User talk:Jmath666

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Regarding edits made to Domain decomposition method 3 On revising the "Domain decomposition method" article 4 Math not rendering correctly 5 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 6 Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe 7 (Ir)relevance of elegance

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jmath666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Domain decomposition method

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jmath666! 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 \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was the link to the standard community webpage and a basic reference book on the subject. Reverted. Reply posted here for reference only. Jmath666 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On revising the "Domain decomposition method" article

I replied on Talk:Domain decomposition method. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Domain decomposition method. Jmath666 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk on LaTeX to Wiki translator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Math not rendering correctly

Article with math is missing many formulas when rendered by browser. Jmath666 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Try purging or bypassing your cache. John Reaves (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly timing issue, long wait for PNG formulas to appear. Upgrade to Firefox 2 and patience resolved this. Maybe Wikipedia servers overloaded. Jmath666 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Skew-T log-P diagram Common Data Format ANCOVA Tephigram Equivalent potential temperature Minimum mean-square error Conjugacy class sum Convective inhibition Contraction mapping Technical rescue General covariance Mathematical statistics Mathematical Reviews Humidex Random matrix Bibliography Convective available potential energy Great dodecahedron Multivariate random variable

Cleanup Fast Kalman filter Helmert-Wolf blocking Country Fire Authority Merge Point estimation Eigenvalue algorithm Bambi bucket Add Sources Monotonic function Random matrix theory Continuous probability distribution Wikify Kálmán Tisza Cedar Fire Doctor of Pharmacy Expand Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula Bandwidth Memory hierarchy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe

A tag has been placed on Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I must say that it might be a bit too technical for a lot of readers, so if you can include something that gives a little more context and explanation, that would be good and would put this on the way to becoming a featured article. In the meantime, I've removed the speedy-delete tag. Bear in mind that another editor may put up a {{prod}} tag, but there's enough citations and the like now to make that unlikely. Realkyhick 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Ir)relevance of elegance

Mathematical elegance links directly to mathematical beauty.

That's exactly what I was affraid of.

Now, whatever that may be, "mathematical beauty" is, if not completely subjective, a niche concept, belonging to the academical culture of mathematicians, falling outside the actual scientific inquiry (considering mathematics as a formal science) and thus without relevance in an objetive exposition pertaining mathematics itself (and not the academical culture of mathematicians).

Such a thing belongs in an article about the culture, values and tradition of mathematicians, not mathematics. Perceived beauty is not requisite for mathematics, that's a personal/cultural assessment, not the least relevant for the thing itself (bear in mind I'm not talking about mathematicians motivations, inspirations and whatnot, but only mathematics in itself).

That would be like assessing how beautiful, awesome, cool, etc., this or that scientific theory is or is not.

Fred Hoyle thought the Big Bang was a ghastly theory. So what? Should we put in the article about the Big Bang a remark saying that it is the best theory EVEN THOUGH it's not that "elegant"?

How about an universe without aether? "How 'unelegant' that is!" That's certainly what many proiminent 19th century scientists would say.

What you tell me about Hardy, who thought that only useless mathematics were beautiful? Should we label every applied math article with "but this is not as 'elegant' as pure math"?

Really, this directly assessment of "elegance" sounds POVy to me. Wikipedia has no place in assessing the "elegance" of this or that. This word is too heavily loaded with personal/cultural aesthetical conotations, as the redirect of mathematical elegance to mathematical beauty itself proves.

I mean, at least write "mathematicians usually consider (whatever) to be elegant/have elegant properties", for crying out loud. Or, if you only mean "simplicity", write "simplicity" already, since that's the proper word for that, otherwise "elegance" is just slang for "simplicity".

But I really think they should be removed altogether.

Remember you're not writing these articles for the mathematics academical niche, but for the whole world to read. Loading it with cultural niche value assessment certainly will not help understand an already complicated subject as mathematics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.164.220.194 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you when you say that Wikipedia has no place in assessing the "elegance" of this or that and that the use of this word is being overused by some editors and that it should be be used on Wikipedia much less if at all. In addition, I also think that the word "elegant" might smell a bit of original research if the math in Wikipedia is something else than what can be found in cited sources. Many of us have favorite elegant proofs of this and that that we use in teaching and that cannot be find anywhere. I find the overuse of the word elegant on Wikipedia annoying but it does not bother me enough to go into a crusade about it. If you want to do anything about it the way to go might be to build a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Then the civil minded editors might comply. For this it would be useful to make an account and get ready for protracted and very diplomatic discussion. I would suport you to the extent it corresponds with my own views (see below) but I do not really care enough to take lead in this.

My personal view: I do believe in clear effective communication. I do not stand in awe in front of self-serving mathematical beauty. I think that all good academicians should practice clear communication and distinguishing what is important and what not and that mathematical elegance is a very important part of clear communication. Maybe your experience is with bad academicians. When writing for practitioners the clarity of expression is even more important. An article competes for attention with many other articles and messy stuff gets ignored.

Thank you for your thoughts and good luck oif you choose to build that consensus. Jmath666 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the simple=elegant, I wrote elsewhere that simple is not all. From Mathematical elegance the following attributes are important for good communication, in writing a Wikipedia article or anything else. My comments in boldface

1. A proof that uses a minimum of additional assumptions or previous results. So that it is more applicable...

1. A proof that is unusually short. Torturing the reader with pages of proofs is BAD...

1. A proof that derives a result in a surprising way (e.g. from an apparently unrelated theorem or collection of theorems.) More powerful tools....

1. A proof that is based on new and original insights. Hopefully clearer, but for effective communication not important...

1. A method of proof that can be easily generalised to solve a family of similar problems. These tend to be clearer, too, not burdened by specific details...

Regarding the fact that mathematical elegance is redirected to mathematical beauty, I agree also. I think these are different concepts. There should be a separate mathematical elegance article. It might be tough to find citations, remembering the no original research rule - a personal view is not good enough, Wikipedia is supposed to describe what exists not what we think should be, and with subjective concepts, one should simply discuss the different views while following a neutral point of view. It might be a good idea to outline the plan at the talk page of mathematical beauty and let it sit for a while first soliciting feedback. I think an article with proper attribution to sources would not be contested. But this all takes work... Jmath666 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I agree with you. Maybe I am overreacting a bit too. I mean, it's only a word afterall. I think an article about mathematical elegance (that does not link to mathematical beauty) would be a good middleground, if one can properly define elegance and make this definition available in Wikipedia itself (most of my opposition comes from that being so poorly-defined and subjective... once this is solved, I wouldn't bother so much). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.164.220.194 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).