User talk:Robinh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Robinh, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Noldoaran (Talk) 22:19, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hello and welcome.

Please note the highlighting convention: the title word or title phrase is highlighted at its first appearance. I have entered this correction at Boussinesq approximation and Richardson number. Michael Hardy 02:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robin

Those articles are really good, you're catching the Wiki bug! - I couldn't resist correcting a typo though - sorry ;-)

Anyway, I give in - what's SOC? I googled the two names and they're definitely mathematicians, but they're not in Southampton or perhaps I should say they weren't.

My maths days are long over - I graduated in 1980 - and I always tended towards pure maths. I've been in IT since, which is why I looked up your IP.

Spellbinder 16:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robin, your Logarithm homework help is not quite appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia such as this one, though similar articles and your services may be more better suited to a project like Wikibooks. Thanks Dysprosia 22:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

> Replied on my talk page Dysprosia 22:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robinh, I just found a site that might be another good place for pages like Logarithm homework help, the Know-How Wiki. It looks pretty new and I haven't checked it out in detail yet. Have fun! Tualha 00:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello - you emailed me about the Euler's equation and Euler equations duplication. I'm not personally that bothered about the title; but it does look as if the former page's content should be merged into the latter's.

Charles Matthews 10:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you might be exactly who I'm looking for to talk about the organization of the fluid dynamics pages. I'm trying to write aerodynamics (it's been a stub for a long time) and it's going really slowly. It's occuring to me that much of what I'm writing there really belongs in fluid mechanics (like the continuity assumption etc) but then aerodynamics would reduce to a simple "Aerodynamics is fluid mechanics applied to gases" and nothing else, which doesn't work for the importance of the topic. And I keep wanting to insert Bernoulli's equation, the Euler equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, even LaPlace's equation but of course they all have their own pages, so it would just be duplication. And yet nowhere do we have the fact that they are reductions of one another. Also, should I be making new pages for things like Prandtl's lifting-line theory or does it belong in aerodynamics? Anyway, let me know your thoughts, I've started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics to get it going. moink 17:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! We should continue the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics. moink 19:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robin, I picked up your Red-fronted Serin, it's particularly useful to have contributions on birds from areas other than Europe and North America. The agreed convention is that bird species names are capitalised with a redirect from the lower case form, so to give consistency with the hundreds of other species accounts, I've moved the page and created the redirect. jimfbleak 06:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

to create a redirect, start from the page you have written, eg Syrian Serin. In the browser address box you will see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Serin. Change this to http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_serin, (first word will be capitalised anyway) and press enter to open the new page. Type #redirect [[Syrian Serin]] and save.

The caps convention is somewhere, I'll post again when I find it! Jim

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna), or more clearly at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds Jim

[edit] Lorentz force

Hi noticed your page and did the redirect to our existing page, with the correct spelling. By the way, the Lorentz force isn't Lorentz covariant, per se, but it does transform as the spatial components of a four-vector. Keep up the good work, though. -- Decumanus 22:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to me too, those kinds of things. By the way, there is indeed a famous Edward Lorenz, who discovered the Lorenz attractor. -- Decumanus 22:35, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Hi, Robin. Can you tell me the address that you were working form that got blocked? Are you on AOL? RickK 14:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


If you knew the numbers, I could tell you why the account was blocked, but since you don't remember, I'm at a loss. Sorry. RickK 21:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific wager

Nice work on Scientific Wager. Fun to read. - Tεxτurε 13:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hotelling's T-square distribution

Hello. What is the quantity you called m? Michael Hardy 17:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. You introduced that variable but only later in the article said what it is. Michael Hardy 18:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, I've added this to list of statistical topics. Could you add them as you create them, and also add any others you know of that are not there? Thanks. Michael Hardy 17:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbell's UNTBB

Based on the title of his book, shouldn't the page actually be titled the "Unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography? Guettarda

[edit] Most-perfect magic square

Halló Robinh, I saw the article and want to say Halló! At [1] the name is David Brée not Bree. I worked also on these squares and read about the work of Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw and David Brée later. I was contacting Harvey Heinz some weeks ago but could not find the work of Ollerenshaw and Brée. Do you know where to get this book? I stoped working at [2] about four weeks ago. I generate only some straight forward patterns. Just take a look. Regards Gangleri 07:53, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Halló Robin, Thank you for tha answer. You write: I know your webpage quite well! Do you mean the "linear" generion algorythm? Have you seen it somewhere before? [3] shows a good construction example. If you reload the page you will get another arbitrary square. I am not using an exhaustive method, I just place "the rigth values" arbitraryly at known "relevant positions". The code is (depending on the programming language) a few line only. For every position in the binary representation there is one if statement with asigns followed by an reasignment statement. Just look here and / or e-mail me.
I am aware of 8x8 squares having the property that min { a(i,j)+a(i,j+1)+a(i,j+2)+a(i,j+3) } <> max { (a(i,j)+a(i,j+1)+a(i,j+2)+a(i,j+3) } for every i and every j. Visualy there is no (shifted) horizontal axis where the half row sums are all the same. But the construction method its not as straight forward is in the implemented example.
I have never seen a 12x12 Most-perfect. Have you seen / generated one before? Where? / How?
Did you know, that the square [4] is showing 27 differnt subqueares with same row, column and diagonal sum?
I like visual patterns. For even number squares of order n I like to replace a'(i,j)=(2*n*n+1-2(a(i,j)) and work with odd numbers only. "Gott liebt die ungeraden Zahlen." is refered to Leibniz. The Kabbalah type 4x4 and one of the 8x8 mentioned there (?) givs two straight forwad patterns to. Both regarding the consecutive position of the odd numbers and their sign. Is it worth to show this as a construction method? Regards! Gangleri 09:48, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

[edit] Most-perfect magic square (2)

Dear Robinh, thanks for your answer and the example. I moved your answer at User talk:Gangleri#Most perfect magic square (2). If you would post your messages at User talk:Gangleri I would be notified while loging in. Would you like to start writing an article [5]? Tanks! Gangleri 05:29, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

[edit] Most-perfect magic square (3)

Dear Robinh, I was reading lots of documentation pages about InterWiki links. I made a note at Talk:Most-perfect magic square. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! Regards Gangleri 18:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

I moved Most-perfect square to Most-perfect magic square and readjusted all links known to me. Regards Gangleri 15:24, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikification of John Glashan (and his works)

Hello, I see you've just now "Wikified" the page on Jonathan Routh by providing a second link to John Glashan. This surprises me, as there was already a link to him. Or does the start of a new section trigger the need for (or at least desirability of) new links? (I'm new hereabouts, so I really don't know. I guess I could look it up, but I've had my fill of digging around the "Special" pages for one day.)

  • Now I understand. Thank you!

Oh, er, sorry to digress, but can I interest you (or anybody) in my comment within Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia maintenance?

Thanks for any feedback. Hoary 09:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Feedback received with thanks! Hoary 14:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robinh, I've just written stuff about the excellent guidebooks by John Glashan and Jonathan Routh. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since the four can be described together, I was inclined to put them together, but I couldn't think of a good title for an article ("The Good Loo Guide et seq."?), and I certainly didn't want to create four articles. (As somebody who frequently uses a modem, I hate having to jump around short pages. I'd rather get a long page in a browser window, disconnect, and then read.) Although Glashan's contribution was considerable, it was less than Routh's, so I've put it in the article on Routh. Genius, however, is a different kettle of whatever: it's very much a solo production of Glashan's. I'd thus be inclined to fold both Anode enzyme and Genius (cartoon) into the article on Glashan. Another possibility would be to add a lot to Genius and fold "Anode Enzyme" into it. (Unfortunately all I know of "Genius" is what's reproduced in John Glashan's World.) Comments?

Incidentally, I have most of Glashan's books. Time permitting (and it won't for a month or so), I can say something about all of them. Hoary 04:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Granular material

Hi. I merged Granular matter into your article Granular material, since i think Granular material is the better word. Have a look. Nice work on dry quicksand by the way, you beat me by 5 minutes in creating that article. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. And don't worry about the 5 minutes, happens all the time in wikipedia. I ususally save my progress every few sentences (and hence have a lot of edits), but I thoght who the heck would wanna write an article about dry quicksand. Guess now I know :P Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 09:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, Wikipedia:Edit summary says "Always fill the summary field." (emphasis in the original). Please fill in the Edit Summary when you edit an article, so the rest of us don't have to resort to a "diff" to see what you did. Thanks! Noel (talk) 23:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nice addition...

... to "Bicycle". This section got bandied all over the place last year as editors waged war over just what does keep a bike up. It is now quite complete, and the article may be up to "featured article" level. Sfahey 15:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi and modular discriminant

Hi, thanks for the compliments on the Weierstrass elliptic functions pictures. See, I hadn't clue that they were fractal; I very accidentally found out that something distantly related was fractal-ish, and followed the leads. Its very odd, to me, that books on chaotic dynamics, fractals, etc. never actually mention these ... but I am now the happier for knowing this. linas 05:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Generalized continued fraction needs your help

If you read its discussion page or note the bold Bug notice someone added to the article, you'll see what I mean. 4.250.198.191 05:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theta functions in Weierstrass

Hi, question & remark.

1) Have you been able to confirm that the theta_2 theta_3 etc. that you use in the Weierstrass invariants are consistent with the definitions used given in other articles? There's some mumble-words in the article on theta that make me wonder if all of these really are defined consistently. I mean, your usage may be correct, but I'm not convinced that all usage in Wikipedia is correct.linas 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

2) The Weierstrass elliptic article is getting long. I'm thinking it may be time to chop it up. Maybe invariants should get its own page? Then we could have a real subsection called "numerical methods" or something like that. linas 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator

Hello Robinh, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:20, 21 May 2005 (CEST)

[edit] Metamaterial and Swiss roll (metamaterial)

As of April 2005, someone seems to have filled in the swiss roll (metamaterial) link with information about the "swiss roll" type of jelly roll. Would you be willing to replace this with information on the actual metamaterial you were describing? I don't have the optics expertise to write about it. --Christopher Thomas 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...

Hello! William M. Connolley 19:35:18, 2005-08-04 (UTC).

[edit] A8 speedies

Hi there. When using {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, please remember to add the URL it is taken from like this:

{{db-copyvio|url= URL}}

otherwise, the admin has to guess and hunt where you spotted it. Thanks. -Splashtalk 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cecil Rousseau

Could you please comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Rousseau, whether our article on Cecil Rousseau should stay? I think you mentioned him at book (graph theory), which is where I got the idea that you might know something about his work. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dust (relativity)

Hi, please see my query in Talk:Dust (relativity). TIA ---CH (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shock wave

Hello Robinh. I've undone your partial revert on the Shock_wave page, and I've added my reasons on the talk page of shock wave. it's not that I don't agree that I was too harsh in the first edit, but the quality of the original material was truly abysmal, and I think that some difficult decisions were necessary to prune out everything which wasn't 100% correct. AKAF 13:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Bulgarian solitaire

Hello, good work on Bulgarian solitaire, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Bulgarian solitaire? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET for different citation methods. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on the references. I don't know if you've been keeping track of the news, but wikipedia is comming under fire for having false information. Everybody is on the lookout! In that vain, I looked up Varma Division and I cannot find any confirmation of it either. A quick glance suggests that arguments are good, so my bet is that it is original research. I have nominated it here. Thanks for point that out! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carroll's paradox

Hi Robin. You mentioned you have the solution to this paradox months ago ,please quench my curisoty and expand the article..:) Diza 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Richard Blockhead (October 1972). "Copyright: A Rejoinder". American Journal of Physics 20: 75–83. 


[edit] In litrature.

Hey what's up I just want you to know I deleted your two In Litrature sections of Door Furniture and Door Knockers, the reason I did this was because niethier seemed to have anything really to do with the subject and instead seemed to revolve around quotes you found in which Door knockers were used, I don't find this encyclapedic and it sets a bad example for other users. (We wouldn't want a Toilets in litrature section for example) Thanks for understanding. :) Deathawk 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WeierstrassP.png

Thanks for uploading Image:WeierstrassP.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All copyright tags can be found at WP:ICT --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WeierstrassP.pdf listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:WeierstrassP.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cramér-Rao inequality

In the Example section in Cramér-Rao inequality, you made an assertion about what the likelihood function is, that simply does not make sense unless normality is assumed. But you began by saying simply: let X be a random variable with expected value ___ and variance ___. That does not imply normality. Michael Hardy 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Division ring

I've removed your "Semantics" section on the Division_ring page. Your terminology is wrong, you cite a "Godemont" without reference, and the basic assertion is so far from true that it's silly.

If you were trying to say something sensible here, please rewrite it. 69.107.70.159 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSR J1748-2446ad

With regard to this page that you created I was wondering if you could help me with an interesting question I thought of. If the millisecond pulsar is rotating at that speed and is 4-5 earth radii the outside edge is rotating at way over the speed of light, 383.035581 to 478.794476 times the speed of light to be exact! I know this cannot be though. How I came up with that number was using google caclulator using this equation. So I was wondering if you knew what part of the pulsar is rotating at that speed.

[edit] Supplee's paradox

Did I read this wrong? What am I missing? ---CH 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Coincidence

Hi,

I'd like to continue our discussion at talk:mathematical coincidence. I still don't feel that approximations, like pi ~= 22/7, deserve the name of "coincidence". Hope to hear from you! MrHumperdink 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Meaning of "however"

Hi: Thanks for reviewing the article on self-efficacy. This is a bit picky, but I noticed that you changed however to whether or not in the phrase self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power.... One dictionary definition of however is "to whatever degree or extent." This meaning is consistent with its usage in the article. More to the point, "however" implies correctly that accuracy may vary on a continuous scale, but "whether or not" makes it a dichotomy. If no objections, I'll revert. Nesbit 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nesbitt. No worries. To me, "self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power..." implies that the statement is true, even as the accuracy approaches perfection. This is the way that such sentences are understood in my field of mathematics. I wanted the emphasis to be on the fact that the accuracy is immaterial. You are right about the the dichotomy, though. How about "...the belief (irrespective of its accuracy) ..."? Robinh 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Your suggested fix sounds fine. Nesbit 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daisyworld generalised

Hi! From where to find model articles of Wikipedia? I am used to scientifical langiuage but my emphasis has typically been in understandability rather than in fine looks. Which sentences you find confused and in which ways? What about if the source is my own thought but which should be easy enough for others to follow just like that? Should I first get them published in some scientifical journal? But that is difficult for a vague subject like Gaia which Wikipedia though includes. I would just like to benefit those interested in the subject. Htervola 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational Tug

I have reverted your partial restoration to the gravitational tug article. Giving such a precise value for delta-v is meaningless here: changing delta v of 0.0019 m/s is the same as 0.002 or 0.005 in this context. What matters is the order-of-magnitude of the delta. The gravitational tug is not relevant in asteroid kinematics. This is a matter of terminolgy: the gravitational tug is used to deflect asteroids. Asteroid kinematics is the motion of asteroids on their own (e.g. 1999 KW4). Michaelbusch 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LambertW etc.

Hi, Answered on my own talk page - Don't hesitate if you find I should do more of that type of pictures for other articles Thanks --Xedi 19:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just done the same for ln, uploading in a few seconds. --Xedi 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, see Natural Logarithm (move it to complex logarithm if you find it better) --Xedi 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Done the same for exponential, see exponential function --Xedi 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generalized continued fractions

Hello!

I want to add some material to Wikipedia on the subject of continued fractions, particularly the applications of continued fractions in complex analysis. I noticed that you made many of the contributions to generalized continued fractions, and that's why I'm writing to you.

I've already received some friendly advice not to modify the definition appearing at the article about continued fractions. So if I'm going to put a hook into existing articles at all I need to work from the "generalized" case. The problem is that all partial denominators are currently defined to be positive integers.

There are scads of examples from analysis where the partial denominators are complex variables, and I'd like the definition in the "generalized" article to be sufficiently general to allow for these.

Do you care if I change the generalized continued fraction article all around? DavidCBryant 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, RobinH!
I've added one new article, here, that illustrates how complex numbers can enter into meaningful continued fraction expressions. It's not quite done yet, and I'm still aiming to append a proof (in a separate article). Anyway, if you get a chance to look at it, feedback is always welcome. Thanks! DavidCBryant 12:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, RobinH! I'm back!!
I've added some new content to the generalized continued fraction article. Please take a look and tell me what you think when you have the time. Merry Christmas! DavidCBryant 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Tic Tac Toe

Hello, Robin! Some months back, I registered with Wikipedia with the intent of writing an article about QT3. Unfortunately, after I had perused some of the policies, guidelines, suggestions, opinions, et cetera ... I was forced to conclude that I could not do so. I am therefore delighted to find that you have created an article referring to the game.

I am yet a WikiNewbie (if I may coin such a word, unless someone else has already done so), and have many questions about the proprieties of this place. I am therefore writing to ask you for help (or at least, pointers to the necessary (more!) reading) so I can figure out whether it is proper for me to add anything to your article. I have an interest, and a possible conflict of interest, in that I am a friend of the inventor of Quantum Tic Tac Toe, and am the author of a version of the game for the Palm PDA.

If you would be so kind as to reply to my (as yet non-existent) talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. And if this is not the appropriate venue for having contacted you, please also let me know that. As I said, I am as yet a stranger here.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Swwright 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Robin!
Been working on a draft in my user area, but it's not yet ready for publication. You can probably find it, if you wish to take a look, user pages are not really private in any sense. Good grief, has it been nearly a year?? — SWWrightTalk 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Um ... I should note that my article-in-preparation on QT3 is just that: an introduction. You probably have as much information about the game from the AJP article, as you will get from me. Are you interested in it as a game (i.e., tactics and strategy?) or as a pedagogical tool (i.e. teaching quantum mechanics)? — SWWrightTalk 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orange and Green Marbles

Thank you for providing (yet another) way to answer my question! I have asked the same question in a number of different forums, and have yet to get the same answer twice, yet have gotten three very distinct and very believable anwers (and a host of not so believeable answers). I had no idea there would be such diversity for what I thought was a fairly simple probability question. Now I just have to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the three (Bayes, Wilson's interval and the new one you supplied). Do you know if there is a good article or textbook chapter that discusses the various approaches? Thanks again for your excellent answer. dryguy 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shock Wave

Hi Robinh, I'm rather hoping that Genick doesn't make an uninteligable mess of the page like he has oblique shock and moving shock. It would be nice if you could help to correct errors without destroying the article. AKAF 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robinh, I would certainly support a merge. If you look at the edit history you'll see that I originally merged oblique shock and shock wave and left a redirect at oblique shock. Actually the stuff at "types of shock wave" is a bit of an embarrasment, but I was having a bit of a low creativity day. The hope was that there would be enough examples of shock waves there that people would get a good ides just from the examples. Perhaps changing the section name to "Examples of shock waves" would be a good start? AKAF 09:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your undo at Complex number

On 23 February 2007, you undid an edit by 220.227.202.209 (talk · contribs). However, that edit was his own reversion of his own error. So you re-introduced his error. Please be more careful in the future to revert only to clean versions. By the way, "undo" only undoes the last change in the difference, even if you push the button while looking at a difference covering more than one change. JRSpriggs 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistician help needed

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [6]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.


Thanks. Remember 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go Edit

Hi. I think you edited Go (Board game) to introduce the number of moves computer programs considered compared with chess. Unfortunately you provided no source for this claim, could you do so?--ZincBelief 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia monacha

Hi! Thank you for adding this article and for expressing interest in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of molluscs. Would you consider adding more to this page? « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trebbian. Thanks for your feedback. I'm no great malacologist. In fact I'm not a biologist at all (except for the mathematics of biodiversity). I just love the little lemon-shaped shells that Trivia has. One day I will add a photo. Best wishes, Robinh 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd for Category:Cryptic animals

Hi Robinh, I've nominated this category for deletion as virtually every animal is cryptic in some way or other. Perhaps something like Category:Crypsis would be better, if we can gather together enough articles to populate it. Our material on the subject is so scarce at the moment though; I doubt it could gather many entries. Richard001 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hodgson's paradox

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Hodgson's paradox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

[edit] Binomial inverse theorem

Would you have any references to this article which you have started, esp. where is the name from, maybe the original paper, please. Or at least where you got it from. Thanks! Jmath666 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crypsis

Hello, I noticed you were the editor who originally provided the description currently being used at crypsis ([7]). Do you have any sources for this, or is it just based on your interpretation of the concept? The two main issues are (1) Is avoiding observation supposed to be visual only? and (2) Is crypsis as broad as this? For example is mimicry a form of crypsis, or is crypsis a different concept? I haven't researched this much myself, but it seems hard to pin down a coherent definition of these things. Richard001 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found biological dictionaries tend to refer to it as visual only too, and they tend to use the terms 'crypsis' and 'camouflage' interchangably. I guess we'll have to change the definition of crypsis given then, though it seems there would then be no equivalent term for the broader meaning. I find dictionaries as a whole are usually inadequate at providing reliable definitions, especially for subjects that are difficult to define without lengthy explanations. I'd really like to get the pages crypsis, camouflage and the annoying cryptic coloration (which will have to be merged into one or the other) sorted out, so that's why I brought it up. Richard001 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerodynamics

Hi Robinh. EMBaero is having a go at cleaning up some pages in the aerodynamics sections, so not would probably be a good time to lob in, if you're so inclined. Amongst other affected: Oblique shock, Moving shock, Shock wave, Shock dynamics, Rayleigh_flow, Fanno flow and Prandtl-Meyer_expansion_fan. Regards AKAF 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks?

Hi, Robinh, are you the same RobinH on Wikibooks? If so, someone needs to look into a serious COI issue, here. Astonishing that self-promotional work is a featured book!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandemonde's formula

Hi Robinh. I proposed to merge Your article Vandemonde's formula with Vandermonde's identity. The discussion is at Talk:Vandermonde's identity#Merge from Vandemonde's formula. —Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar
For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia, I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

[edit] Colin Roberts

[edit] Colin Roberts

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Colin Roberts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Colin Roberts. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minimax

Hey--I'm removing your recent edit to Minimax, because it's more confusing than helpful in the current state. I'm not sure the best way to deal with it. Possibly get more specific in the assumptions for the theorem? Cretog8 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the condition to the theorem that it's for games with finite strategies. How does that work for you? Cretog8 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robinh. You're going beyond what I know, so I can't answer at all quickly. Maybe after I study a bit. If you're interested in games on the unit square, and there's a literature on that (so it's not original research, which it looks like it isn't), then it seems like a reasonable article to create. In terms of games with no value, the reason (for instance) Silverman's game has no value (I'm taking that at face value, haven't proven it to myself yet) is that payoffs are defined on open sets and are discontinuous. It's getting into different territory than Minimax and Nash equilibrium which were primarily addressed to finite strategy games. Um, so I'm not sure where I'm going with all this. It's possible that someone at the game theory project would have some input. I'll be happy to look at any new article you create. I might be a good semi-ignorant test audience. Cretog8 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Robinh (just Robin?). I think I was getting various ideas crossed in my head; Silverman's game does not imply it has no value. The stub there definitely wants some work, though. It doesn't describe any solutions to the game. Also, it might be that it's possible to model it as being on the unit square, but it looks like the current definition is on \Re^2_+. Cretog8 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey--Minimax as it stands right now is kinda a mess, a disorganized jumble of different applications of the notion of minimax. It probably wants a major re-write. Thinking about how to do that makes my head hurt. I'm new enough to wiki-ness that I'm not sure if a separate article on the minimax theorem would be appropriate. Maybe some advice at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Game_theory]? Cretog8 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel like it's particularly important to provide counterexamples to the minimax theorem. That's mostly because I think the theorem is pretty clear about its limitations. Not sure... Possibly in a nontechnical part there could be counter-examples for those who want to get the gist of the theorem but don't want to think math. Cretog8 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)