User talk:Zahlentheorie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Zahlentheorie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 12:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Nice name - "number theory" in German? Have fun on Wikipedia! --HappyCamper 12:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Totient function

Er, on the Euler Totient page, you added a direction to go to a redlink. Is that what you meant to do? JoshuaZ 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link to a non-existent article is perfectly OK if there's no existing article on the topic. We the public judge unless you tell us more about what the link was. Michael Hardy 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Permutation Statistics

You are doing fine. The tags are there to encourage just the kind of expansion you are doing, not for mockery. You could also sign your messages with - ~~~~. Keep up the good work - Skysmith 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved Random Permutation Statistics to random permutation statistics because the former is not consistent with standard Wikipedia conventions found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Then I fixed the links to that page in the articles that link to it.

It's a very intersting article. Michael Hardy 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, I would like to add some more material to the page, but there seem to be two copies of it now that you renamed the page. I am not sure which one to edit; the two links (old and new) both still work. How do I tell Wikipedia that the old version should be re-directed to the new one and that the old one is definitely deprecated?

- Zahlentheorie 10:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand: where are the two copies? I simply clicked on "move this page", and entered the new name. As usual, the old name became a redirect page, whose edit history identifies it as a new page created by me at that time, and the old page and its discussion page and their edit histories got move to the new title. Then I fixed the links to the old title. I can't find two copies. Michael Hardy 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I read this thorugh and found the article unnecessary technical and lacking some structure. You might want to start with an introduction. What statistics are you considering? Why? Can your results be proved by other methods? Here are few more precise recommendations:

1) Give an outline of the article. Discuss the scope.
2) Move the "fundamental relation" to a separate WP page with this title. Refer to it if necessary. This part is about technique, not statistics and this should be understood by the reader.
3) In each paragraph start with the statement of the theorem. Include your proof at the end. Say what are other proofs.

Examples:

  • Derangement -- start with the formula upfront. Give the involution principle proof. Conclude with g.f. as a remark.
  • "Expected number of cycles" -- start with the formula. Give a proof using basic counting: expected numberof cycles of length m = {n \choose m} (m-1)! / n! = 1/m Only then g.f. proof can be used.
  • "Expected number of cycles of any length of a random permutation" -- from the previous result, obviously, it's the sum of 1/m for m=1..n. Only after you state and explain this you can incude you g.f. methods.
  • "Expected number of transpositions of a random permutation" -- misnamed. I have no idea what that means. Are you counting 2-cycles? Perhaps inversions? This is unclear.
  • "Expected cycle size of a random element" -- confusing. You really meant expected cycle size containing element 1, but wanted to emphasize the symmetry. Then SAY so! First state a theorem that the cycle containing 1 has uniform length. Prove it by simple counting. Conclude that the expected length in (n+1)/2. Only then you can enclose the g.f. proof.
  • "Expected number of inversions" -- this is unforgivingly complicated. A trivial bijective argument (a_1,a_2...,a_n) --> (a_n,...,a_2,a_1) gives the symmetry of the number of inversions around {n \choose 2}/2. The result follows. Same can be concluded from the explicit product formula. Are you sure you want to use g.f.?

Hope this is constructive enough not to be discouraging. But the article clearly needs work. Mhym 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exporting article parse trees

Thanks for pointing me to m:Alternative parsers. I think what I want is a Flex/Bison combination (lexer and parser). It seems that flexbisonparse would do precisely what I need. The link is not working, however, and I could not find it by a manual search on sourceforge either. Where can I get a lexer/parser for Wikipedia markup? - Zahlentheorie 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where to find flexbisonparse, but I notice it is written by User:Timwi, so I'd suggest asking him. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

Yes, I've tried, but to no avail. The e-mail just bounces. --HappyCamper 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nice job on Mellin transform

I noticed that you recently expanded Mellin transform. Nice job! linas 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question on my talk page. linas 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Formal power series and residues

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stirling numbers

Hi,

I notice that you created the article Stirling numbers and exponential generating functions, which I presume is an angry reaction to the commentary I made on the Stirling numbers pages. I think its unfortunate to have two articles both presenting the same subject, yet doing so in slightly different ways. There is a reason I made the commentary that I did: it is widely accepted in Wikipedia mathematics circles (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics) that articles should be structured so that the simplest material is at the beginning of the article, with more complex topics introduced later. The goal here is not to prove to the world how smart you are, but to explain a difficult subject so that many people can understand it. Forking a new article, and disregarding all style guidelines does not advance the WP cause. linas 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Algorithmics of sudoku page was doomed from the start

Your Algorithmics of sudoku has been tagged to be merged with Mathematics of Sudoku. And the source code you put there has been removed, I think because it constitutes "original research". I predicted something like that would happen, but sat back and watched because I personally found those contributions very interesting. But at this point I don't think there's much you can or should do. Most people would probably agree your contributions were an example of "what Wikipedia is not". I'm just advising you, in case you hadn't noticed yourself. Perhaps get used to using your "watchlist" for things like this, if you don't already.--SportWagon 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Totient function/Proofs

An article that you have been involved in editing, Totient function/Proofs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs. Thank you. Ra2007 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] root of unit example

Hi, see Talk:Example calculations with roots of unity. On Wikipedia, sources are required even for mathematical statements, both because Wikipedia is not in the business of judging the correctness of mathematical results (see WP:NOR and WP:V) and to establish that the results are notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article (see WP:N). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Example calculations with roots of unity

An article that you have been involved in editing, Example calculations with roots of unity, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example calculations with roots of unity. Thank you. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page Advanced examples of mathematical induction because you simply copied half of the page Example calculations with roots of unity which was deleted after the AfD discussion. Please do not work against the consensus, that just wastes everybody's time. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)