Talk:Wu's method of characteristic set

The statement that Wu's method of charactistic set is "obsolete" is pure nonsense, without a threade of evidence.

Active reseach articles are still being published in this area as late as 2009.

1.^ X.S. Gao, Y. Luo, and C. Yuan, A Characteristic Set Method for Difference Polynomial Systems, Journal of Symbolic Computation, 44(3), 242-260, 2009 2.^ X.S. Gao, J. Van der Hoeven, C.M. Yuan, G.L. Zhang, Characteristic set method for differential–difference polynomial systems, Journal of Symbolic Computation, 44(9), 2009, 1137-1163. 3.^ F. Chai, X.S. Gao, and C. Yuan, A Characteristic Set Method for Solving Boolean Equations and Applications in Cryptanalysis of Stream Ciphers, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 21(2), 191-208, 2008.

Further, is Eclid , Descarte "obsoleted" :??--Gisling (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

The method is not obsolete, but the algorithm is, as clearly shown by Aubry and Moreno-Maza paper. Nevertheless less I agree that "obsolete" may be too strong. I have tried to correct this in my preceding edition. I'll suppress this word after reverting your reversion. --D.Lazard (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are active research all around the world on WU's method and extensions. It breaks the rule of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to speak about the work of a single laboratory (KLMM).--D.Lazard (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph on MMP breaks the rule of WP:NOR: This software is not distributed (at least for non chinese reading people, its web page is not available in english), no reference a publication of it nor to an external review is provided.--D.Lazard (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• "supercede" is also false statement. In regular chain the latest article cited was dated 2005, while research article on characteristic set method continued as late as 2009.

It is not because the definition of the notion has not evolved since 2005 that there is no research on the subject. It is not because recent research papers on the subject are not cited in the article that they do not exist; there are numerous. Also, not cited in the article, there is a Maple package RegularChains which implements efficiently the recent work on the subject. This implementation is much more efficient than the ones that have been compared in Aubry-Moreno-Maza 1999. Even at that time, Wu's original algorithm was the slowest, which is not a surprise, being the oldest (It is normal that science progresses).--D.Lazard (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since you were one of the author of article P. Aubry, D. Lazard, M. Moreno Maza. On the theories of triangular sets. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 28(1–2):105–124, 1999, that was a 1999 paper, it is real obsolete.

For me obsolete is not an insult (as it seems the case for you) but the fact that there are better objects than the old one and that it has to be replaced by the new ones. In this meaning, Aubry, Lazard, Moreno--Maza may not be obsolete as containing theorems which have not been improved. Wu's approach consisting in representing zero-sets by triangular systems is not obsolete. But recent algorithms are more efficient and have better outputs than original Wu's algorithm. This makes the algorithm, not the approach obsolete.--D.Lazard (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Further, it is shear shameless self promotion, to atack other people's work as "obsolete" or "superceded", it is not only NPOV, but also unethical

It is not my ethic to replace, like you, discussion by insults. It is not me who has written the article regular chain nor introduced the references in it. I have not worked on regular chains since 1999 and I have not cosigned any of the numerous recent papers on the subject. Thus shear shameless self promotion is an insult which does not correspond to anything real and is really unethical.

On the other hand it is my ethic, when there are better algorithms (none is mine) that the one described in the article, to inform Wiki readers of this fact. Thus I will search to other wording for doing that in a way which is not an occasion to you for opening a reverting war. --D.Lazard (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

--Gisling (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

Alleged COI

User:Yappy2bhere has insered a tag {{tl:coi}} with summary "(WP:COI: user:D.Lazard = user:129.100.18.213 who self-)cites D.Lazard at U.Western Ontario) (undo)". This edit is a blatant wp:personal attack. In fact,

• I am not user:129.100.18.213 and I have never edited WP under an IP
• User:129.100.18.213 has never edited this article
• I am not a major contributor of this article, my edits consisting mainly in a merge, reverting vandalisms and some copy edit.
• I am a coauthor of a cited article, but this citation is relevant the subject and clearly falls under the what is allowed by WP:COI: "But self-citation is not absolutely forbidden. It is permitted if the source material is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUBLISH, and is not excessive. Citations should be written in the third person, and should not place undue emphasis on your work."
• I have never been affiliated to U. Waterloo
• The citation of my article has been introduced for the need of a clarification: The previous version of the article did made a confusion which appear frequently between triangular methods like that of this article and Gröbner bases. I does not oppose to remove the sentence citing this article, but IMHO, this would be confusing for the readers.

As I am personally involved, I'll not remove the tag, but I hope that it will be done soon. D.Lazard (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

1. User contributions - 129.100.18.213 - Wikipedia
2. The University of Western Ontario is not the University of Waterloo - at best you're being disingenuous here. You have no connection to that university? Certainly the pattern of edits by the IP seems consonant with your own edits.
3. You have a history of fractious and WP:Disruptive editing, here and elsewhere. Perhaps you should heed WP:COI#Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest instead of blithely citing WP:IGNORE as justification. (Or at least respect its intent.)

Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I wrote U. Waterloo instead of U. Western Ontario as a typo, because they are strongly related about computer algebra. I have never been affiliated to any of them. I have no more connection with these universities than with any other university in the world that have a research group in computer algebra of similar importance.
2. I have missed the edits by the IP user; probably, I have read the history of the talk page instead of that of the article. I may identify the author who is behind this IP user, but I will not named him, because, unlike you, I respect the wp:outing policy as well as the other policies
3. I'll not name you behavior but it breaks, undoubtfully many WP policies

D.Lazard (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This COI tag is ill-conceived. There is no reason to think that a single-purpose IP editor who last edited back in 2008 is the same person as D.Lazard (talk · contribs), who has devoted 11 out of 2,396 edits to this article. The single source to an article with D. Lazard as an author seems to comply with WP:COS. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On further investigation, I have come to the conclusion that someone, possibly D.Lazard, may have a COI. The citation in question was first added in this edit back in 2008, at which point it was the only reference in the article. I think it would be a good idea to find a replacement for the source, or remove the statement if none can be found. If the statement is important enough to be in the lead, there ought to be another source. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one from a book with no apparent connection to D.Lazard. Does that satisfy your concerns, Yappy2bhere? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no quarrel with the previous reference; I read the paper, it supports the statement in the article. I found the paper with a Google search; the first result was a copy at the University of Western Ontario [1]. On the Talk page I found a heated argument between User:D.Lazard and User:Gisling in which the user implied but didn't state that he was an author of that paper. It was an odd exchange, so I wanted to know if D.Lazard was defending his paper (if it was his), or defending his edit, or simply flying off the handle because that's how he argues.

This article was created and extensively edited by User:Haoao, then by a WP:SPA IP [2], then by D.Lazard, by Gisling, and finally by D.Lazard again, who began reverting Gisling's edits [3] and finally chased him away. The references, including the D.Lazard paper, were added by the IP [4], which resolved to the University of Western Ontario [5]. So, there is at least some reason to think that D.Lazard's edits continued those of the IP, RockMagnetist.

I concluded that D.Lazard was likely a faculty member at the UWO, that the copy of the paper I'd downloaded had come from his university web page, and that User:D.Lazard was probably that same person. I tagged the article because (1) if User:D.Lazard is the author of the cited paper, his defense of that source may not be entirely academic, (2) if User:D.Lazard is a professor of mathematics with specific topical expertise then his opinion on this topic carries more weight than most. (Yes, any opinion is still an opinion without a WP:RS behind it - you needn't cite policy.)

I followed D.Lazard's example in placing the COI template [6] [7]. If that was improper, if a step was omitted, you should counsel the goose before you censure the gander. I did give my reason in the edit summary, because without a reason the edit could (and should) be reverted, as here. I expected D.Lazard to simply confirm or disclose his interest on the Talk page, as e.g. Robert H. Lewis has done here, and then [Talk:Fermat (computer algebra system)#Conflict of interest|reason] the template could go. (And good riddance - they're obtrusive, and helpful only to editors.)

I did not suggest that the cite, WP:SELFCITE or not, was improper. D.Lazard did that himself, in his third bullet here. I did not suggest that he shouldn't edit this article, but that he should heed WP:COI#Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest. I did not And if this is an inappropriate forum for this discussion, then you have R.Lazard to thank for it.

I certainly did not (I'll stop now; I'm almost out of apostrophes anyway) "out" him as he charged on my Talk page - he identified himself as Daniel Lazard almost a year ago. (And you knew that, D.Lazard, and falsely accused me of WP:OUTING you anyway, you weasel.) Also while retracing my steps I discovered this, the fourth result returned by the Google search I cited earlier. One of D.Lazard's students, Marc Moreno Maza, has been at the University of Western Ontario since 2002 [8]. A second, Ilias S. Kotsireas, has been at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario since 2001 and is an adjunct at the University of Waterloo; he was at UWO for two years before that [9]. So, D.Lazard's response here is one outright lie ("no more connection..."), one probable truth ("never been affiliated..."), and a couple of improbable "mistakes".

Mmm, so yes, RockMagnetist, I'm satisfied. (Sorry, RockMagnetist, you asked a clear question which deserved a concise answer, but you're the only editor to ask any question here, so this is where my explanation must go.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, everyone, this is not about how to improve the article. It's agreed that the source is a good one regardless. Take comments on users' behaviour elsewhere, like WP:COIN or WP:ANI. Not here. Please. Deltahedron (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are as "concerned by the behaviour of User:Yappy2bhere" as you said, then you can stop squirming long enough to listen to the reasons. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"I had no quarrel with the previous reference". Instead your quarrel is with the above two and a half year old exchange consisting of a difference of opinion between two experts on the subject? That's not much to hang your hat on. We seem to be slipping into WP:POINT territory. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTPOINTY. And this is a Talk page, not an article, Slavomir - WP has not been disrupted one whit by what's been said here. If you personally are distracted by it, then look away. (Were they both experts? How did you know?) Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is an article talk page, where we discuss how to improve the article in question. I agree with Sławomir Biały that that discussion is being disrupted by a squabble over editor's alleged misdeeds from years ago. Take the discussion of editor conduct elsewhere, please. Deltahedron (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is, of course, nonsense. Even if Lazard did self-cite, that is not even prohibited under the WP:COI guideline. WP:SELFCITE discusses conditions under which self-citation is permissible, and this seems to fall firmly under that category. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sławomir Biały. This talk page is for discussing how to improve this article, not to debate the actions or motivation of other editors. Issues appropriate for this page are questions such as whether the references cited are reliable, support the text, are of high quality, and so forth. Issues such as editor conduct should be taken to some other forum. Deltahedron (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

D.Lazard and Gisling fought over interpretation of the reference and its current relevance. Certainly it matters whether User:D.Lazard authored the paper - what editor wouldn't consider that salient to the discussion? Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion between Gisling and I was not at all about the reference to my article. It was about the fact there are now new algorithms with the same specifications that Wu's which have been shown always faster (in an article of which I am not a coauthor), the question of if this has to be mentioned in the article, and if it should, with which wording.

The article of which I am a coauthor has absolutey nothing to do with this discussion. I ignore for which reason it has been introduced in the article (the IP did not cited it inline). For me, it is cited only to give a reference that characteristic sets may be computed by Gröbner bases. I have inserted the sentence in which the citation appears because the previous version asserted a wrong relation between characteristic sets and Gröbner bases. IMHO, if an editor has made a confusion, it is important to introduce a clarification for avoiding such a confusion for any reader. This is the unique reason for mentioning Gröbner bases here.D.Lazard (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant to the extent that it changes consensus as to whether the reference is reliable or relevant, or others aspects of the writing of the article. However this page, and the edit summaries of the article, are not the places to start or hold an enquiry into another editor's conduct. It is the place to discuss how a conflict of interest if established might affect the writing of the article. The correct course of conduct is to make a simple note here saying "I think user X has a conflict of interest in that he is the author of one of the references" and take it up elsewhere. Questions about user conduct start at the user's talk page and progress to other boards: in this case WP:COIN. Once the conduct matters are resolved we can resume the discussion here about how that might or might not affect the writing of the article. To raise the issue here may well be legitimate -- to pursue it here is likely to be disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A different tack

Let's try focussing this argument on the article. Should those earlier reverts of content be undone? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)