User talk:Linas/Archive14

Started stub on zero-point field

Hi, can you pitch in a bit on this article I started. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry. My gut impression was "crank physics", and this is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I last went through this class of articles. There might be a valid article about "the sociology and psychology of zero point energy in crank physics", but that would be a sociology article, not a physics article. linas 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just revert an article sourced with four references, the first being a definition verbatim out an Encyclopedia of Quantum Physics? You just lost a lot of respect. Your actions are not to be commended. My intentions are to see a straight textbook article on the term "zero point field" as it is understood in modern physics. If you think you can do better than me, than please do; if not, take your concerns to Talk:Zero-point field where we can discuss this in the coming weeks. Doing a redirect-revert on my effort to write a short article on the topic was not at all nice. I will be posting rfc's on all of the science project pages if you do a redirect on my efforts again. --Sadi Carnot 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I intend to list this on AfD, its not a straight science article, its crackpot mumbo-jumbo. Sorry. linas 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been short-tempered. I've enjoyed some of your other edits; I think you mean well. I've re-worked the zero-point field article to focus on perhaps the desired topic. linas 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Number theory graphics

Hi Linas, you generated images such as Image:Lioville-big.svg for the Pólya conjecture article. There are two counterexamples given in this article. I think it'd be a good idea to also include images of L(n) for 1 <= n <= 10⁹ or maybe 10⁷ <= n <= 10⁹ so one can actually "see" a disproof, as the counterexamples are within this range. What do you think?

Bye, --Abdull 11:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. I might need a faster computer; if I remember correctly, these images took a long time to generate. Ones that go out 100x farther might take more than 100x more compute power. linas 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be doable. I have a fast brand-new Dell Ubuntu box (which I'm thrilled by) and have brute-force factored every integer less than 1/3 of a billion. A few more hours cpu time should get me up to the mark. linas 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Le voila:

click on picture to get explanation

linas 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This image is pure beauty. I'm feeling how much work you put in it. Thank you very much! To appreciate your work, I bestow you a little Kinkajou: . Don't feel worried. Their conservation status is of least concern. Bye, --Abdull 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And here's a better image:

closeup of Polya conjecture-violating region

linas 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Shapshifter

Hi! At your GLE page (http://linas.org/gle/) you mention "shapeshifter" which is a (now defunct?) port of GLE to java. As I was hoping to use GLE with JOGL (https://jogl.dev.java.net/) and not write my own jni wrappers/or swig stuff, maybe you have an old copy lying around you could put to the site? Thanks for all the great software, even if you do nothing but delete this message! Best, User:24.185.108.100 on 11 June 2007

No, I never grabbed a copy of "shapshifter"; sorry. linas 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regular language

Hi, you told half(L) is regular is bogus, I think it is valid. I'ven't edited the page though. atul 15:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right. I have found a reasonable definition of half(L) in some introductory textbook. (although I've already forgotten what the defninition is). The problem was, of course, that that the article threw this terminology about, without explaining it. linas 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrike

Hello Linas,

When implementing Wrike, we gave a favor to JBoss and PostreSQL, and we are very happy that we selected open source. Thanks to you and other people who promote open source and help the world. We would really appreciate if you could cover Wrike in your Project Management section. We try to democratize enterprise project management software and bring costs from hundreds of thousands of dollars to cheap ($5/month) or even free subscriptions. What’s interesting is that originally the tool was built as a project management tool, but because of its collaborative power and simplicity, our users also use it for bug-tracking and CRM. BTW, as a software professional, you might want to try Wrike’s bug-tracking for your own pleasure. Next time you see a bug, create an e-mail to wrike@wrike.com, include [Bugs] in the beginning of subject, write bug synopsis in the subject, and paste bug screenshot in a body. Hit “send”, and that’s it. A lot of our friends find this really usable. User:84.204.179.134 on 18 June 2007

Yes, I will try to get around to this. I've been busy. linas 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Logarithmic integral function

Hi! Recently, I was looking at the logarithmic integral function and found that you have actually plotted a graph for it. Could you tell me how you did this?--Vbatz 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I evaluated the series expansion. Doing so is not at all hard to do. Its rapidly convergent for a wide range of values. linas 03:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this value be exact? --Vbatz 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Yes, the series expansion for the logarithm integral gives an "exact" result, in the same way that the series $\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }x^{n}/n!$ gives an "exact" result for $e^{x}$. The numerical algorithms for evalating such series are not challenging. linas 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Plouffe-Ramanujan identities

Dear Linas

My name is Sergiy Koshkin and I am a postdoc at Northwestern. This was meant to be an email but since you no longer accept them... My email is

I read your interesting paper on Plouffe-Ramanujan identities. My question is what can be said concerning inversion property for P_k when k is even. Clearly, it can not be as clean as for odd k since the Mellin transform \Gamma(z)\zeta(z+k)\zeta(z) has infinitely many poles on the left. I am interested because these functions appear in combinatorics and string theory. For instance, the logarithm of MacMahon partition function M(q):=\prod_{n=1}^\infty(1-q^n)^{-n} is qd/dq derivative of P_2(q). Although P_k with negative integer k are the classical Eisenstein series as you point out, it does not appear that anyone studied the even case. There are reasons to believe (mirror symmetry heuristics) that these functions do have some kind of asymptotic modularity, i.e. inversion property that applies to asymptotic expansions at the cusps (roots of unity in q). For example, it seems obvious that M(q) has the unit circle as the natural boundary but I do not see how to prove it without a transformation property. I wonder if anyone thought about this.

Let me also point out that the inversion property for P_k (your theorem 5.1) is known. Apostol proved it in 1950 for the corresponding Lambert series, Iseki gave a different proof in 1957, and finally Apostol gave another in 1964 using Mellin transforms (without calling them by name), very similar to yours. The main difference I think is that he regularizes the series before taking the transform to make the exponentially small contour integral (your D) vanish and then takes a limit to get the original series. It is reproduced in his book Modular Forms..., Section 3.3.5 but the presentation is so murky he would have been better of just reprinting the 1964 paper. Your account is much more illuminating. Actor (1994) does the Dedekind eta-function only but uses the same method as you. I would attach pdf copies of the papers but I do not know how to do it here.

I will ponder your note and reply by email tommorrow. Yes, I eventually learned that some of these identities are not novel; for that, I can blame Simon Plouffe, for it was casual conversation with him that lead me to derive them. On the other hand, if he had told me that they were well known, then I would never have enjoyed the rediscovery. So it goes.

I'm confused about the Apostol reference, I have Apostol, Modular functions and Dirichlet series in number theory, but there is no section 3.3.5 in my copy. Google knows naught of an Apostol book called "Modular forms..". Yes, chapter 3 of "Modular functions..." deals with material that is closely related, and, yes, I certainly used it as inspiration.

More work in this direction is certainly possible. I have a glimmer as to how to generalize all that to automorphic forms (which I believe has been done, but would be a good exercise for me). I also think that much cleaner relationships to theta functions can be given; except that I am currently ignorant of 20'th century theta function theory. As to mirror symmetry... I've skimmed some reviews, and got part-way down the Calabi-Yau road that leads to that; but alas I'm paid to work on other things :-( I was under the impression that there is a considerable amount of modern work at the nexus of strings, Calabi-Yau and theta fns/modular forms. At UTexas, David Ben-Zvi seems to be good at that sort of stuff.

I will have to answer your direct question later; I don't remember how the even case went, off the top of my head; I have to look at my notes. I'll probably ask you to expand on your first paragraph. linas 01:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I did not protect anyone's page. Crum375 02:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for harassing and attempting to out a fellow editor. He sent me an obscene and rude email after he was blocked. Not a good way to show regret and contrition. Crum375 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:SlimVirgin is today's front-page news on slashdot; he was not outing her, its too late for that. I admit the fellow was a bit rude, and may have chosen his words a bit more judiciously. I fail to see why he should show regret or contrition; I think that many people would send a rude email under similar circumstances. It is a perfectly normal way to react, if not the most polite way to act. May I point out that you yourself promptly erased my comments; I assume that you did so out of anger. Don't deny others the liberty that you yourself take. linas 03:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no anger at all, despite what you may think. I did revert (not erased or deleted) your comments, because you made a false accusation, and I don't see my reversion as being uncivil. Regarding the block itself, if a user posts attempted outing information about another, it is a form of attack or harassment. It doesn't matter where he saw that information - we don't post private or personal information or allegations, whether true or not, about other editors, period. If someone has some personal questions about a user, they can always email that user privately and ask. This specific post by this user was clearly intended to troll and to harass, and a 24 hour block for that is short, and should perhaps be extended due to the obscene email he sent me afterward. Crum375 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry, I think you are wrong, and I think your behaviour was inappropriate. But clearly, this whole thing is bit of a snake-pit, so perhaps I shall leave before I get bitten. linas 04:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked, assuming good faith. Andre (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Andre has admitted that he was wrong to unblock. ElinorD (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

SlimVirgin's talk page is semiprotected. I, not she, semiprotected it, because of harassment. It is possible for registered users to post there. If you post harassing messages, particularly messages that speculate on her identity, or messages about websites that speculate on her identity, you will be blocked. ElinorD (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Block me now, and get it over with. What makes you think that it is appropriate for you to threaten me? Since when is this appropriate wikipedia behaviour? Who are you? What gives you the right?

Second, there is no evidence of any recent harassment on SlimVirgin's talk page; by contrast, see the inappropriate reaction of User:Crum375 above, when I first broached this topic.

BTW, SlimVirgin's talk page is not semi-protected, its just plain protected. linas 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I consider User:SlimVirgin's continued activity on Wikipedia to be really, really, bad for WP. This is a person who should be thoroughly and roundly expelled and permanently banned from any further activity on WP. I have raised this as an important issue, one of the most important issues, faced by Wikipedia. Failure to appropriately deal with this issue will continue to damage WP. linas 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for your opinion that SlimVirgin's activity is bad for Wikipedia? You may answer by email if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, the message from ElinorD immediately above as an excellent example of what's wrong with the whole arrangement. Its bad for wikipedia, its bad for everyone all around. The deletion of edit histories is particularly shameful. linas 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

weird request

Hi,

I saw some cool posts on Wikipedia by Linus and would like a perosnal email address to ask soem Qs.

my addy is

maric ~dot* 2 $at# osu )dot! edu

Thanks! Tony

Check your rear view mirror ...

You're about to be passed [1] ;-) Paul August ☎ 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably in your blind spot now. You'll have to look over your shoulder [2]. Paul August ☎ 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dag nabbit. All things must pass. I am sorry to say, I am on an extended wikibreak. I had a bit of an epiphany; I realized that The Singularity is indeed imminent, and have shifted all of my focus to deal with that. My advice for others would be to do likewise. I don't know what your opinion of all that might be -- perhaps, as I was until recently, you are dimly aware of it. I just had no idea of just how important it actually is. (and, if nothing else, its good for my health: I've lost some weight, started rowing; I plan to live long enough to see the damn thing explode.) linas 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

CG tools

Regarding [3]: I have pasted the contents at User:Linas/CG tools. The text may be a copyright infringement, so it should probably be deleted when you are done with it. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sustainability and Energy Development

Template:Sustainability and Energy Development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. User:Chriswaterguy on 13 oct 2007

Semantic reasoner

Thank you for improving that article :) --Daniele Gallesio 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Documentation you might find interesting

I just read on your home page at linas.com what you had to say about Bush and the corruption in the United States, and thought that you might want to look at http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm

Please take a look at that documentation and let me know what you think. You can contact me at my email address at xode@netzero.net (better) or put a reply on my wikipedia user talk page (no so good) since I don't check wikipedia very often.

Xode (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a good example of opaque and obscure writing. I have no idea of what he is trying to say or accomplish; it smells vaguely seditious. linas (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Erdos category deletion

Linas, I noticed your comment at the Deletion Review log for the Erdos Numbers Category, and the (rhetorical?) question about where to protest the result. I'm slowly developing a case for Arbitration (RfA); see developing case in my user space. One of the excuses for suspending the deletion review (which I had initiated, and which was going better than 2-1 in favor of overturning the deletion) was the charge that I had campaigned excessively (there was one (maybe two, depending how you count) ANI (Admin notices/incidents board) about me on account of it). They swamped an upswelling of concerned contributors with wiki-legalism. (Two Category For Deltion, CfD, discussions had been 2-1 in favor of "keep" before the third, also 2-1 in favor of keep, got closed for Delete by an admin plainly ignoring the consensus; before I got involved myself.)

Feel free to help. It's a huge problem, the evidence is votes and statements and chronologies spanning many many talk pages, CfD, Del Rev, and ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. What I get from all of this is that WP policy is too centralized, and the people who set and enforce that policy do not understand the needs and desires of the various wikiprojects. I remember, in particular, the ruckus over scientific citations, which pitted the scientists vs. the much larger and politically more powerful group of non-scientists. The lesson I take away from this is that the wikiprojects should be more autonomous to make thier own decisions, and that people who do not otherwise contribute to a project should not be allowed to battle against the (mainstream) desires of a given project. linas (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Double Sigh :-) Thanks for contributing the comment at my developing case. I like your enunciation of a socio-political problem; decentralization of editing authority, more hierarchy, is probably needed on account of the growing infinite scope and complexity of wiki itself (it's bad for a "bureaucracy to expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" but it's necessary for bureaucracy to expand to meet the needs of an expanding society. So I think we agree broadly about that. In the short term, I advocate recruiting more admins and wiki-policy contributors from among our projects. Just as some mathematicians have to serve as departmental Chairs (and some thrive in administration and politicking), we need some in wikiRealPolitik too. Pete St.John (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In the short term, WP:M has a fair number of admins already; they are mostly not politically involved, with the exception of Charles Matthews. In practice, the math & science projects do manage to defend themselves, and do manage to get by reasonably well. But that's the thing: its always being on the defensive. Some new policy is enacted, and only after the enforcement begins, is it that the projects understand the impact, and then organize to overturn. Having a chair sounds good; but I'd really like to see the anti-meddling policy.

My thoughts on meddling stems form this complaint: after a multi-year, multi-participant debate about the nature of mathematical proofs in WP, a working consensus was reached, and expressed in terms of the simple Template:Proof. Then, barely a few months ago, four non-mathematicians voted to delete, and it was gone. No one from WP:M participated, and to add insult to injury, one of the four was later banned from WP. How can four total strangers just whirl in, whack years of debate, and whirl out again? Its a sophisticated form of vandalism; we have only reactive, and not proactive, defenses. linas (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I do applaud your effort to put a case together for the Erdos debate. I have no particular opinion on the category itself; I do, however, despise not only the meddling, but also the excessively fast timelines for action, and the repeated threats from the admins. Yes, I too, like you, I see, occasionally get threatened with explusion or banning when I rub some jerk admin the wrong way. The fact that I've been here longer, have made more edits (and more friends?), and have had a (mostly) peaceful and happy co-existence doesn't matter; the mauruders do come visit. linas (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy with malice?

It would seem you are talking to the wrong person - I am neither the person who nominated that template, nor am I the one who closed the debate. Might I also point out that accusing people of malice is not going to win you any friends? >Radiant< 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, you voted to delete without bothering with due diligence. That's malicious. Please note, I'm not here to win freinds; if you are, I suggest facebook or myspace. linas 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it differently: you have left insulting and incivil messages on several people's talk pages, as well as on a Wikiproject. Do not do that again. By Wikipedia policy, you are expected to interact civilly with other users, and refrain from personal attacks. If you persist in this behavior, you may be blocked from editing. Fair warning. >Radiant< 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuck you. Your deletion was incivil. Go ahead, ban me! Assholes like you are fucking it up for the ordinary users around here. Its even in the news now: the Register. We don't need people like you around any more -- if you make a mistake, admit it. Say you're sorry. But don't fucking sit here an threaten me with banning if your goddamn ego is so frail-thin that you can't even bother to say "Gee, I'm sorry, I made a mistake" when you make a mistake.

Between the assorted asshole admins that Jimbo Wales thinks are peachy-keen, and the incessent vandals, I've pretty much had it with WP. I say its time for new leadership around here. linas (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very well, you have been blocked for persistent incivility and personal attacks after being warned. Please familiarize yourself with our related policy in the future. >Radiant< 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuck off. Wikipedia needs new leadership. You will go down. linas (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Linas, Radiant has a point. Not much can be achieved by insults, usually they just complicate finding a solution. (BTW, I have no idea what the matter at hand actually is, I am just commenting in general for the need for civility.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He voted to delete the article-proof template. (No mathematicians voted on this.) Since the template clearly pointed at the multi-year, multi-opinion discussion that lead to the template, the fact that it was deleted with only four votes (one from a banned user) tells me that no one even tried to grasp what it was about -- it's drive-by vandalism, in my opinion. I raised this issue on radiant's talk page, and the discussion above pursued. It turns out that radiant is an admin, which I think is a particularly serious breach of duty. That this admin, who 1) failed to perform even the vaguest due dilligence before voting to delete, 2) threatened bans when challenged, is very far from the norm of expected behaviour of an admin. I expected him/her to say "gee, I'm sorry, it was an accident, I won't do it again", or something along those lines. Instead I got a "I can threaten you so nyah nyah" response. So I think uncivility is called for in such a case. linas (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)