User talk:Zvika/Archive1

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Zvika/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

^{Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}}

Phrenology as proto-science

I also think that phrenology is a silly, outdated idea. However, I don't think that means this section needs to be deleted. I think the section is fairly NPOV, and if you disagree, why not edit it instead of delete it?

Many totally wrong ideas have contributed to science, and this deserves mention: I believe one of the first people to seriously research EEG was in fact looking for evidence for telepathy. If it is factually correct that phrenology was the first to claim localized brain activity, and the fact that emotion takes place in the brain, then why not mention it? As to the language faculty, that seems like a fairly minor issue to me, but I believe that this sentence just serves to point out how wrong the theory was: out of all the faculties suggested, only one was even close to being correct. The way I see it, this sentence reduces the credibility of phrenology, rather than increasing it.

Anyway, not wanting to start an edit war, I did not revert your deletion yet -- but I hope you revert it or at least replace it with something more to your liking. --Zvika 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say phrenology was a silly outdated idea (that goes without saying). I said that section was silly and was original research--or atleast I suspect its original research (it certainly was not sourced). Its probably true that many wrong, and even pseudo-scientific, theories have contributed to science. But that doesn't mean phrenology did. There is little connection between modern neurology and phrenology, (aside from the fact that some authorities think that many conclusions reached by people studying fMRI scans are little better than phrenology, but thats the reverse of what the paragraph I removed was saying.) --Brentt 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It seems that if you really want to get rid of the BS in that page you're going to have to do a lot more than remove that paragraph. See for example the recent changes: some people are perfectly serious about this stuff. I went through a session of cleaning it up a couple of months ago, and it's starting to get cluttered with nonsense again. I give up; I will stick to noncontroversial topics from now on. --Zvika 17:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math font size

This discussion stems from User:Mbeychok's suggestion to decrease the equation size of <math>...</math> constructs in MediaWiki projects. Please feel free to contribute. A vote is also in place in [1].

I disagree with Mbeychok. Sometimes equations need to be shown in larger type, since screen resolution is smaller than that of print, and equations sometimes have smaller fonts.

Here is an example of the typeface in wikia for an invented equations with some sub-subscripts: Here is the same equation in Wiki:

\int _{a^{2}}^{b^{2}}{\frac {x_{t^{2}+u^{2}}}{y_{t^{2}+u^{2}}}}

As you can see, at least in this case it is necessary to use the larger typeface. --Zvika 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zvika, you didn't read my suggestion closely enough. Read it again and please note the word "option" which I put in bold print. The idea is to have the smaller font as an alternative option. For example, to use the smaller font: perhaps we could use <maths> instead of <math>. Then I could use the smaller font when I wanted to or I could use the larger font when it is needed (as you very correctly pointed out). Regards, - mbeychok 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see what you meant now. I read the word "option" as meaning that this is a TeX option which can be globally set, not as something that each user could select. The paragraph you added in your user page ([2]) now makes this point much clearer, and I support this idea: inline equations do come out too big in most cases. I will definitely vote for your proposal if it states that each editor will be able to choose among the two font sizes. Cheers! --Zvika 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to the Bug #4915 at here to vote, you will find that in my original proposal/comment, I specifically asked for the smaller TeX font to be an alternate option and not a replacement of the current TeX font. You will also note that Julian Beard's supporting comment also stressed that point. Shalom, - mbeychok 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment of MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers

Thanks for your comments. Please see my response posted at User talk:Mbeychok/MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers - mbeychok 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel

I wanted to bring to your attention that I have merged the content of the article you started, Rachel (poet), with the content of the article Rachel Bluwstein. I have also listed the new article for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rachel Bluwstein/archive1. --woggly 08:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very nice merge. I was unaware of the page Rachel Bluwstein when I wrote Rachel (poet); my page is a translation of the Hebrew article, and since there was no interwiki mark there, and there was no article matching "Rachel Blubstein", I assumed the page did not exist. I made some fairly minor changes to your article; other than that, the page looks fine! --Zvika 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block

I have now made the block to be anonymous only, so you should be able to edit now. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --WinHunter ^(talk) 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article/stub

Could you please add the Yuval Steinitz article to the list of new articles at Portal:Israel/New so others can know of your contribution? Thanks. --Shuki 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probability-based strategy AfD

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandalism

Hi Zvika, I've responded to your question about anonymous vandalism here. I hope it helps. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me either directly or via the classroom if you'd like to discuss anything else. Sorry for the delay! Cheers! Budgiekiller 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stein's example

Hi, I am not entirely happy with your December revision of this article, and have put a comment on the talk page. Would appreciate your comments. Thanks Bill Jefferys 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad for commenting on your user page rather than your talk page. I seldom if ever comment directly to the user, but just wanted you to be sure to see it. So I am unused to the conventions. I apologize profusely. Bill Jefferys 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probability importance ratings

Hi Zvika! Thanks for fixing all those ratings! I'm tempted to uprate Brownian motion again, because although it is not a fundamental concept of probability, it really is very important throughout science, from financial mathematics to statistical physics. But I'm no expert, so I thought I'd mention my reasons here first in case you have comments. Geometry guy 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I thought you might like to know that I have started a discussion on importance ratings at WT:WPM.

Naturally, the rating of any specific article depends on the general guidelines that you are discussing in WT:WPM. But my personal reading of the current rating instructions is that Top-rated articles are only those which are so fundamental to mathematics that excluding them from a mathematical encyclopedia would be outrageous. Brownian motion is of fundamental importance in physics, and indeed it is rated as such by WP:PHYS, but in my view it is less so as a mathematical concept. I think the different ratings of WP:PHYS and WP:WPM capture this nicely. However, clearly you have more experience with this than me, so if you think otherwise, go ahead. --Zvika 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy over! I did see your reply and sorry for not answering. I'm happy to leave Brownian motion for now - possibly I am too influenced by a colleague in financial mathematics who thinks Brownian motion is the most fundamental concept in the subject. Geometry guy 07:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Ham sandwich theorem

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Zvika! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Proofs and Cat:Mathematical logic

I have been going through Category:Mathematical logic this morning making it useful again. That means subcategorizing. According to Category:Proofs:

"This category includes articles on basic topics related to mathematical proofs, including terminology and proof techniques."

While this is not one of the "big four" areas of math logic, it's certainly related to what a lot of laypeople think of as mathematical logic. By making that category a subcat of math logic, I can categorize a lot of "proof technique" articles into it and remove them from the main math logic category. That's why I added it, and why I hope I can convince you not to remove it. CMummert · talk 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reverted your change for two reasons. First, I feel that concepts like Q.E.D. are fundamental mathematical concepts, and not related to a particular field. I may be wrong about this though, as I am not a mathematician. Second, Cat:Proofs contains two subcats (Category:Articles containing proofs and Category:Article proofs), which are used for identifying articles with proofs, in any field. These will have to find a new home if Cat:Proofs is moved under a particular mathematical subfield. However, you seem to have more experience in this than me, so if you are not convinced, go ahead and add your change again. We will then need to think what to do about these two subcats. --Zvika 19:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]