User talk:David Eppstein/2008b

computer scientists

please take a look at [1] and see if you can give him some advice. I have no doubt that some of them are non-notable & deserve to be deleted, but he's been nominating wholesale for speedy. DGG (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Distance-hereditary graph

Holy crap! You did that whole thing in one edit?! Bravo! Ziggy Sawdust 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time editing it offline before putting it up here... Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CORE

I've noticed you have 1337 editing skills. You might want to consider fixing up some of the core 1,000. Ziggy Sawdust 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Other conversation about recent topic

You might want to take a look over here, where I'm asking EVula some questions about the recent RfA topic. I'm not sure what is up with the BKerensa account, but EVula just removed some defamatory info from it, which was added by an IP. I believe it was up for ample time for Kerensa to have seen it and remove it, but it was allowed to stay on the front of the user page. Very curious. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

TopologyExpert

Dear David Eppstein,

Could you please tell me why you deleted what I wrote on the page on 'induced homomorphism'? I spent a lot of time to fix up all mathematical symbols and write everything up as best as I could. If this is because you think that the 'induced homomorphism' is more related to category theory than to algebraic topology then I agree. But in my opinion, Wikipedia is for everyone; not just mathematicians. If someone wanted to read this page (a student for example), he may want to see its relevance to algebraic topology and not just category theory. I didn't change what was originally written, and I am cetain that what I wrote is mathematically correct. So could you please specifically tell me why you deleted it? I have created many other pages, such as:

• Locally finite collection
• Locally connected space
• Linear continuum
• Comb space

and the style I have written in the page on 'induced homomorphism' doesn't at all differ to the style in which I have written the other pages. So I really can't see why what I wrote has been deleted. Also, could you please respond on my talk page?

Topology Expert (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that I felt your changes were taking the article back towards the direction that initially led it to be (justly) nominated for deletion: a familiar, interactive narrative style that ignores the conventions of encyclopedic writing, and an emphasis on the functoriality of the fundamental group to the exclusion of all other aspects and meanings of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear David Eppstein,

I have inquired a couple of people on this matter and they seem to agree with you. They say that there is too much emphasis on the fundamental group in the article. Is this what you mean? In my opinion, one cannot study the fundamental group without studying the induced homomorphism. They are connected topics. Also, maybe I was thinking that Wikipedia is a place to learn and as much information as possible should be included. For example, someone may want to know about the applications of the induced homomorphism which is what I wrote about. As far as I can see, you have merely given a definition in your article with the connection to algebraic topology. Sure, their textbook would probably write about that but sometimes it is good to read two different perspectives. I included examples so that people can understand the applications of the induced homomorphism. And truthfully, shouldn't people know that if two spaces are homeomorphic, their fundamental groups are isomorphic. That is probably the first theorem you read after learning the concept. Also, I have not seen a single page stating that if two spaces are homeomorpic, their fundamental groups are isomorphic. This may be obvious to someone who knows algebraic topology well, but it isn't obvious to the general population and it would be good for people to see the applications of this theorem. In fact, one purpose of algebraic topology is to determine whether two spaces are homeomorphic or not.

Wikipedia is about including maximum detail as a few other people wrote to me when I nominated the article on 'Supercompactness' for deletion. I initially thought that Wikipedia should only have information on major topics. Not small topics like what a limit point is (I thought these types of topics should be included in other pages). I admit that I was wrong. But by adding what I wrote, we are giving maximum detail about the subject. My intention is to improve Wikipedia. I understand that you are an administrator, but I feel that whatever I write is challenged. Also, I can't see what is wrong with my writing style. If there are only minor points, then in my opinion, what I wrote shouldn't be deleted. I can't see any major mistakes with my writing. In fact, I have seen many other Wikipedia pages which have many spelling mistakes but haven't been deleted. My article is not as bad as that; is it?

Seeing as you are experienced in Wikipedia, if you really think that what I wrote should be deleted, then could I instead create a new page regarding what I wrote. If possible, I could call that page 'Induced homomorphism (algebraic topology)'.

Could you also please tell me what is precisely wrong with what I wrote? That would help me to write better next time.

Topology Expert (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think rather than critiquing your writing in detail, it might be more appropriate to point you to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Because it sounds like what you want is exactly what that policy warns against, and it's the basic intent more than the details of what you write that seems to be leading to these issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Thanks for catching that redundant ref I added accidentally. Sorry for the carelessness, it's been a long day. Ford MF (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just doing a little minor cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ernest G. McClain page

Dear Mr. Eppstein, Earlier today a student of Dr. McClain's loaded a new version of his bio, after consulting with Dr. McClain (my father).

I do not appreciate your changing it back to the version that contains errors that you previously inserted.

Please respect that, in this case, someone else understands more about Dr. McClain's life than you do.

Thank you, Jeanhenley (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela

Please see WP:OWN and WP:RS re ownership of articles (short version: you don't own it, even though it may be about you) and the need for reliable sourcing, respectively. We cannot accept changes simply because you "know" them: they must be verifiable through published source material and they must treat it from a neutral point of view. Your changes did not seem to meet those needs. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article - Andre Nickatina

Hello, I'm here to comment on your November 2007 speedy deletion of an old WP article titled "Andre Nickatina"; you deleted it per WP:CSD#A1 about the article subject not meeting WP:MUSIC I suppose. Well I just did a little research and believe that the subject in question (Nickatina) might as well meet WP:MUSIC because I have found several sources written about him.

• Two articles in the magazine SF Weekly from 2003 and 2005
• A brief biographical article about him by Robert Gabriel of the site AllMusic.com (widely revered as a good source for music-related articles)
• A review of an old album of his by the San Jose, CA-based Metro newsmagazine.

I hope you consider these articles sufficient for the subject to meet the notability requirements. Please leave me a message back at my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter any further.

Good night, --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:CSD#A1 deletion does not mean that the subject is not notable or does not pass WP:MUSIC. It means only that the article does not give enough context for a reader to figure out who the subject even is. The entire content of the article at the time I deleted it was "The rawest mothafucka in the game." I think you'll agree that's not much of an encyclopedia article. If you write a real article including those sources, it seems likely to me that it would be safe from speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I must've gotten the CSD's confused. The problem now is that the title Andre Nickatina is locked, so no one except admins can write an article titled "Andre Nickatina". Within a few day's I'd like to rewrite the article, so could you please restore the article so that I could rewrite it using the sources I've provided? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I will write that article shortly. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Second AFD

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Nickatina (2nd nomination)

Hello again regarding the Nickatina article. A user has now listed the article under AFD as the user feels that the subject still fails the WP:MUSIC guideline of notability, despite my inclusion of sources. (This is the second time that this article has ever been in AFD.) Please read both the WP:MUSIC and Nickatina pages for yourself, then express your views in the proper AFD page that I've provided. Thank you.

Induced Homomorphism

Dear David Eppstein,

I know you are an administrator and you probably know about Wikipedia more than I do, but I feel inclined to state the following facts. First of all, please understand that I am new to Wikipedia and I just want to understand everything completely. I did some research on reverting and on the page Help:Reverting, it states that if it is possible to change some minor things such as mathematical symbols, minor mistakes in conventions etc... one should not revert the article. Second of all it says that before reverting the article one should give a reason why on the talk page. Now I am certain that you know what you are doing. But if there were only minor problems with my article, then why did you revert it (I am not trying to be rude)? As I mentioned earlier, several people say (indirectly) that there are only minor problems with my article. I just wonder whether this is the case; it probably isn't since you reverted it. Could you please give me your opinion on this?

Secondly, if what I wrote is not suitable for Wikipedia, may I add it on Wikibooks instead? I believe this is what you indirectly suggested. I have also had other users telling me that I shouldn't put exercises on Wikipedia mathematics pages. Therefore, I have decided to put them on Wikibooks. I have noticed that the Wikibook on mathematics needs serious editing so I am happy to do that.

Thanks for your help once again.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Base 85, Base 64, Base 32

Recently, you have changed the article Base 85 back to a redirect page. I am not going to oppose your action. But do you think the argument "If the only interesting thing one can say about this base is its use in Base**, per WP:NUMBER, just redirect there" is applicable to the articles Base 64 and Base 32??? Could you please express your option (for merging and/ or redirecting articles) here and in Talk:Base64 and Talk:Base32??? QQ (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WAX — this sort of "what about those other pages" argument tends to be a weak one. But if you look at the Base32 and Base64 articles, they do actuallyfind several things to say about those bases. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is graph isomorphism in P?

Why isnt this result cited in wikipedia?66.216.255.11 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[0711.2010] A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Graph Isomorphism

     "In this paper we propose an algorithm that has polynomial complexity and constructively supplies the evidence that the graph isomorphism lies in P. ..."
     arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010

Because it's not peer-reviewed and highly likely to be incorrect. In general papers by relative unknowns proposing solutions to big problems on the arxiv are not to be trusted without careful reading and some level of domain knowledge. Speaking as the arxiv moderator for cs.DS (meaning I didn't look at this specific paper since it's in cs.CC) we only reject papers for being off-topic or for grossly violating the norms of scientific publication (e.g. one-pagers with no bibliography). We don't evaluate correctness, although we will sometimes attempt to discourage authors from keeping obviously-bogus papers up.

If you look carefully at the actual paper (v4), you will see that there is a mismatch between the description of the algorithm as the pseudocode describes it and needed for correctness (it terminates when the vertices are partitioned into n different equivalence classes) and the description given in the "complexity" section (it terminates when no more equivalence classes can be constructed). In fact, it seems likely that for some kinds of graphs, such as distance-regular graphs, it never forms more than one equivalence class and so fails either to terminate or to identify the isomorphisms. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

I hereby award this Barnstar--eaten-by-a-bear award for this gem which made me chuckle. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology is sort of a science :-)

Thanks. I don't understand why we don't have a separate category that includes the things I'd call the social sciences, eg archaeology, anthropology of various types, history, even sociology, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory)

On 27 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Graph Embedding

Thanks for the references in [2]! That was incredibly speedy! 71.37.25.28 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius

Wow, I had no idea that you were here at Wikipedia! :)

As I guess you've become aware, we're trying to bring the problem of Apollonius up to Featured Article status. It would be quite the coup for the Math WikiProject, since there aren't any geometry Featured Articles as yet. Anyway, if you could give us a peer review, or suggest points/applications/insights or whatever, we'd be very grateful for your help! :) Willow (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Two people harassing me

I have two people coming to my talk page who appear to be vandals or trolls, or confused me with someone else. One is threatening to block me, I am not sure if that person can. The other one removed information on a talk page when I was in discussion with, which I am pretty sure is considered vandalism. I am not sure who these people are or what is going on so, I deiced to contact an admin for help before things get out of hand because these people seem forceful and not willing to talk.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are standard warning messages left when someone thinks you have made inappropriate edits. This comment of yours, in particular, appears to be a gross violation of our policy regarding biographies of living persons, as does this one. I think the warnings were appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! How was my comment a gross violation of the policy? I was just joining in the conversation on the talk page, it was on a talk page! I did not say Lindsay was bisexual on her page. I was disusing with others within topic, how in the world is that a violation? I do not think it is appropriate to say you are going to ban someone when there is clearly confusion on both sides, that is an abuse of power.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You made what some might view as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality, and compared her to a porn star, with little or no reliable sourcing. Talk page or main article space, either way, it's still inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic of discussion was about her sexuality though, I viewed what everyone else was saying as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality. They were saying just because she apparently kissed a girl she was a lesbian. Which I find it rude people tend to skip over and ignore bisexuality. So I decided to comment and say that if anything she could be bisexual not lesbian because she has had many relationships with men, and lesbians do not do that. I never compared her to a porn star, that is ludicrous! Did you even read what I said? I said lesbian women do not date/sleep with as many guys as she has unless they are a porn star (which Lindsay is not). Of course there was no sourcing, what in my statement was I suppose to source? I was just explaining to people calling her a lesbian that it was rude because you do not know, and if anything she could be bisexual based on the sources they had, but I tried to say it in the nicest way possible, and it gets reverted!--Sugarcubez (talk)

Deletetion

I note on the deletetion of One Piece terms. I would like you to restore it because there was no basis for deletetion on copyright infringement which is why I removed the tag for it. The site which claimed it did has annoyed us before (reglaur editors) because it claims we copied it. Okay, let me explain it is a fansite that holds no copyrights over the One Piece series and as a fansite actaully is disobeying copyright laws. Also, I know for a fact the editors who worked on that page got their info from the series and not that site because I was one of the many that worked on it at some point.

Its up for deletetion anyway, but there was no call for that way of deleting it... I didn't even get to put a "Hold" tag on it after someone noted me for removing it because I forgot thats how you do things here. Please in future can you actually check probaberly that what you deleting is indeed a copyright infringement and not someone claiming it is... You made a stupid mistake for nothing that needs to correct. As I said, we're going to loose that page anyway, but the way its gone now means none of us reglaur editors can come up with a chance between us to save it if there is a possiblity. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should just unilaterally undelete it. But if you want some additional review of that decision, please go to deletion review and follow the procedures described there to create a review discussion for the article. The editors at deletion review will decide whether it was appropriate to delete it for the reason I did and if not whether to start a new deletion discussion for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

As I'm just explaining to Geo Swan, I completely missed the AfD notice on the page which is why it didn't get a statement from me. I'm not sure how that happened, but I deleted it because it didn't assert importance/significance. I can restore it if you like and keep the AfD open? Consensus doesn't appear to be in that direction but I see no harm in it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just read the entire AfD and those for the related articles. I see no problem per se; although they're undoubtedly linked, it's happened a few times when the biography is deleted but the related items stay open because they don't meet the speedy criteria. I've always secretly felt that there should be no issues with closing AfDs about albums of non-notable bands early early, because WP:IAR defeats strict protocol in my opinion, but I'm happy to leave the speedied article open until the fate of the albums is decided. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise that they were all being discussed on one page, hence the slight confusion. I've deleted them all now and left an addendum on the page, mentioning that the albums were deleted as non-notable. I knew they were all being considered but I assumed they were on separate pages for some reason. Anyway, apologies again, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

!

Stop Deleting My Stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fractional cascading

According to the description of the Fractional cascading example, a list M_i other than the last one is formed by merging L_i with every second item from M_i + 1. However, the included example does not agree with that: Note, for example, that M₃ contains both 3.5 and 4.6, which are successive elements in M₄. According to the description, the lists should be:

M₁ = 2.4[0, 1], 2.5[1, 1], 3.5[1, 3], 6.4[1, 5], 6.5[2, 5], 7.9[3, 5], 8[3, 6], 9.3[4, 6]

M₂ = 2.3[0, 1], 2.5[1, 1], 2.6[2, 1], 3.5[3, 1], 6.2[3, 3], 7.9[3, 5]

M₃ = 1.3[0, 1], 3.5[1, 1], 4.4[1, 2], 6.2[2, 3], 6.6[3, 3], 7.9[4, 3]

M₄ = 1.1[0, 0], 3.5[1, 0], 4.6[2, 0], 7.9[3, 0], 8.1[4, 0]

Note also that the description of the provided search example should be corrected as well. Finally, I do not understand in which case the first of the stored numbers in the merged list should result from searching for x in L_i+1 (i.e., the or clause in parentheses). Shouldn't that always be the location of x in L_i? Please verify so that the fr. casc. page can be revised accordingly. Lourakis (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the confusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Induced Homomorphism

Dear David,

There was some misunderstanding earlier with the page on the induced homomorphism and I admit I didn't understand why you reverted my edit. Now I do and I have split the page on induced homomorphism into two categories; Induced homomorphism (Algebraic topology) and [[Induced homomorphism (Category theory). In this case, there is no argument and I haven't changed the original page in anyway. However, if you think I have made a mistake, could you please tell me so I can fix it? Instead of deleting everything I wrote, I am ready to correct as many mistakes as necessary. I hope that there is no misunderstanding and that you agree with what I did. If not, then as I said, I would appreciate it if you told me beforehand. Once again, I am sorry for my previous misunderstanding.

Topology Expert (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

!

Let Me Re-Create The Att Will Pages, Theres Nothing Wrong With Them —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 07:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bourdieu and Inglehart

Dear Sir,

We refer to your arguments regarding Pierre Bourdieu and Ron Inglehart. Pierre Bourdieu is certainly dead, and we cite him as a former member with a cross beside his name, which conforms to custom. As for Inglehart, he joined us recently. TISR is not defunct - Crusio buries us a little quickly maybe. We note that the request for deletion came from a user whose real identity is not known, who was banned from Wikipedia, perhaps a vandal. As for Crusio, he works for a competitor organisation.

We think that the arguments used should be in good faith.

TISR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSCF (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DOI links at Decompression Sickness

Thanks for trying to sort out the links made by DOIbot at Decompression Sickness but it seems the bot made an error. All 5 links point to the same article, which relates to in-water recompression, not the articles cited. For the moment, I'm going to remove the DOI links. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder what the problem was. I did check that they were working dois to the right journal, but I guess I should have looked more closely. Thanks for doing that check for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Lakewood Ranch

With regard to the deletion of this page for "Advertising" I respectfully request that you restore it. Firstly, to suggest that this page was written by someone who would gain a commercial benefit from "selling" Lakewood Ranch. This is simply not the case, I am a resident of the community but nothing more - I do not hold a realty licence nor do I work for any entity that owns any part of Lakewood Ranch (excepting the Real Estate that my office sits on).

This page was not advertising and was open to be edited by anyone with a different view on the area (believe me, there are pleanty). I would be delighted to expand and add to the article if any person wishes to suggest improvements that can be made.

205.201.144.39 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I hadn't deleted it as blatant advertising, it could equally well have been deleted as a copyright violation, as much of the text seems to have been copied from the developer's web site. If you want to write about your community, you need to write neutrally rather than uncritically repeating the developer's self-praise, and you need to do so verifiably, based on published third-party material written about your community (e.g. newspaper articles about it). If you can't find such material, it may not meet our standards for notability. So, I'd prefer not to reverse my decision to delete that version of the article, but you're welcome to take it to deletion review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied to your comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Suppose we begin like this. — Dan | talk 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary

Hello. I noticed you made an edit summary like this recently. I hope you know that capitalizing all letters when typing is considered as yelling here and loosing your WP:COOL. I understand what you were trying to do, and I'm assuming good faith that it was an accident, but you should be more careful next time. It may cause some mishap if you do that repeatedly. -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was merely copying and pasting the name of the template that I removed. I didn't expect anyone to be watching the edits on that closed AfD; it was just a cleanup edit to get it out of the deletion category listing. Complain to whomever gave the template that name, because the same lack of cool appears near the top of the source code of every single unclosed AfD on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did see that it was possible for you to be copying and pasting the template. I understand. No worries, my comment was just a reminder. -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this for me. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks in List of people by Erdős number

Thanks for removing the #3 redlinks. I think that's the perfect solution. Numbers 1 and 2 are easy to verify through the ENP; number 3 not so much. Hopefully this helps with maintaining the list. Ntsimp (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

hypohamiltonian graph with girth 3

First of all, thank you for expanding the article! (there is so little information about hypohamiltonian graphs, that anything comes useful :-)). In the respective article, it is mentioned that there exists hypohamiltonian graphs with girth 3 - could you please provide an example? Stdazi (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added another figure with Thomassen's example. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much - your help is very appreciated! You're so fast at editing/improving articles that it's quite hard to believe a human is doing it. Stdazi (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sort notation

here. I added it to the academic journals list but couldn't figure out how to note it as such since theirs isn't the standard format. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay fine it can stay but....

Okay fine it can stay but do you mind changing the color and adding those aforementioned villages? Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

oh and how do some people get away with not signing their posts? do you know? Also, why do you want the template to stay? I put in the discussion section of the template that it's ugly and needs revision. Whoever created it has bad taste in color schemes!

WP:PROF revision draft - revisited

I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF and have posted further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#WP:PROF revision draft - revisited. Please take another look there and see if you have further comments. Of course, you are welcome to edit the draft itself too:User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

I have partially reverted your removal of the "Lenski dialog" section of this article, leaving some of the more critical quotes out. Several RS have reported on such as NewScientist.[3] I would also argue the PZ Myers and Carl Zimmer are reliable sources as well, please discuss on the articles talk page if you disagree. - Icewedge (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Isomorphism question

I have a couple of questions:

1. I am trying to locate an old article that supposedly gave an O(n^3) algorithm for graph isomorphism when the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix are all distinct. Any help would be appreciated.

2. Is the following true: If two graphs are isomorphic, and P is a property that can be specified without referring to the index of any vertex, then P must have the same truth value for both graphs. Is there a formal proof of this anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.33.46 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For your first question, the following looks relevant: Babai, László; Grigoryev, D. Yu.; Mount, David M. (1982), "Isomorphism of graphs with bounded eigenvalue multiplicity", Proc. 14th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pp. 310–324, doi:10.1145/800070.802206.

As for the second, I imagine that it can be expressed in terms of second-order logic: any graph property expressed as a formula in terms of vertices, edges, and sets of vertices and edges, in which all the variables are fully quantified, describes an invariant of graph isomorphism. In this form it seems almost obvious, but I don't know a reference or formal proof. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

DN image

Thanks for the much nicer image showing the names of the squares of Descriptive chess notation! I really appreciate it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

three revert rule

Hi David,

Thank you for the heads up. My machines was acting up, caused by someone taking off my blogs before I finished the post. Hoping all is well in So Cal. Fires are burning out in North Cal.

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.23.24 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

David,

As a passing comment6, my Egyptian fraction comments have always contained meta components. For example, the Heqanakht_papyri shows that economics may have been the dominate factor in creating theoretical measurement units. Fibonacci clearly learned Egyptian fractions from his father's trading business, as you know. Gee, 3,200 years of economics and Egyptian fractions being closely associated should mark a serious trend.

Best Regards,

~Milo Gardner

Perusnarpk

Hello David. I have endorsed all your remarks at the RfC for Fowler&fowler whom I believe P is trying to harrass. I don't know whether you noticed this diff [4]. How can sombody set up an RfC just before they know they're going to be taking a 2 week wikibreak? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Hello David. Perusnarkp has made a sprinkling of unencyclopedic additions to some artciles in theorertical physics, one of which I reverted because it was an unsourced essay (WP:OR). He has now continued with his forum shopping spree here. At this stage I don't wish to report him on WP:ANI, but please could you or another uninvolved administrator block this SPA indefinitely? He is not beneficial to the project, since he continues to use WP as battleground, with only occasional superficial edits to mainspace articles. There might also possibly be a fairly serious WP:COI in his unmitigated championing of C.K.Raju. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At this stage I think I'm too involved to block, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No I can quite understand that. What about somebody else, like Charles Matthews? Persunarpk has just made this edit [5]. Can you at least please revert it and give him a warning? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his new session myself as it was completely out of order. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your section "Perusnarpk is a single-purpose account"

I modified your text by adding {{user3}} tags around the names of the three editors. This should let people check the user contributions themselves.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for covering for my laziness. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to cover myself from accusations of wrongly changing your text! :) CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

did you know...

that your ideas from here were used in WP:DIFF code of Mediawiki GPL software's DifferenceEngine.php file. I am currently reading how the engine works, and have found this out... 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the pointer. While I have published research on longest common subsequence algorithms, I suspect that my algorithm isn't the one they're using in Mediawiki, but it's good to hear that my old lecture notes are still helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Binary search

Binary search is a technique used to improve the efficiency of search algorithms - looking for things in lists/tables/arrays - call them what you will. The Boyer-Moore algorithm is a search technique for looking for things in an array of bytes. The similarity is glaringly obvious to me and it is also obvious to me that searching unstructured lists is somewhat 'harder' than structured lists. Harder in this sense means that an optimizing compiler would have more difficulty deciding a suitable optimization technique.

The Boyer-Moore algorithm fulfills an essentially equivalent function to the binary search technique and is confined to searches or arrays of bytes quite unlike many other algorithms that you suggest might also be included. Do you know any other ?

I therefore propose you add back my link to this algorithm for those programmers who realize that binary chop is not going to work for them because the array of bytes is unsorted.

There are few enough cross references between different & efficient programming techniques. I think this reflects the 'competence' of todays programmers who seem to be blissfully unaware of many of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdakin (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many other algorithms I think are much more closely related to Binary search that I think should be listed in preference to Boyer-Moore: Fibonacci search, Frederickson-Johnson sorted matrix searching, SMAWK sorted matrix searching, Megiddo's parametric search, even linear programming. Similarly if I were listing algorithms similar to Boyer-Moore I would first list Knuth-Morris-Pratt, suffix trees, suffix arrays... But we can't list them all in the binary search algorithm article, or it wouldn't be a binary search article, it would be a list of search algorithms. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So why aren't the similar ones listed if they are so similar as you say ? Good point however about there not being a proper "List of search algorithms" in Wikipedia - with clearly defined differences and aims - In fact I was going to produce just such a list today but realized that "Search algorithm" (already existing) should really have been that list.

However it is somewhat selective and 'random' in the way it presents the information and, in my opinion, needs re-writing as a table indicating under what conditions the algorithms could be used and what their specific benefits and disadvantages are - with some additional general text to provide some background. Not one of your mentioned closely related search algorithms is linked in the existing binary search article including Fibonacci and the only Wikipedia article existing (of your quoted algorithms) is the Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm one.

(The article on Algorithmic efficiency was pitifully brief before I added some material and links recently. )

I made a start on improving 'search algorithm's by adding some comments that tree searching is not mutually exclusive with other search mechanisms - which wasn't at all obvious from the existing article - in fact it was implying that tree searching was somehow a method in itself, rather than a filter to a later search or a pre-processing stage to create a tree in the first place.

Building complex trees (on the 'haystack', & on the fly!) prior to actually searching can consume vast amounts of computer resources in itself and some of the techniques suggested are way beyond the scope of many typical searches and indeed programmers.

The Boyer-Moore algorithm on the other hand is well within the scope of a reasonably competent programmer, is fairly intuitive, uses few resources and has been proven to produce excellent results by a simple pre-processing step on the "needle" (typically vastly shorter than the 'haystack') and even better results when used in conjunction with 'frequency of occurence' statistics for particular letters of the alphabet. It is my view that this algorithm - combined with some other 'nifty' techniques (not immediately inherent in the algorithm itself) - may be one of the best available for its intended and extremely common purpose - a scan of free-form text with no inherent structure. ken (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 09:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft - move to proceed with the replacement

Hello, David. I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the WP:PROF guideline by the revised version. I made a post to the talk page of WP:PROF to that effect and I'd appreciate if you comment there, one way or the other. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on deletion sorting requested

Dear David, I have recently created this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (2nd nomination), but only 2 editors are participating in the debate. Part of the problem may be that this AfD has not been listed on any more specialized lists. As you are often involved in deletion sorting, could you perhaps have a look at this AfD and perhaps sort it to an appropriate list or lists? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Can I have my page back please? I need to edit it a bit and for god's sakes, if you don't want it on wikipedia, at least let me have my own information please. Sabakunorebecca (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would handle such a request by restoring your page to your User: space, but in this case I think the page in question (Tinkachu) is not even suitable to be there, so I am emailing it to you instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Steiner chains and Pappus chains

You wrote:

These properties of having centers on an ellipse and tangencies on a circle are shared with the Pappus chain, which can be seen as an infinite limiting case of the Steiner chain.

I wonder if this "limiting case" statement really makes sense? Pappus chains (pardon the expression) "always exist", whereas Steiner chains exist only when the ratio of radii, after inversion to concentric circles, is one of a specified discrete set of numbers. With Steiner chains, there's the superficially surprising result that no matter where you put the initial circle, the chain still exists. With Pappus chains, the same is true, but it's trivial. With Pappus chains, you can't do an inversion that makes the bounding circles concentric. After you invert the two bounding circles in a Pappus chain, then either they're two circles that touch each other internally, or they're two circles that touch each other externally, or they're a line and a circle that touches it, or they're two parallel lines. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Steiner chain always exists for any two nested circles, it just doesn't always close up after an integer number of steps. (And by the way, if it closes up after multiple times around, the Steiner porism still works and it continues to close up after the same number of circles and the same number of times around no matter where you start).

When a Steiner chain closes up after c circles and k times around, c/k is an invariant of the two nested circles (and of Möbius transformations of the two circles), that can be extended to a real number defined in a continuous way from any two nested circles. Intuitively, this number is how many circles you can pack in the chain, allowing a fractional circle to be packed at the end to fill up the remaining space. The properties that the tangent circles' centers lie on an ellipse and that the points of tangency lie on a circle do not depend on this number being an integer. This number goes to infinity as the inner circle moves towards being tangent to the outer circle, matching the Pappus chain in which infinitely many circles fit between the two nested circles.

As for inverting to make the two non-tangent circles concentric, I suspect without having worked it out carefully myself that if you define the choice of inversion carefully you will find that it tends in the limit to one centered on the point of tangency. Two parallel lines, after all, are (in inversive geometry) a special case of two concentric circles, centered on a point at infinity: except for being straight, they share the other properties of concentricity: never crossing, remaining at constant distance.

So, I think that they are indeed very strongly analogous. But to express it in as much detail as I have above, without a source, would likely be original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but this definition of the Steiner chain doesn't seem to agree exactly with my references, particularly the R. A. Johnson reference, Advanced Euclidean Geometry. That book states that

A Steiner chain of circles is a series of circles, finite in number, each tangent to two fixed circles and to two other circles of the series...It is possible but not inevitable that eventually the n^th circle is tangent to the first. When this occurs, the circles are said to constitute a Steiner chain.

Hence, a chain of circles that are tangent to the two fixed circles but with an irrational number of circles per cycle (the overwhelming majority of "random" cases) is not a Steiner chain, since it "closes" only after an infinite number of cycles. Johnson's definition also seems to agree with Ogilvy's (cf. p. 53, "There is a Steiner chain even if more than one round is required to complete it.") but it's a little ambiguous, since Ogilvy also refers to "closed Steiner chains" (again p. 53) as if there might be "open Steiner chains".

The inversion center that transforms nested circles into concentric nested circles corresponds to one of the two foci in bipolar coordinates (q.v.). The circles to be transformed correspond to different isosurfaces of the τ coordinate. The limit of the two nested circles being internally tangent corresponds (I think) to the τ→0 limit for both circles. At first glance, the center of inversion seems to be different from the asymptotic point of tangency; the latter approaches the origin of the bipolar coordinates (x=y=0), whereas the former is located at (+a, 0). However, in that τ→0 limit, the radii of the two circles tend to infinity; if we rescale everything, then a could effectively go to zero, in agreement with David's idea.

I hope that this helps! :) Willow (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Willow, you are to be congratulated on knowing what "q.v." means. A while back (five years ago?) various people pounced on me in Wikipedia discussion pages, claiming that they were educated and didn't know what that abbreviation meant, and also had never seen the phrase "which, see". Ultimately I decided that "which, see" didn't need to be used here because the conspicuous nature of links makes "q.v." redundant. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please: Write x = y = 0 with spaces before and after "=". (In TeX this doesn't matter since the software takes care of it; in non-TeX notation it needs to be done by hand.) Michael Hardy (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, I've seen references that use "Steiner chain" to mean a finite chain of tangent circles that doesn't meet back up with itself, just ends at an arbitrary circle. Obviously in this case the ends of the chain fails the "each tangent to two other circles" condition. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fermat–Apollonius circle

I just added Fermat–Apollonius circle to the list of circle topics. If you know of any others that should be there and are not, could you add those too? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi, I was just working on an article and noted that an image previously used had been deleted. The log details are: 17:49, 25 July 2007 David Eppstein (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:U-boats at Wilhemshaven.jpg" ‎ (nowcommons, speedy I8)

As the image has now disappeared, I presume there was some problem with it on commons. I was wondering, therefore, whether the image might be undeleted here? Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be easiest just to upload to commons again. The image is here and was uploaded to Wikipedia with licencing {{PD-GWPDA}}. It was deleted from commons because it had not been properly categorized (seems strange to me since that's something I'm pretty sure I check when doing I8 deletions, but that's what it says), so I imagine that if you give it a good category and licensing tag on commons it wouldn't be deleted again. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some other GPDA images deleted: I'm not clear why or whether this issue has been cleared up on commons. anyway, thanks for response. Sandpiper (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

target readers

Hi,

I formulated what is hopefully a compromise proposal at WP math concerning citation. I would like to respond to the specific issue of the target audience that you raised. I disagree with your contention that wiki's target audience is not people who read math articles. It is very possible that a typical math article in wiki actually is read mostly by math journal readers. I personally frequently use wiki pages in preparing undergraduate and graduate math courses. Katzmik (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mendocino Presbyterian Church

Hi, Thanks for adding the flickr image. It helps put the church in context and I'll use it also in the historic district article when I get to it. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly why I chose that one over the other two CC-licensed ones I found, which had better views of the church building itself but didn't show anything that would differentiate it from any other similar-vintage church in any other town. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR request

David, I just came across your name in the "Editors with access to JSTOR" category. I am looking for the text of an article from Nature as research for an article I'm interested in expanding. The cite is Nature 408, 280 (16 November 2000), the author is David Cyranowski. If you are able to obtain that text, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the text of the article, but I think it would be too much of a copyright issue to just put it up for public viewing here. If you can supply me with an email address I could send it to you that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just a question, when an editor has 25 DYKs, he/she is awarded a 25 DYK medal. My question is how the person giving the award know that editor has more than 25 DYKs? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I've been keeping track of my own DYKs (well under 25) on my user page as they happen because I don't know of some other way to find them. Sometimes they get listed in the user talk page but that's unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cactus graph

Please take a look. IMO an undue self-promotion is in progress. `'Míkka>t 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)