David, sorry to bother you with trifles, but you are the only wikipedian with serious credentials known to me. Can you please comment about a brand new article, Notability in Wikipedia, in talk:Notability in Wikipedia? Twri (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
David, you posted the following on the edit page:
"Hilbert's axioms are not a formalization of Euclid's axioms. They are a formalization of Euclidean plane geometry. And removing the wikilink is a bad idea. Silence ≠ consent"
There was silence because we have already discussed this with the other members. EVERYTIME I change it, it gets changed back. I had three people approve it, so I expect you to accept it. And what proof do you have? PLEASE LEAVE IT, AS IT GETS REALLY ANNOYING....THANK YOU! If you have ANY problems with this, PLEASE, PLEASE discuss it to me on my talk page, as I am SICK and TIRED of your unreasonable actions....
Rallybrendan2006 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In your recent additions to the Ford circle article, I think item 1 should be
Otherwise, as currently written, it seems to say that all circles tangent to C[1/2] are also tangent to C[2/3] (because 2x2 - 3x1 = 1), which is incorrect.
Also, I don't fully understand item 3:
For example, what are the "two closest ancestors" to 3/4 in the Stern-Brocot tree ? Are they 2/3 and 1/2 ? Or are they 2/3 and 1/1 ? Can you clarify your meaning here, please ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you'll care or if you should care. But figured you should know. [1] Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.10.180 (talk • contribs)
Hello! Your submission of Calkin–Wilf tree at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Shubinator (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Excuse me for my bad english. I see your work on Thierry Zéno page. Yesterday the page of Françoise Lebrun was deleted and I think it's a mistake because she's a french actress very famous in the little milieu of the post-nouvelle vague. She work with Jean Eustache ans Marguerite Duras. And Vecchialli. And many others... Can you take a look of this case? Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.107.80 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for alerting me. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If she's so notable, when and where was she born? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you say about DBLP?? --Kitresaiba (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
How about http://www.zentralblatt-math.org/ioport/ ?
It looks like DBLP does not include entries from jouranls - it takes just from conference proceedings. Google scholar looks ok in general. --Kitresaiba (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
MathSciNet is a good one. I do see you calling scientificcommons unreliable in Michel Deza the article I started with. But it listed all his work there. --Kitresaiba (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not a requirement of cellular automata that the state transition function (your rule) be fixed. Indeed, one can easily conceive of rules that vary with time, or with context. I think your restatement is too restrictive. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made adjustments to the opening paragraph of the Cellular Automata article, and request your review thereof. Justification for these adjustments is contained on the article talk page. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
David, the year links (after Wagner, Stein, Fary) do not work, and I don't know how to fix these. Please correct these when you get a chance. Mhym (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your additions to Robust measures of scale. However, can you check whether you included the correct reference, and whether you have correctly characterized it as a technique for "multivariate data." From the paper it's pretty clear that they are proposing a method for univariate data. The first sentence says this explicitly, and the examples are all univariate. Skbkekas (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I would like to clean up the MeshLab page that you just tagged with the unref tag. What kind of refernces do you think that should be added? Most of the information present on the page came directly from the home page (that is referenced) of the project and/or from their release notes. Do you think that it should be correct to add release notes as references too? ALoopingIcon (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a new bio on a Chinese mathematician and could use some attention from a specialist. Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie☆S93 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Eppstein, In all honesty, I'm not sure which category it falls under.Tyrenon (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a recent major book in addition to the material there 2 yrs ago at the afd, so it's not really a G4. I think it would take another afd, and I'm not sure how i would !vote on it there. DGG (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I should have stated my point more clearly from the beginning. Thanks for the edit. R.Vinson (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
David, I see from your user page that you have the expertise to be able to help with a problem that has been troubling me for a while. The article Topology (electronics) makes a link between electronic circuit topology and graph theory. Although the article in its current form is largely my work, the link to graph theory was there in the original stub and I have a bit of a problem with it. Vertex in graph theory is equated with the meaning of "node" in circuit analysis - so far so good. Edge in graph theory is equated with "branch" in circuit theory. This is ok if the branch contains one or more resistors or other two-pole devices. However, some electrical components have more than two poles (the transistor has three for instance) and there does not seem to be any way of incorporating that in graph theory. An "edge" is required that will join three or more vertices. So at least for now, I have limited the applicability to 2-pole components only. Is there a mathematical object in graph theory that can join three vertices? Do you have any other comments on this? SpinningSpark 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Mycielski construction applied to the graph with no edges gives indeed a graph with one vertex and no edges. However, applying the construction to the latter results in M2 = complement of P3. In consequence, subsequent Mi-s are not connected and their number of vertices and edges is different than stated. Mycielski in his paper of 1955 started with K2. Piotr.rudnicki (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We may have had our differences in the deletion page, but after checking you out (I'm sure you did the same), I have to admit that I am very impressed with your personal accomplishments. I salute you for you are truly a good example for others to follow. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll certainly make you an animation of any Moore neighbourhood rule you like, but could you provide the starting position as a png in which the pattern is mapped 1 to 1 as white live cells on a black background? Thanks. Do you want the gun/antigun yellow/green colour code or do you want black and white? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Mark A. Kukucka appears to be a semi-notable academic (see Mark A. Kukucka#Career). Since you are so skilled with finding sources for academics, are there any that would establish notability for Kukucha? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your excellent math drawings, so thought I'd be so forward as to request another of you. Would you mind drawing a picture of a lamination? This can be a lamination of the plane, which is simplest, I suppose, or, if you, for some reason, prefer, a lamination of some other surface, or of a three-dimensional manifold. It should not be a foliation, though: it should have a complementary region (or more than one) visible in the picture. Again, obviously, this is only if you have the time and inclination. Thanks so much for your consideration.—msh210℠ 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - just thought i should drop you a message and admit that I made some not-very-supportive comments re this nominated article at DYK. I looked at it, and a related article (Puffer train), and I really couldn't understand them at all. I don't doubt that the refs check out and they make sense to someone in the field, but speaking as a lay person (albeit with a somewhat-rusty honours science degree), I couldn't grasp what was being explained. Sorry I can't be more help except to encourage the writing of new non-technical introductions to this cluster of articles. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In mathematics, the Butcher group, named after the New Zealand mathematician John C. Butcher, is an algebraic formalism involving rooted trees that provides formal power series solutions of the non-linear ordinary differential equations modeling the flow of a vector field. It was Arthur Cayley, prompted by the work of James Joseph Sylvester on change of variable in differential calculus, who first noted that the derivatives of a composition of functions can be conveniently expressed in terms of rooted trees and their combinatorics. In numerical analysis, Butcher's formalism provides a method for analysing solutions of ordinary differential equations by the Runge-Kutta method. It was later realised that his group and the associated Hopf algebra of rooted trees underlie the Hopf algebra introduced by Dirk Kreimer and Alain Connes in their work on renormalization in quantum field theory.
Thanks for fixing my mistake there. I haven't closed an AfD in a while. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you commented on the Frank Duckworth AfD. I withdrew the appended Tony Lewis deletion. It now has its own deletion discussion page. See User_talk:Shirt58#Frank_Duckworth_and_Tony_Lewis for why this had been added to your talk page.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I made a link for important source, so there is no real conflicts, and so your ref. to WP:COI is invalid for this case, it is your unproved suspicion only.You must prove COI before reverting in talk page!--Tim32 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, D.E.. Take a look here and here. —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello David. I briefly mentioned your name in this discussion at KC's page. If you have an opinion, you are welcome to add it there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say good work - I was the one that PRODded the article, and it looks notable now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you verify my fix at Polyhedral combinatorics? I came across the problem of bounding "V" in terms of "F" when preparing to teach the simplex method, and asked Carl Lee about it. He pointed out the cool result of Steinitz and some of his notes on it for non-major freshmen. I think I managed to fix two errors (a flipped inequality in 2e vs 3f, and a flipped fraction 1-2/3 = 1/3 not 1/2; listed as three in the edit summary, but the second error was just repeated twice). However, I tend to be a complete idiot when it comes to anything geometrical, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes on it. I have checked that every convex polyhedron on wikipedia does satisfy 0.5v < f < 2v, so I am pretty sure the old f < 3v was wrong (at least by the time you get to Steinitz's converse result). JackSchmidt (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
the ed who nominated Steven Gubser is an active member of Physics Wikiproject, rating articles for importance. It might be well to check his work.,DGG (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a bit of justification for bringing this to the board, if you know somewhere else other than WP:RM please let me know.
If you take look further into the discussion and take a look at the talk page (Talk:Bagram Air Base) in question there has been three attempts at having the name changed. The problem I'm having that I could only reduce to speaking with an administrator or the collective as a whole is there has been quite a bit of support in the move along with detailed information regarding the name to be incorrect. The article conveys a wrong name and even confuses a reader by informing them the installations real name only to continue the use of inaccurate name. I don't feel I as an editor trying to bring factual accurate information can properly convey the correct name and other content when the article and its contents informing them of the wrong name.
I respectfully request you to take a look at this again before passing it off as the wrong place or doesn't need administrator assistance -- It has been brought up on WP:RM twice now (with a third discussion.. usually failing due to a "Common usage" policy that doesn't apply when factual references show it is simply wrong.) For this particular instance I will refer to WP:IAR as the common usage policy degrades the articles worth. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been asked to delete the request I made here [3] and I think I will delete it, but since you've commented I wanted to ask if you minded if I deleted your comment or if you want me to copy it to the talk page of the Tucker article or if you want to make the same point there. Thanks.Noirtist (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As you kindly gave advice earlier, I would like to let you know that I have reopened Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)