User talk:Sapphorain

Thanks for removing the reference to Carella's paper in August and for explaining why it is incorrect. I did something similar several months ago, but he did not understand about Omega and he put back the reference to his preprint. (Carella has many preprints on the arXiv claiming proofs of famous conjectures, but he has no published papers.) Jsondow (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comments on my talk page. You are right! Jsondow (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firouz Mirza Nosrat-ed-Dowleh Farman Farmaian III

Thanks for the feedback, I replied on my talk page. Feel free to make further adjustments in the article. --Bobak (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph-Louis Lagrange

Did you even read the talk page after I reverted you again? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Publius Sittius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Publius Sittius is mentioned in [De Bello Africo]],<ref>Caesar Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars, with an english translation by A.G. Way, M.A.,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Legendre's three-square theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

source|reason=the reference given is a preprint that was never published in a peer reviewed journal)|Date=July 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed in Greatest common divisor

Could you take a look at this sentence? --50.53.60.41 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you grow up, open yourself a user account, and stop changing ip every day? Sapphorain (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand's postulate

What does your edit summary mean "No, Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, vol. 7, pp.17-33, 1850". Are you claiming that source does not exist? SpinningSpark 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud keep the conversation in one place.

No, of course not. (Sorry, I made a misprint in the comment). But the reference is wrong, the year of publication is 1854, after the french paper. Sapphorain (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources disagree with you [1][2][3][4] SpinningSpark 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All are modern sources, and all probably stem from the same mistake. Edmund Landau in his Handbuch gives 1854 for this paper (with pages 15-33), and he is known to be very reliable . But I will check tomorrow in our library, where we have Tchebychev's complete works. Sapphorain (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... I checked in Tchebychef's complete works ("Oeuvres de P.L. Tchebychef, publiées par les soins de MM A. Markoff et N. Sonin, membres ordinaires de l'académie impériale des sciences, 1899-1907"). The paper is in Tome I, pages 47-70; on page 47 the reference is given: "Mémoires présentés à l'Académie Impériale des sciences de St-Pétersbourg par divers savants, VII, 1854, p.17-33 (it is the exact same paper than that published in 1852 in France). So the year of the Russian publication is definitely 1854; as for the pagination, being familiar with Landau's precision, I strongly suspect he checked the original publication, noticed there was a mistake, and corrected 17-33 to 15-33 ! Sapphorain (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riemann hypothesis

Please avoid labelling as vandalism the cancellation of a paragraph whose content has nothing to do with the title of it. I have deleted it because, contrary to what is claimed in the text, the paper reviewed there has nothing to do with an attempt, of any nature, to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Just giving a further conjecture which would imply the Riemann Hypothesis is by no means a sufficient motivation to be called an attempt of proving the Riemann hypothesis, more especially if nobody has ever tried to prove that conjecture after it was stated, as it happens to be the case. Columns17 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works on the behavior of zeta functions inevitably have to do with the Riemann hypothesis. If the subsection is not in the right section of the article, then move it in another section. But when you unilaterally blank it, without asking for a consensus in the talk page, I call that vandalism. Sapphorain (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphorain, on Wikipedia the term vandalism is used exclusively for those who have no other intention than to deliberately damage the encyclopaedia. A removal of material can be vandalism, but you must not call a colleague vandal who removes material with a reasoned explanation. It does not matter how much you disagree with them, or if they were really wrong to do so. You still must not use such insults. An action by an editor with a history of good edits can, in almost no cases, be called vandalism. We assume our fellow editors are acting in good faith until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. SpinningSpark 17:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the English language, "vandalism" means "malicious or ignorant destruction" (Webster's). I was not aware that on Wikipedia only the meaning "malicious destruction" is authorized, and it is of course not this meaning I had in mind. Sorry. I will be more precise in my wording next time. Sapphorain (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qajar dynasty

Just a heads up, since you reverted Karak1lc1k's last edit. I found a journal source for Azeri Turkish and have added it to the article. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big oh notation

Hi, I noticed you reverted my 2 previous edits to this article with regards to abuse of notation. I think the abuse is quite obvious since the = isn't an equivalence relation. I also think it's good to remind people of this since it's quite frstrating to see = meaning element of, subset, equals all at the same time. But since you seem to disagree I'd like to know your views on this matter. Cheers! Smk65536 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an (old) mathematician, and I am used to the old school (Bachmann, Landau, Hardy-Littlewood) regarding this matter, according to which, in the expression "f(x)=O(g(x))" the symbols "=" and "O" are not defined separately. In this way I consider there is no abuse of notation, but just a different acception of the symbol "=" in this particular context. So it is quite sufficient to write in the article that "some consider it an abuse of notation". Because some others don't. Sapphorain (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity symbol and Möbius Strip

Hey why did you delete the paragraph explaining the relation between infinity symbol and Möbius sign? Nisankoc (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't provide any source proving that this likeness is notorious and widely recognized, and not just something that came up to your mind (which would be a personal theory). Sapphorain (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satrapi

Marjane Satrapi was a guest at Santa Barbara City College and invited by Prof. Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar. Asked by him about her Qajar lineage she said she did not know. First she claimed to be a descendant of Soltan Ahmad Shah, later of Nasser ed-Din Shah. Of both men we have a list of descendants in a registry of the Kadjar Family Association; she is not mentioned in it and her family is not known with the descendants of Nasser ed-Din Shah. When we asked her first cousin (Satrapi) about a Qajar lineage, he informed us he did not know of any.