User talk:Mathsci/Archive 6

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5

Scipio3000

Thanks for letting me know about him reporting me. I wonder what he claims I've done? Edward321 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Marseille

You're doing a really nice job on Marseille page... I was willing to do the translatios from french page, but didn't find the time... Cperroquin 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me??

Which references of mine are of dubious authority??? That is a VERY strong claim, please tell me which one you think are? And why you think so? And what authority you have to back that strong claim UP?? Because I will give you more info. to look at....And funny you say my references are dubious yet what have you brought?? Nothing but hostility! Isn't your specialty math BTW?? And I will delete what I want on my page! Why are you so offended that Constantine spreaded Chrisitianity...why is this bothering you?? BTW are you an admin?? No didn't think so, who are you to talk down on me? And like I said I will delte whatever I want on my page, so back off!!!(Scipio3000 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

So you call these dubious, why??? I suppose your math proffession gives you authority over proffessional historians and reputable publishers...I am going to write them a note and tell them they are being accused of being dubious and I will have them reply to you to refute this Wild claim!

M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007)*

C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)

G.Parker(ed.), "The Compact history of the world."(Times books, 1995)

• • You call Cambridge University Press, Time Corp., Barnes & Noble, and Penguin book group...dubious??? WOW! Unbelievable, how low people can go to try to be right when history say's otherwise.

So which is dubious?? And what material have you brought to counter this and why so hostile that a Roman spread Christianity...when it is the truth? Constantine did spread Christianity! Do all Romans offend you so much? Just curious as to why you have become so hostile, it can't be because I mistakenly wrote in your archive page which I apologized for? That would go above and beyond the way you are talking down on me, so the only thing I can think of is the Constantine/Christianity issue, what else could it be?? I anxiously wait your answer, KIND sir.Scipio3000 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events. It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations(Scipio3000 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Please try to act more civilly. Also please try to avoid adding comments in strange places, no matter how tempting you find it.

Other people spread christianity long before Constantine, for example the early christians and one rather famous one in particular. During this time the Romans, and most notably Diocletian, were doing their level best institutionally to persecute christians; or do you disagree with that? Constantine the Great was great, but was not the greatest european of all time. (That was beyond a doubt J. Arthur Prufrock. Well, either him or Harry Potter. Or was it Peter Rabbit? I think he counts as european...)

Shouldn't that be the penguin historical "atlas" rather than "guide"? In one of the references you provided I read that the Sicilian normans were (a) of viking stock and (b) continued to write documents in latin, greek and arabic. Where I come from, a long long time ago we were raped and pillaged by the vikings; and yet even now they still come over to shop for perforated underwear at Marks and Spencer, if you can believe it! We also learnt ancient greek and latin at school and could watch marvelous TV programmes with John Julius Norwich as presenter. Have you read any of his books? --Mathsci 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you on one thing Harry Potter may well be the Greatest European Ever! I don't think Constantine was even that great either, but without him the spread of Christianity could be doubtful. With the logistics of the empire and the systems in place it spread like the plague(I hope that didn't sound rude, I am just trying to make a point on the speed). Where do you come from are you French? Just curious and thank you for taking a kinder tone with me, I am truly trying my best and I will be more than happy to consult with you on whatever you like, thank you again for the lighter message, I needed that, take car(Scipio3000 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Never mind I see your British...I was thinking maybe Northern France since you said Vikings, but we all know of William the conqueror and Hastings...But The English wrestled control back...btw I love English culture, full of mythology and chivalry. Plus British people are tough as nails and strong-willed and proud. Also without the English, Italy may never have been united. Do they still teach Latin and Greek in schools at England? They don't teach Ancient history or geography in America unfortuantely. Also the British have a deep respect for history in general and a passion for Ancient Rome which I admire...there is alot that can be learned from the past and I wish more Americans knew the history of Rome better as one day we may be heading in that direction, take care.(Scipio3000 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Please do not make racist comments on my talk page. --Mathsci 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more explicit: you are stereotyping according to presumed nationality. This seems obnoxious to me. --Mathsci 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a more positive note, nobody is out to get you, quite the contrary. If you're fluent in italian and english, you could perform a valuable service by helping to transfer some of the information on the italian WP pages onto the english WP. Many people would appreciate this. Think positive! --Mathsci 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Smarandache

Hi -- I suspect you probably don't want to deal with anything relating to this, but I just have a quick question. I'm an undergraduate student studying mathematics. I'm wondering whether I should spend any time looking over his books (for mathematical content) or not. If not, should I bother looking over them for a little bit of "what math shouldn't look like"? Thanks, Nate --Npchandle 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First look at the highly enjoyable and brilliant web site / blog of Terence Tao (a quickly chosen example). Then look very briefly at the books, articles and virtual journals on Smarandache's web site. Afterwards draw your own conclusions. Good luck and thanks for the question. --Mathsci 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I think I'll start following this blog. But for me the question remains: it's clear to me that Smarandache is not a clear writer of mathematics and so at least in that way I suppose his "work" is a valuable example of what not to do; but what isn't clear to me is whether his entire ouvre is a work of relevant (or at least coherent) mathematics and not a large piece of 'internet installation art' or a scam (Did he invent all his collaborators?). I don't want or expect you to dig into his stuff for me, but I don't want to spend a great deal of time trying to see through the smoke of his (intentionally?) poor English and symbolism. So if you do have any advice resulting from your previous investigation into that article, I would greatly appreciate hearing it. In other words, I've drawn the conclusion that it is more or less nonsense, but I'm not confident that I'm just failing to understand. Thanks for your time!  : ) Nate(Npchandle 18:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

In the words of the great Scottish nobel laureate Alexander Todd (a former colleague), "You're not wrong." :-) The PlanetMath article on Smarandache provides a different perspective, confirming much of what you write. --Mathsci 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An interjection midstream

It's nice that you noticed my interjection and contacted me about it. The post that I queried in prime_number:talk has been standing there for a good while and has apparently been dismissed as nonsense or original research by other editors who care about the prime number page. The poster did not sign and cannot feel that he is getting a respectful hearing; I think there is some previous speculation about his(?) identity. I don't feel I have done wrong by hopefully coaxing him into a dialog. That, if he responds, is the only way to get better understanding. I believe I chose natural breaks in his long post, was polite, and used indentations to keep the talk as coherent as possible. I'm sorry if the effect was not as intended.Cuddlyable3 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I commented not on the content but the manner of your edits, which you could have correctly reinserted yourself. WP is not a math forum like sci.math and slightly different rules apply. BTW the OP used an anonymous IP for one day to write what seems to be complete nonsense, now that I have read his post. What do you mean by "giving him a respectful hearing"? --Mathsci 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If he likes to explain things he has said about Euclid's proof, products of primes and a "last prime" then I may learn something. I don't understand why you ask me to define "giving respectful hearing" which seems implied by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Cuddlyable3 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because what he says is unsourced and WP is about verifiable sources. It's as simple as that. What you feel personally about it is completely irrelevant. You are just wasting other people's time by going on about this piece of mathematical nonsense. Kindly stop. Mathsci 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3's edits to Talk:Prime number

I restored the edits you reverted from Talk:Prime number and moved them past the end of the comment they had been inserted in the middle of. In my judgment, anytime someone makes a good-faith contribution to a talk page but does so in an improper manner, it should be corrected in such a way as to reflect how it should have been done, with minimal alteration to the content. Fair enough? --Mwalimu59 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a polite message on Cuddlyable3's talk page explaining why interspersing remarks in somebody else's edit was not a very good idea, in case you hadn't noticed. I expected Cuddlyable3 to reinsert her/his comments correctly herself/himself. --Mathsci 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for moving my questions, I don't mind at all. Cuddlyable3 13:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

When you reverted AbcXyx's changes to Prime number, did you intend to revert only the trivial rearrangement of the interwiki links? There were six edits, many much more major, and you only reverted the last of them. —David Eppstein 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Myth of Marseille Foundation

Nice rewrite... Even if mixing legend and history is questionable. Just 2 points, I put 2 different source because there was a variation between the 2 version. You kept the main story... I'm going to remove the other source... Also, you said : this was the Old Port of Marseille. Well at that it wasn't... I'm not sure how to say that... Cperroquin 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed prince to chief, which goes better with tribe and is standard usage in english language history books. I removed the reference to the Vieux-Port. It was a "spoiler" and interrupts the readers digest story-telling. As for mixing legend and history, this applies also to the Mary Magdalen legend, which I think needs to be mentioned, even if it's hard believe that she came from the Holy Land in a boat without rudder or sail. Like the legend of Protis and Gyptis, it is quite poetic and revealing. (This cannot be said of Francois Premier's shipwrecked rhinceros or Louis XIV blasting a hole in the city walls of Marseille!) However I think creating too many new sections risks making the article mushroom and become disproportionately long. There is still a lot from the french WP article that it would be nice to have here ... Cheers,Mathsci 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanked?

I "blanked" nothing. I made a good faith attempt to refactor the section to focus on the actual issues and to allow for a hopefully constructive and fruitful discussion. Your restoration of all the irrelevant WP:SOAP and WP:CIV violations does nothing for the article, the discussion nor Wikipedia. You have objected and reverted my refactoring, so the material says...but I wanted to clarify my intent as well as my actions. The discussion there is non-productive, IMHO. Dreadstar † 05:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you that most of the material in this section has little or nothing to do with the editing of the main article. The section, however, does provide other WP editors with data for assessing how carefully sourced and verifiable some possible future edits to the main page might be. Best, Mathsci 06:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see...well, I may have missed the important data for assessing the sourcing and verification of material, it may have been lost in all the mayhem...that's why I was trying to refactor. The material I removed from the section was just about to be copied (in it's entirety) to the last archive I created for the talk page, but since it's been restored, it's unnecessary. Talk page archeologists would have been able to dig it out had they found the need or had the desire to do so...but I'm certain the entire section will be totally archived eventually...possibly very soon. Dreadstar † 06:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not transfer comments that I left on your talk page to mine. Thanks in advance,Mathsci 06:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And when you reply to any of my posts that I've made on your talk page, please put your repsonse on your own talk page, not on mine - that way I can have a full discussion to read instead of half-a-one. I'll watchlist your page if I'm expecting a response. Dreadstar † 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a fixed convention. Putting talk comments on an OP's page means that the OP is alerted automatically by a banner. I usually just stick to one page like you, but adapt to other editors if need be. BTW this afternoon wasn't the best time to refactor as it turned out (look at WP:AN/I). Cheers,Mathsci 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The block by Jimbo was the reason I felt comfortable archiving the discussion. If its contents are needed as evidence, there are the diffs and the section itself in archive number 16. Is that what you mean, or is there something else on ANI about it? I think talk pages need to be managed so far as uncivil and racist remarks go, if readers or newbie editor see that kind of stuff...it's bad, and can possibly scare some people away. Dreadstar † 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The block took place several hours after you attempted to refactor the page; why are you saying otherwise? This morning I was advised by User:Theresa knott, following a WP email exchange, to conduct a discourse with fourdee. Somewhat reluctantly I worked out a way of doing it. In order for it not to be blanked and for it to be public, I did it in the section where I had posted my initial warning to him. That is what you interrupted. Archive 16 had already been made (by you?). Bonne nuit, Mathsci 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You are confused. I said the archiving, which was done 51 minutes after the block. I wasn't talking about the previous refactoring. You're obviously in a different time zone than I am, so "this afternoon" is when I did the archiving not the refactoring. And yes, I added the material to archive 16 that I created days ago. I had no idea I was interrupting your gameplan...had I known, I wouldn't have touched a thing. I was trying to move the discussion forward and get rid of the uncivil remarks. Dreadstar † 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the USA, Eastern time, so our timeframess are just a bit different. When you said "afternoon" I thought you meant my afternoon time, not yours. Sorry for the confusion. I think we got off on the wrong foot? I think we're in agreement on most things...and in total agreement on others...with a minor misunderstanding in-between....;) Dreadstar † 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the refactoring, not the archiving. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. There was no game plan. Fourdee's remarks were not uncivil. That is exactly the point. Fourdee was not insulting the particular person he was talking to. He was making outrageous and indefensible general statements. That is quite a different story and is presumably the reason he has received a ban. --Mathsci 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I think we cross-posted apologies...;) See mine right above yours...I thought "Bonne nuit" meant "good night" and you were off to bed! I said "uncivil" because that's what I think his outrageous and indefensible general statements were, even if they weren't directed at any particular person..they were directed at much larger and more serious concerns. I think that's pretty uncivil, and while there may be a better word for it, I'm sure that's part of the reason he was banned..those terrible comments... I'm not sorry to see him gone. Dreadstar † 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's 1:36 in the morning here. I find it confusing myself because, this side of the pond, I see two different sets of times on WP. It does mean I'm allowed my elevenses twice;-) Best, Mathsci 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Actually, I think this means you can get your elevenses four times..your twice-times and on my twice-times...I get the same double-time as you, it's 8:07pm here....but.you know....with...four...elevensies...you might...<shhh>...gain a few pounds...so...be careful with those elevenses...I'm on Atkins myself...;) Dreadstar † 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

new policy

any thoughts about this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sami people

File:BjorkDebut.jpg

Björk from Iceland

I removed a Turk, a Chechen and a Georgian. Then I removed the Sami woman so that there are no incomplete rows in the gallery. MoritzB 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment about the Turk to the talk page. Do you agree?

MoritzB 15:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be very few Southern Europeans: Sicilians, Corsicans, Sardinians, Spaniards, Greeks, etc. I'm in favour of diversity. And what about Björk? --Mathsci 16:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the diversity. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about Sir Tom Jones? What's the difference between him and Bjork? I do not understand. I agree with you absolutely on diversity. If there is anything at all, I would like a patchwork of different (anonymous) people illustrating the rich texture of european people, of all types. The Sami woman is the only person that comes close to this - I would of course prefer her to be surrounded by reindeer (like the image I linked to on MoritzB's page). What I have in mind is the sort of thing you can see in National Geographic which celebrates european life in all its forms. (Of course I think the original premise for this WP article is absurd and quite offensive.) --20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is not about European lifestyles. The propriety of the title is under discussion. The more appropriate title of this topic should be European ethnic groups or something along those lines. This may end up just being a disambiguation location directing to more specific topics. --Kevin Murray 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. At least two distinct topics seem to be mixed up here and the result is a nonsensical and self-contradictory article. I've already supported the suggestion that it be split and become a redirect to two (or more) new or already existing articles. Might this not be more straightforward to carry through now that two of the more radical contributors are no longer editing WP? --Mathsci 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please also join the discussion on the disambiguation at White people. What I'd like to do is reach a consensus on making these both disambiguation sign posts, and then figure out where the meat of the information should reside. My interst generaly lies in the evolution and migration of populations. --Kevin Murray 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about White People: a disambiguation page seems to be the only solution for a page which should never have been created in the first place. If somebody suggests reduction to a disambiguation page, I'll willingly add my vote. But this seems to be a deeply problematic page, which I'd rather not touch. On the other hand European people seems a much more easily solvable problem. I think Alun and Slrubenstein seem to have a very good grasp of what needs to be done. I am quite happy to lend support there. --Mathsci 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Hi, thanks for the contributions to the gallery of Europeans. This has been a contentious evolution, where the concensus has developed to avoid: (1) B&W photos, (2) minimize major celebrities, (3) try to demonstrate a broad range of ethnicities, avoiding people of mixed heritage, and (4) to try to keep a careful balance of young and mature - me and women. A radical departure from our consensus will bring about more bickering and some people to push for elimination of the gallery. Can we slow down on the additions and try to move back toward the balance? Thanks! --Kevin Murray 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But I see very clearly Gordon Brown. Could you explain to me why he is not a major celebrity? Please could you explain this to me. Also I am unclear whether there is a clear division into nationality, however that is defined. If you don't allow B&W pictures, would it not be better to have no gallery at all? --Mathsci 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like Gordon Brown being there nor do I like the prohibition against B&W photos, but I'm trying to protect a consensus of compromise from unravelling. I don't see your point of rather having no gallery to a color only gallery. --Kevin Murray 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Number Theorists

I see you're trying to add many 20th century number theorists to the Number Theory article. It does indeed seem to require this, and it is indeed hard to know when to stop. I figure there must be a better way to organize this or something. The entire page is quite lacking. If you have any ideas, I'd be glad to hear them. RobHar 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked, appalled and horrified that Atle Selberg wasn't in the list but Erdos was (he does appear above, but his greatest work is not mentioned). The article is not great, in fact it's terribly written. The Riemann zeta function or Dirichlet's theorem on primes in an arithmetic progression are not mentioned. Why are arithmetic progressions only mentioned in combinatorial number theory and is this really a subject: surely additive number theory is more accurate. As far as 20th century number theory goes, I think that splitting it up into the disciplines that evolved in the 20C is advisable. There's also all of motives, Beilinson, Voevodsky, Bloch, ... And I keep wanting to add Ribet, Rubin, Mazur, Michael Harris; but NOT Lang. There's also Arakelov theory. And of course our friends in additive number theory, Tao, Gowers, Green, ... So I think the first exercise is to make subject divisions for the modern era of number theory (perhaps using Weil's dates) and proceed from there. I favour using part of the AMS classification for mathematical reviews (mathscinet) rather than what's on WP, if this page is anything to go by. Then each section can link to other articles and try to survey 20C and beyond (eg new breakthroughs like the Sato-Tate conjecture). However, I'm not that interested in editing this kind of page. Here are the AMS subject breakdowns in Number theory which I think are relevant.

Diophantine equations 
Discontinuous groups and automorphic forms 
Algebraic number theory
Arithmetic algebraic geometry 
Geometry of numbers
Transcendental number theory
Analytic number theory
Additive number theory
Computational number theory and cryptography

But I would add motives and multiple zeta functions, Langlands program, links with representation theory, etc. in the appropriate places. Sorry not to be of more help. Perhaps User:R.e.b. might help you ... he knows a lot more about this than me. --Mathsci 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Having worked out who you are (I couldn't quite work out your thesis supervisor), you seem to be in an ideal position to rewrite the article yourself and it could be quite fun. (I left out Sarnak and Katz ... sorry, but they were in very good company.) Provided you are not allergic to some bits of number theory, that is. Cheers, Mathsci 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I could probably help provide some content to this page, however I'm not well versed in the history of number theory, and definitely not from a non-western point of view. I'm also not that interested in editing this type of article. What I would like to do with this page is add some structure to it to facilitate and encourage other people to provide useful and relevant content. Breaking up the various sections further based on subject is definitely a good idea. I will probably at least revamp the section on the 20th century (perhaps as a model for the other sections).