| Revision as of 01:44, 15 October 2009 editRobinK (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,057 edits →Halting problem and Likebox: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:52, 15 October 2009 edit undoLikebox (talk | contribs)6,376 edits →Halting problem and LikeboxNext edit → | ||
| Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
| :Mm. I am far from knowledgeable about computation, but I just took a look at Sipser (which I understand to be something of a standard introductory text in the subject), and he uses finite input strings in his description. I think, if people knowledgeable on the subject are not in agreement to the contrary, we should probably stick to the standard pedagogical approach. It's fairly common for there to be sections towards the end describing generalizations and extensions of the theory, however, so that might be a good place for Likebox to put his stuff? <strong>]</strong>] 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | :Mm. I am far from knowledgeable about computation, but I just took a look at Sipser (which I understand to be something of a standard introductory text in the subject), and he uses finite input strings in his description. I think, if people knowledgeable on the subject are not in agreement to the contrary, we should probably stick to the standard pedagogical approach. It's fairly common for there to be sections towards the end describing generalizations and extensions of the theory, however, so that might be a good place for Likebox to put his stuff? <strong>]</strong>] 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::: The issue is entirely pedagogical. I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake. People knowledgable in the subject don't think about this, because it is too elementary to waste time thinking about. It is in these situations that bad pedagogy can flourish. | |||
| ::: But we don't have to be stuck with bad pedagogy. If there is a nice text which explains sourced material well, but doesn't sound ''exactly'' like a textbook, that's OK according to ], so long as it is accurate, clear, and explains intermediate steps in well referenced results. | |||
| ::: In this case, the theorem is this: You can't write a program HALT which takes P as input and decides if P halts or not. | |||
| ::: One way to state the proof is: Write SPITE to print its own code into R, calculate HALT with input R, and if the answer is "R halts" go into an infinite loop, and if the answer is "R doesn't halt" to halt. | |||
| ::: This proof is trivial, and the only question is whether a program can be made to write its own code. This is slightly nontrivial, but it is an exercise for computer science freshman. | |||
| ::: The other way to prove this is to say "It is undecidable whether program P with input I halts for arbitary P and I". Then you prove it this way. Suppose HALT(P,I) tells you whether P and I halts. Then write SPITE to take input I, and evaluate HALT(I,I), and if the answer is "I halts on input I" SPITE goes into an infinite loop. If the answer is "I does not halt on input I" then SPITE halts. | |||
| ::: Then you ask if SPITE is given as input the code for SPITE, what does it do? You see, it's exactly the same proof, except that the code for SPITE is given to SPITE as input, instead of being generated by SPITE at step 1. | |||
| ::: I think that the proof where SPITE prints its own code is clearer. To prove that a program can always print its own code is very simple, using the diagonalization argument.] (]) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:52, 15 October 2009
A nitpicking style issue
Even today there are poor benighted souls who don't know Misplaced Pages math notation style conventions.
I sometimes find things like xn, with the subscript not italicized. Here's a guess: some people see things like x1, where the subscript should not be italicized, and leap to the conclusion that that applies to subscripts generally, rather than being about the difference between literal variables and digits.
At any rate, I've always assumed the idea is that non-TeX notation should match TeX style as closely as possible. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to the recent edits you made at Cyclotomic character. I wrote that article and can explain to you that my decision was not a matter of poor pattern recognition, but rather a compromise at the sometimes poor look of html. Italicized super- and subscripts can redner poorly. As an example, consider the following with italicized superscript: H. Because html makes no attempt at looking good, the superscript and the base letter overlap, and can be unreadable at times. Now I have since seen the hack H, and I use that now, but I didn't go back over all previous edits I made to change them all. Especially since html rendering of math is not actually a guideline, and some people go around changing things to TeX anyway. I will assume you weren't calling me "benighted". Though a quick look at the history of the article would have clearly indicated that I was essentially the only editor. Perhaps this whole comment could've been posted on my talk page. Maybe I'm the only culprit. RobHar (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled: You're saying the problems you refer to here explain your decision not to italicize the subscript n? Michael Hardy (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find that html does a poor job of rendering italicized small fonts in general. The superscript example I described above is a particularly egregious example, but even Hf doesn't look great because the f is so small. So, for a while, I simply decided to avoid italicizing sub- and superscripts for aesthetic purposes. I view TeX emulation not as a goal unto itself, but rather a good approximation to proper aesthetics. Are you still puzzled? Something that puzzles me that you could perhaps explain is why every single time you add a section to this talk page you do so manually and without changing the edit summary so that it appears you are adding to the previous discussion, but really you're not. Now that's puzzling! RobHar (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not actually every time, and when it happens it's just haste. Certainly the way we handle both TeX and non-TeX notation has been deficient in some identified ways that we've been talking about at least since the beginning of 2003. How do Hƒ and H ƒ appear on your browser? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- On my system at least, the kerning on H is just as bad as RobHar says it is. It will depend very heavily on the fonts that are used to display the math. TeX itself has to go to great lengths to get the kerning right for mathematical formulas, which is why there are very few mathematics fonts for TeX.
- On the other hand, I would just write H in an article. I don't think we should worry about things such as kerning for HTML display. But if you do want to add a space, make it a thin nonbreaking space (typed as " "). This gives: H. The version with gives: H which is too wide for me and probably for everyone else too. See Unicode spaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks CBM, that looks much better. RobHar (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- He might have noticed it last there but you're hardly the only person to do this sometimes! Dmcq (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since we are nitpicking, this is a good time for me to ask this question: In TeX, I always write the time complexity of a linear time algorithm as . This is the same as in the Big O notation article, and CS papers in general. However, I've noticed that while using HTML, most people just write O(n). (The difference is that the "O" is not italicized.) What is the correct way? Is the big O italicized? (Same question for Omega, Theta, etc.) --Robin (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
. This is the same as in the - For big-Oh notation, we should probably follow the pattern used by the majority of CS publications, if there is a pattern. That will minimize reader confusion with our articles.
- Greek is a different issue. TeX sets lowercase mathematical Greek in italic by default, but some people use upright lowercase Greek with TeX (in other fonts), and so it is not clear which way is better. Also, certain things are set in non-italic by convention (for example, capital Greek letters are set upright in TeX by default). Personally, when I use HTML entities to type Greek letters in math articles on Misplaced Pages, I never italicize them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
D. Rees?
Can someone address the issues I raise at Talk:Don Rees? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
List of X topics vs Outline of X
Should articles called List of topology topics etc be changed to Outline of topology etc. User The Transhumanist is changing them all. A particularly ridiculous example is when List of triangle topics was changed to Outline of triangles. Charvest (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- ...and similarly, outline of circles. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is some background and explanation at User talk:The Transhumanist, accompanied by a growing list of complaints. Some of these page moves are being reverted piecemeal by various editors. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a WikiProject devoted to this: Misplaced Pages:WPOOK. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you take a look at The Transhumanist's last few contributions, he talks about accelerating this process and is enlisting others to help. I suggest that you visit the project and warn them to stop and approach this in a very different manner. Such mass changes should be approved on each talk page first. Barring that, a Wiki-wide official policy needs to justify it. Such a style policy/guideline doesn't exist, AFAIK. This needs speedy action to prevent more damage. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Transhumanist has a long history of blatantly ignoring complaints and pushing ahead his pet project of "WPOOK" in spite of everybody else. Apparently, "outlines" need to be forced down the community's collective throat for its own good.
- the bottom-line is that we have here an editor who has repeatedly shown his utter contempt for all wikilike procedure of discussion, consensus-building and compromise. I know of no effective way of dealing with such cases other than the warn-block cycle. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dbachmann is being misleading here. His position in the past has been anti-topics-lists (which includes outlines and "Lists of x topics"). He also fails to point out that I have engaged in a great number of discussions on this subject, have been open to any and all feedback, and have helped to nurture the project to its present state of development through diplomacy, drafting proposed guidelines, and forthright collaboration. The outlines have improved greatly since their conception by the input of many excellent editors. I honestly believed no one would mind the page moves, since we (WP:WPOOK) have been converting topics lists to outlines continuously for nearly a year (one by one via WP:BRD). Dbachmann himself has stated on more than one occasion that he doesn't mind there being an OOK as long as it is moved to another namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dbachman, this has been discussed with you before, I need not tell you to see WP:OUTLINE Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- A proposed guideline is hardly a good reason for undiscussed execution of blatantly wrong page moves such as those mentioned above (Outline of triangles, outline of circles). Outlines are controversial. Renaming lists to "outlines" is predictably controversial. We have two processes for controversial moves: Proposing them on the article talk page, and WP:Requested moves. Which of them was followed in these cases? Hans Adler 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The puns aside, those titles share the same grammatical structure as Outline of sharks, Outline of ants, etc. and are grammatically correct. That an "outline of a triangle" is a triangle is irrelevant, as a reader will quickly discern the purpose of the page once the lead is rewritten. The Transhumanist 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Answer the question. Which of the processes for controversial pagemoves did you follow? You cannot, by this point, be unaware that there is widespread opposition to your pet project in general, and pagemoves in particular. → ROUX ₪ 21:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The puns aside, those titles share the same grammatical structure as Outline of sharks, Outline of ants, etc. and are grammatically correct. That an "outline of a triangle" is a triangle is irrelevant, as a reader will quickly discern the purpose of the page once the lead is rewritten. The Transhumanist 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the name is very important. Yes, User:The Transhumanist should not be doing these sorts of massive page moves, and someone has already given him or her a warning to stop. But I don't think it's worth wasting too much time discussing the matter, when we could be achieving more useful things than discussing whether "Outline" or "List" is a better word for the title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I renamed the articles with the intention to refine them into better (topical) outlines. But if you prefer, we could just wait until new outlines on these subjects are created from scratch. Though I feel the WP:OOK would be a nice new home for these pages, as they would be cleaned up, expanded, and refined in short order. The Transhumanist 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it might be a silly thing to waste time over, but some things are downright ridiculous. What do we do when someone suddenly feels like calling all the "History of X" articles "Glorious and wondrous past of X"? Some of the math articles here are really lists and not outlines. They're just a collection of topics that we happen to have articles on. Those lists don't aim to provide full coverage of the topic or give a high-level outline of the topic. --Robin (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to put "under construction" tags on them. The Transhumanist 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh God, is he still at this nonsense? Someone block him and be done with it. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't quite see why outlines should always be called 'Outline of'. Often an article is best written as an outline and this would stop it just being given the straightforward name. It is as if all the disambiguation pages suddenly had to be called something like 'Disambiguation of' even when there's no real main meaning. Yes it would save some messing around for editors but it would hinder users. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose such a wholesale namechage. The examples given above are just silly, and article names should be unambiguous - links shouldn't surprise the reader. When clicking on "outline of ..." that could be a number of things, but list or glossary etc are pretty clear. (For silly examples, see country articles like Outline of Iraq - I honestly expected a discussion of its borders and things like it's fractal index, etc). I've proposed that the "proposed policy" WP:OUTLINE be marked as failed. Verbal chat 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Verbal. What's the reason behind the name change? I understand the aim of the WP:OOK project, and what you'll are trying to do, but why must all the articles be named as "Outline of X". Why don't you just put your "WikiProject Outline of knowledge" template on the talk page of lists which seem to fall under your WikiProject? --Robin (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- If outline of subject is δ subject then the top level outline of the outlines should follow δδ knowledge = {}. ;-) No I think an outline structuring is a good idea, just not the idea of special article names. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Outlines aren't bad, but naming everything "outline" can and does result in ridiculous situations. Titles should be unambiguous and unaffected by some sort of OCD-like relationship toward always using particular words in the title. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Kurt Gödel
I have encountered a strange situation at the Kurt Gödel article with someone removing content. I don't think anyone else needs to do anything at the moment, but having that page on more watchlists would help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
????? Landau
- Landau's constants, named after ??????? Landau, are......
etc. My guess is Edmund. Can someone who knows the answer edit the article accordingly? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Landau's denesting algorithm
We have no article titled Landau's algorithm. I've added some red links to that article from nested radical and from Susan Landau. If anyone knows anything about it, could they write something? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
...OK, now I've created the article, but it says nothing specific about the algorithm. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Somos sequences
In connection with the deletion nomination for the article on Michael Somos, I started a new article Somos sequence. It's very bare bones right now, just including the basic definitions and a few references, and it's missing a lot of material e.g. on the connections between these sequences and theta-series of elliptic curves. If anyone else wants to take some time to improve it, I'd appreciate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Synergetics coordinates
Can someone take a look at Synergetics coordinates? I'm not much sure what they are, but the page gets changed from time to time. They seem to be related or unrelated to Synergetics (Fuller), and/or a Clifford J. Nelson, and the latest edits are by a User:Cjnelson9. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- It all sounds a bit like Sacred geometry to me, I'm not sure an approach as mathematics would satisfy adherents who came along to read about it. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any reason not to prod the article? This article seems to flout just about every policy: WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:FORK, and so forth. 74.98.46.147 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Robin Thomas
There are currently eight links from articles to Robin Thomas (mathematician), so if somebody knows something, could they put something there? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ascending power numbers on AFD
- This section was previously titled: "an article which seems to be maintained by a narcissist who writes for his/her fellow mathematicians"
There's an interesting rationale at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ascending power numbers. Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Michael Somos" nominated for deletion
Comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Somos. Do not simply say Keep or Delete (or Merge into... or whatever); rather, give your arguments. Currently Somos sequence and Somos' quadratic recurrence constant are mentioned at Michael Somos. Are those enough for "notability"? Are there other things that should be mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Somos' quadratic recurrence constant expresses the constant as the derivative of another constant, a particular value of a three-parameter function. Presumably this should be some derivative of the function itself; can someone fix this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cyclic permutation of integer nominated for deletion
If interested, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyclic permutation of integer. Note that just saying delete or keep is not constructive — reasons need to be given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Division by two
I just came across the article Division by two, which is unfortunately completely unsourced, and has been so since its creation in 2002. First I thought that this is just an unnotable simple special case, but then it occurred to me that there might be some historical interest in this algorithm (cf. Peasant multiplication which incidentally requires a division-by-two algorithm); does anyone know any sources or background? — Miym (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added some sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks a lot better but the heart of the article, the algorithm to divide by 2 base 10, is still unreferenced. Factually it looks ok, and most people learned it grade school, so maybe it doesn't need a reference. But I'm not sure it's encyclopedic and WP:NOTHOWTO seems to imply that it isn't. Maybe that section should be moved to WikiBooks.--RDBury (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- There's a similar (though not identical) algorithm in the 15th-century algorism citation. And it would be stupid to use WP:NOTHOWTO to imply that descriptions of algorithms are forbidden. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks a lot better but the heart of the article, the algorithm to divide by 2 base 10, is still unreferenced. Factually it looks ok, and most people learned it grade school, so maybe it doesn't need a reference. But I'm not sure it's encyclopedic and WP:NOTHOWTO seems to imply that it isn't. Maybe that section should be moved to WikiBooks.--RDBury (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Clarity
Now we have
Two quite different things.
Great.
All perfectly clear to the newbie or casual reader.
Right?
Michael Hardy (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- One is a list and one is a list of lists. It seems to me that the list of lists (whichever it is) should be changed to a category, e.g. ].--RDBury (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that category already exists Category:Mathematics-related lists, maybe a merge is in order?--RDBury (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe one of them should be called an "Outline." --Robin (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that category already exists Category:Mathematics-related lists, maybe a merge is in order?--RDBury (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting.
- Lists of mathematics topics is pretty good. But I think we should limit it to listing lists, not lists and categories.
- List of topics in mathematics is not so good. On one hand, it is very incomplete; on the other hand, making it complete would make it pretty much useless.
I would suggest just redirecting List of topics in mathematics to Lists of mathematics topics, and focusing on making the latter as useful as possible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The proposal to change lists of mathematics topics to a category is lunacy! This was once a "featured" list, representing Misplaced Pages's best work. It lost that status only because of a lack of references. Categories are vastly inferior to lists. This list is a good example of HOW categories are inferior to lists. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have a policy that these two formats are complementary—that one should not eschew one of them because the other exists? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they complement each other and there is a page about it: Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. I agree that Lists of mathematics topics should not be replaced by a category, which would be much worse for browsing. But I think that, within the list of lists, we should not list categories as well. If the lists are set up right, each category that we link to there has a corresponding list that we can link to instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Earliest uses of mathematical terms
This is a useful source of external links. But when an anonymous user adds a good link to one of its pages to an article, User:XLinkBot automatically deletes it without any human supervision. If the user also adds content to the article, all such content is deleted along with the link. I think this WikiProject should endorse this particular site. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also find that site useful; I have used it to explain things to my classes. I think that people should feel free to use it in articles. But if it is a reference, the opinions in it should be cited to Miller. So rather than "The first use of 'field' for the algebraic structure was by E.H. Moore in 1893", say "According to Miller (CITE), the first use of 'field' for the algebraic structure was by E.H. Moore in 1893." Questions about priority of results and terminology are notoriously prone to disagreement.
- As for XLinkBot, it claims that it allows established users to add links, only reverting new users and IP editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can some domains be white listed? It would make sense to do that. Le Docteur (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I tried something, it didn't work. I will see if it can be done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Revised Near sets article
Hi all, I have updated the article Near sets based on some feedback I received from this page a few months back. I invite any who are interested to check out the updated article to offer some suggestions to help improve it further. Thanks in advance. NearSetAccount (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not my cup of tea but it's been nicely laid out. I can think of a lot of articles that could do with a makeover like that. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Leadership?
A bit off-topic -- but -- virtually all of the edits I do at WP are on math articles, with some spill-over to physics and comp-sci. I've not been active for the last few years, because I got tired of the editorial nonsense that goes on. Despite being inactive, I recently was attacked, more or less unprovoked, by a new-age editor who had vandalized an obscure math article I wrote, and someone else reverted. When I told him off, I was promptly piled-on by five admins who blocked me for several weeks. I'm kind of shocked that the power structure here has changed so much that we've got these kinds of nasty, abusive people in admin roles. I complained to the Arb, but they ignored the case. I don't know what to do, other than to complain here, and ask everyone to try to band together, and to figure out how to get the ugly admins and the (incompetent?) leadership out of power, redo Misplaced Pages leadership, and restore some sanity. linas (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The following is apparently what happened. In the article titled history monoid, this work was cited:
-
- G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. 3, Beyond Words, pages 457–534. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997
- User:Aboutmovies mistakenly thought that "Beyond Words" was the publisher rather than part of the title, and changed it to ], so that the reader saw this like: Beyond Words. Someone changed it back with an explanation in the edit summary that that's part of the title, not the name of the publisher. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The contribution of Linas is quite impressive (I have visited several pages on different topics). However, his message above contains no links, and so, I do not understand what is really the problem. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is an ANI discussion here with opinions by various people and additional pointers. Hans Adler 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been forum-shopped to Mediation, to the Arbitration Committee, and now to the talk pages of several WikiProjects. Editors coming to this situation with no prior knowledge should read Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Linas again, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/User:Linas, and this declined ArbCom request to get up to speed. Please place all further discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Linas, soapboxing on wikiprojects (and userpage), rather than having lots of little disjoint discussions everywhere that this has been shopped around to. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comments. Linas, you have been a good if quirky contributor to the project. Not so much has changed, but there is a definite effort on foot to improve standards of civility around the site. Just as in the past we have discussed mathematics and you have accepted that you have made technical mistakes, I think you should accept that you have made a mistake of escalation over the initial issue, which need not have been a big deal. If you need an advocate for your past efforts, I'll speak to whoever needs to hear about that. But when I have seen others attack the "system" in this way, I have always felt they were misunderstanding some of the factors, even if the mistakes were not all on one side. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone else get a nagging feeling that there are two (or more) people running the User:Linas account? It is difficult to reconcile the impressive list of contributions with the spoiled teenager that calls people "fuck brained idiots". Is that the normal Jekyll and Hydeism from this account? Or is a checkuser perhaps in order? Wknight94 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Calling Linas a "spoiled teenager" is not really helpful. Linas, though prickly at times, has made major contributions to our project, and while he has not handled this situation very well, it would be good for others to examine their behavior as well. Paul August ☎ 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- My point was that it seemed like a spoiled teenager personality. I've never known anyone over the age of 17 to use such terms. If it turned this was a mathematics post-grad sharing an account with an angry 15-year-old brother, I would not be surprised in the least (and it wouldn't be the first time I encountered such a situation). Wknight94 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the point you are trying to make. Nevertheless I don't think the way you are trying to make it is helpful. Try to consider how you would feel If someone said your behavior seemed like that of a "spoiled teenager". Paul August ☎ 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would feel like maybe I am coming across quite immaturely and I should probably smarten up (as we Maine folks say). But if you think I'm an anomaly in that regard, that's fine, I'll drop it. Wknight94 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would feel like maybe I am coming across quite immaturely and I should probably smarten up (as we Maine folks say). But if you think I'm an anomaly in that regard, that's fine, I'll drop it. Wknight94 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the point you are trying to make. Nevertheless I don't think the way you are trying to make it is helpful. Try to consider how you would feel If someone said your behavior seemed like that of a "spoiled teenager". Paul August ☎ 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- My point was that it seemed like a spoiled teenager personality. I've never known anyone over the age of 17 to use such terms. If it turned this was a mathematics post-grad sharing an account with an angry 15-year-old brother, I would not be surprised in the least (and it wouldn't be the first time I encountered such a situation). Wknight94 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Calling Linas a "spoiled teenager" is not really helpful. Linas, though prickly at times, has made major contributions to our project, and while he has not handled this situation very well, it would be good for others to examine their behavior as well. Paul August ☎ 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so. From the contribs, it seems like Linas has a good understanding of advanced math topics. Consequently, people who don't understand advanced math appear stupid to Linas, and by extension, they appear to be "fuck brained idiots." --Robin (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not seeing anything that can't be explained with misunderstandings. If I had been in Linas' situation and had believed that Aboutmovies was a sneaky vandal, I might not have behaved too differently. Hans Adler 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I knew two people, incidentally, one being a University Math Professor, who could go berserk at any manifestation of stupidity however minor. And do not forget we do not know anything about linas' personal life, the trigger might have been outside Misplaced Pages. (Igny (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
- Does anyone else get a nagging feeling that there are two (or more) people running the User:Linas account? It is difficult to reconcile the impressive list of contributions with the spoiled teenager that calls people "fuck brained idiots". Is that the normal Jekyll and Hydeism from this account? Or is a checkuser perhaps in order? Wknight94 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Charles and others, it would seem to me that on this point, the goals of increasing civility on Misplaced Pages and actually building a good encyclopedia are somewhat in conflict. Misplaced Pages is not so rich that it can afford to run off everybody who's capable of being provoked, no matter how great their energy or extensive their contributions. Frankly, the whole incident looks like it could've been avoided if people had been allowed, you know, to blow off steam. Standards of admin action developed amidst our most ferocious disputes and hardened by arbcom remedies on bitter cases of protracted conflict do not need to be applied injudiciously across the rest of Misplaced Pages. Ray 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, the goals of increasing civility and, for example, increasing our participation of women are entirely in line with each other. As for any other group, such as older folk, who find displays of petulance and profanity to be a discouragement. I think you'll find that I was suggesting a way ahead, rather than arguing that the business was handled the best way. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ray: At the risk of getting into a general civility discussion, your argument cuts both ways. Misplaced Pages is not so rich that it can afford to have calm civil productive editors run off by people who overreact and blow innocent mistakes completely out of proportion. People won't accept that type of incivility when they're being paid, much less when they are volunteering. Wknight94 17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wknight, you are correct. This is why this is a situation where I felt a touch of forbearance and discretion, rather than a rules change, would've been a good idea. It was a situation where an editor was blowing off steam on somebody else's talk page, and the person to whom he was blowing off steam was not the one being insulted. That was not a situation threatening to escalate absent outside intervention, and in hindsight it clearly was a situation where outside administrator intervention was likely to aggravate things, and I believe it did not require hindsight to forsee it as such. Charles, sorry for misunderstanding your comments above. Ray 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ray: At the risk of getting into a general civility discussion, your argument cuts both ways. Misplaced Pages is not so rich that it can afford to have calm civil productive editors run off by people who overreact and blow innocent mistakes completely out of proportion. People won't accept that type of incivility when they're being paid, much less when they are volunteering. Wknight94 17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
People! Please! This has nothing to do with mathematics articles. Please take it to the WP:AN/I section linked-to above. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Gyrovectors
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask but could somebody have a look at the Gyrovector space article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't really examined the article to determine if it is obvious woo or not, but there are only 7 mathscinet links with gyrovector in the title, all of which were published by a single author, although some of these were actually reviewed. It is not cut and dry, but this does seem to be a case in which an encyclopedia article is probably premature. Le Docteur (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- These Google books and Google Scholar results show that there are far more than 7 papers or one author.
- Some of those results aren't relevant, but most of them are.
- Charvest (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a fair amount of chat removed. There is a nonassociative structure in there to document. Articles in the area of linear algebra in mathematical physics do tend to lead off with claims that this is an entirely new way to look at things; that is almost always going to be POV, and such claims are not what make a topic notable. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Halting problem and Likebox
In my opinion, he's at it again. I can't find any restrictions he may be under, but he's reformulating the halting problem to remove the input, claiming it's the "modern" approach; and then adding a "modern proof", replacing the diagonalization by quining. I'm at 3RR, but I believe he is, also. Any input as to whether any of his assertions are correct (whether or not "input" is "modern", the proof uses inputs) would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- First, you aren't at 3RR, and neither am I. You are at "1R", and I am at "2R". If you revert some of the material, I'll discuss.
- Second, yes, I'm "at it again", because I was annoyed the first time that people would not accept discussions which sound a little different than textbooks. There are some proposed guidelines which I think help: WP:ESCA, and perhaps with these guidelines, consensus can be made to swing the other way.
- I have no complaints with your behavior, and I understand and sympathize with your position. I just disagree.Likebox (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with both your points, the canonical description of the Halting problem is with input. See the most modern book in Complexity theory (Arora and Barak's 2009 text); even that treats the version with input. While I like the quining and no-input version, that shouldn't be the main version in the article. I believe a separate section should highlight the formulation without inputs with the quining proof. --Robin (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mm. I am far from knowledgeable about computation, but I just took a look at Sipser (which I understand to be something of a standard introductory text in the subject), and he uses finite input strings in his description. I think, if people knowledgeable on the subject are not in agreement to the contrary, we should probably stick to the standard pedagogical approach. It's fairly common for there to be sections towards the end describing generalizations and extensions of the theory, however, so that might be a good place for Likebox to put his stuff? Ray 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is entirely pedagogical. I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake. People knowledgable in the subject don't think about this, because it is too elementary to waste time thinking about. It is in these situations that bad pedagogy can flourish.
- But we don't have to be stuck with bad pedagogy. If there is a nice text which explains sourced material well, but doesn't sound exactly like a textbook, that's OK according to WP:ESCA, so long as it is accurate, clear, and explains intermediate steps in well referenced results.
- In this case, the theorem is this: You can't write a program HALT which takes P as input and decides if P halts or not.
- One way to state the proof is: Write SPITE to print its own code into R, calculate HALT with input R, and if the answer is "R halts" go into an infinite loop, and if the answer is "R doesn't halt" to halt.
- This proof is trivial, and the only question is whether a program can be made to write its own code. This is slightly nontrivial, but it is an exercise for computer science freshman.
- The other way to prove this is to say "It is undecidable whether program P with input I halts for arbitary P and I". Then you prove it this way. Suppose HALT(P,I) tells you whether P and I halts. Then write SPITE to take input I, and evaluate HALT(I,I), and if the answer is "I halts on input I" SPITE goes into an infinite loop. If the answer is "I does not halt on input I" then SPITE halts.
- Then you ask if SPITE is given as input the code for SPITE, what does it do? You see, it's exactly the same proof, except that the code for SPITE is given to SPITE as input, instead of being generated by SPITE at step 1.
- I think that the proof where SPITE prints its own code is clearer. To prove that a program can always print its own code is very simple, using the diagonalization argument.Likebox (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)