFH 20:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just add them at the end. I find this to be the simplest thing to do, and also more practical. Oleg Alexandrov 21:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spectral density and other things

Thank you for your contributions to Spectral density and Periodogram. I just wonder, why do you move the physics-stub from the bottom of the article? I thought it was more approproate at the bottom.

Hmm? I thought it was standard to put them right under the article content, which is the part that needs expanding.

Ah. I see it has been removed from the Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub page. With discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub#Position of template. *Sigh* More nitpicking policy discussion.  :-) - Omegatron

And a small request. Would you mind providing an edit summary? I find it very helpful for articles on my watchlist. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 21:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just really lazy about that. - Omegatron 22:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Christopher Wren from List of mathematical topics (V-Z)

According to St Andrews, Wren has done some maths. I'm not sure it's enough to warrant his inclusion in the list of maths topics though. There is also a short discussion at Talk:List of mathematicians. Just for your information ... Jitse Niesen 12:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Put the guy back. One day some kind soul might write about his math contributions in his bio article. Oleg Alexandrov 17:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hi Oleg - do you have an email set in preferences? I sent an email, but got no reply PAR 13:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just replied. Sorry for the delay. Oleg Alexandrov 16:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Math project participants list

Hi Oleg, I've taken your participants table and updated it like so:

User:Paul August/Subpage 13

What do you think? Besides the two users, stochata and Tomo who have replied in favor of the table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, another user MarSch, on my talk page has said he likes the tabular form as well. I would have preferred to have heard from some of the more senior participants, but I'm inclined to go ahead with this anyway, unless you are still opposed. I have to say your script generated table has made it too hard for me to resist, so you are hoist on your own Perl petard, so to speak ;-)

Paul August ☎ 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

You made a good case for the table. And it is not hard to fill in, one just needs to copy a row from above, and rewrite some of that info.

Most people did not reply because I think nobody cares :) So the best thing to do is, as you plan, to just go ahead with it. Oleg Alexandrov 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS The table looks good. Oleg Alexandrov 21:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. Yes I'm assuming that most people are indifferent. I will go ahead then. Your script made it much easier. Paul August ☎ 21:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

periods at the end of formulas

is there a consensus that this is needed? looks bad to me. - Omegatron 00:19, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Period at the end of formula is the universal style in math. I am aware that in engineering for example, people do not do that. Did it happen that I modified something outside math (I try to stick to math, but sometimes the links from the list of mathematics topics lead into related subjects). If you would like, we can have a wider discussion about this. Oleg Alexandrov 00:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it was an electronics article common drain, and they weren't sentences, either. I think even in mathematics articles it doesn't look good. I don't remember seeing it in my math books. It looks like a symbol, which could certainly confuse me; I don't know about other people. $Q\cdot Q.$ ${\dot {Q}}.$ $...,1,2,3,....$ Perhaps it's something from typesetting that doesn't carry over perfectly to the web? - Omegatron 00:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just pulled two math books off my shelf (math math, not engineering math) :-) and they are different. One has no punctuation next to formulas unless they are inline with the sentence. The other has periods the way you are using. - Omegatron 00:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would not like to start this on the wrong foot. Can we talk first before you get on to reverting things? Oleg Alexandrov 00:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted that one; don't worry. - Omegatron 00:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping reversions. There is nothing more pissing me off than people doing things without consultation.

I just pulled 5 applied math and probabily books off my shelf. They all use period at the end. Would you like us to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Or would you take my promise that I will not mess up with any articles which are not either linked from list of mathematics topics, or in some math category, or listed as a math stub? Either way is very fine with me. Oleg Alexandrov 00:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The encyclopedia of physics uses periods, too.  :-) You are winning my bookshelf 2 to 1 so far. The engineering books don't, as you said. - Omegatron 00:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

If it's standard mathematics practice I guess go for it, and leave the engineering articles without. Of course, there are some articles that exist on the intersection between these two worlds. Has there been any discussion about it before you started adding them? - Omegatron 00:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not consult anybody. But, I am already at letter "C", and at at least 5 Wikipedians I know had one or more of those on their watchlist. I can certainly stop until we talk this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. All up to you. Oleg Alexandrov 00:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's just move this conversation there and see what other people have to add, and you can keep going with the math articles. - Omegatron 00:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

To do?

You wrote:

"Waiting til an automated tool is made?"

There are automated and programmable tools for uploading stuff. I can help with that if necessary. Oleg Alexandrov 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah? I want to move all my images over: User:Omegatron/Gallery I didn't see any clear consensus on Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, so I figured that stuff was still up in the air... - Omegatron 04:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I see. You want more than just uploading stuff, you would like to move the images together with their history. That probably can't be easily done, and if yes, only by the admins. So, can't help you with that. :) Oleg Alexandrov 05:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to keep any information and previous images. I'm an admin, but not on the commons (yet). Does that help at all? - Omegatron 05:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I guess not. One would need to know the fine details of how Wikipedia software is implemented. I don't know how to do that. I thought you needed a lousy script to upload stuff from your hard drive. So, I got the wrong impression from seeing:

• Upload my electrical images to the commons
  • Waiting til an automated tool is made?

on your page. Oleg Alexandrov 06:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's alright. Thanks, anyway. - Omegatron 06:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)