Talk:Intermittency

Hard

Very hard to understand.

Importance

Please do not delete this article. It is a very important concept for example in the physics of turbulence. It should be revised however a better explanation is neccesary.

The basic idea is that things are not always self-similar (repeating if you zoom in, like a broccoli or a christmas tree) but only in certain (intermittent) points. A good example is the devil's staircase which is self-similar if you take a stair but not in the region between the stairs (there you just see a flat line if you zoom in). http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cdm/pics/Devils-staircase.jpg

--Jaapkroe (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A potential WP:COI issue

Details (mostly off topic, per wp:talk)

Intermittency is indeed a widely discussed phenomenon in chaotic dynamics.

However, Wikipedians may need to be aware that the creator of this article, User:Lakinekaki, (REMOVED), has been involved in several AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bios theory
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation

These involve a fringe theory, bios theory, according to which natural selection is dominated by a murkily defined phenomenon the authors call "bios", a kind of neo-Lamarckian/Chardinian "creative influence", allegedly founded in the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. Note that User:Hector Sabelli, (REMOVED), and (REMOVED) have collaborated on several papers on this topic. (You sort of have to read the AfDs to understand the nature of my WP:COI/WP:FRINGE concerns.) ---CH (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the sentence (in the current version of the article), "In the apparently periodic phases the behaviour is not quite, but only nearly periodic", the appropriate technical term is quasiperiodic (or more precisely, almost periodic). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation for some suggested reading which should be very helpful to anyone trying to improve dynamical systems stubs! HTH ---CH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would not be irrelevant if the primary editors for one point of view on an article happened to be the primary authors of a paper or a series of papers espousing that view. (See, I managed to say it without identifying either group.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

CH (talk - contributions), [1], seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites [2][3][4]. Also, visitors should note that User:Hillman violated one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia -- one that prohibits harassment, which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents.

Also, at the time of creation of above articles, they did pass Notability criteria which was still being developed and disputed[5]. However, Wikipedia is an ever changing encyclopedia where Policies and guidelines also change, and current criteria is more strict.

And to add a quote from the public mailing list response to CH, which will help understand the agenda behind his criticism expressed above and in AfDs:

I notice that Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics, but that Uncle Al seems to regard his role as somewhat similarly "purifying" the field.

None of the Creative Geniuses in mathematics, physics, literature, or music that I know of were interested in "purifying the field" to any degree comparable to Chris Hillman and Uncle Al. Apparently Einstein, for example, whose year we celebrate currently, found it more useful to actually Create than to destroy. Ditto for Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Leonardo Da Vinci, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, the Strausses, etc.

nb. Besides being a former on sci.physics, he is also a 'former' Wikipedian[6].

216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of the personal attacks against Hillman, but there may be a reason the anon, who obviously is one of the creators of bios theory, should be allowed to make statements, in spite of the consensus at WP:ANI that there's nothing to discuss. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI consensus? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There's a weak consensus that CH may have done wrong, and a fairly stable consensus that you have done wrong. I don't see your claimed consensus that you have said anything that should be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how much ad hominem was tolerated by CH in AfDs, without people showing any concern about it. How much of what he wrote actually refers to the content of deleted articles, and how much refers to authors beliefs expressed elsewhere, and his opinions about those beliefs which are unrelated to the article content. My comments above were needed to put his 'concerns expressed in AfDs' into wider context. Sometimes it is really hard to reply to ad hominem without similar questioning of beliefs and motives. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of wp:talk. Please desist, and at least move these comments to your talk page Lakinekaki. Verbal chat 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

References

At the present time, there is only one reference, with no indication it's reliable. Is it time to propose deletion (again) unless some sources can be provided? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose deletion? Are you kidding, ignorant, or using this as a threat to push others to work? You could have entered 'intermittency' to Google Scholar, 127,000 hits. Thus, the problem is not to find any references but to select the appropriate ones. --Rainald62 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

off-topic (per WP:TALK)

I guess it's always easier to propose deletion than find sources. Or maybe you can make Wikipedia better by adding some references. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have some please add them rather than disrupting the article. Verbal chat 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a layman, so my sources usually get challenged. I will let experts from the field select the most reliable sources. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Why not bring them here for discussion? Verbal chat 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting X2. I thought it established that you were one of the priniciple authors of the fringe science version of the theories. Now, you're a layman. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's mainstream, so I can't know what's fringe either. Intermittency layman certainly I am. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More good references that meet wp:reliable sources would be good, if possible. Verbal chat 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)