Archives
(Jan-May 2005) (May-June 2005) (June-Aug 2005) (Sept-Oct 2005) (Nov-Dec 2005) (Dec-Jan 2006) (Jan-Mar 2006) (Mar-May 2006) (May-July 2006) (July-Aug 2006) (Aug-Oct 2006)

On Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) you wrote:

... much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Do you know whether there is some ongoing discussion on such things? (Feel free to reply here; I'm watching this page.) — Nowhither 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is, but I know not where. I have noticed that the wikimedia software made an attempt at implementing something like this, but it was either a hack or mis-designed or incomplete. You can see this on newer wikimedia sites, for example [1]. If you look at edit histories, you'll see red exclamation marks denoting unreviewed pages. But you'll also notice that any sockpuppet can reset them, ... so it really doesn't work correctly. So it seems someone thought about it, but I don't know what the status is, or where its going, or who is doing it. You'll have to look up the wikimedia folks.

Anyway, what I really want is actually fancier than what I wrote at the village pump, but I thought I'd keep it simple. I'd happily engage in a conversation with the wikimedia developers if you can locate them. linas 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: This site runs the latest version of the wikimedia software, but the review system is turned off because it hurts performance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, it could be written as a fancy SQL query, and that would make the lights dim. Is this MySQL or Postgres? I'm guessing there are ways to make this more efficient, by using status bits of various kinds, requiring table redesigns. No matter, I didn't like the way the red exclamation marks worked anyway; they weren't really useful. linas 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiMedia sites are using MySQL. I was wrong by the way: the feature that you described is called "RC patrol", it's described on m:Help:Patrolled edit, and it seems that it was turned off because anybody could mark an edit as patrolled (as you already noticed, see also this mail and replies). I was confusing it with the m:Article validation feature, which is a more elaborate scheme that is disabled for performance reasons. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. linas 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Linas, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have trouble following your clear, polite and concise diatribes on Afshar. But I do look forward to a clear, polite and concise critique of the experiment. And you'll find I'll be far more supportive if and when that occurs. CL.

I'll take a look.linas 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linas, two things: (1) Why did you remove the sentence regarding my rebuttals and the links for it? If my critics are allowed to have their views reflected in the article, at the very least you should mention that I have responded to them and provide the link. (2) The decoherence, and the Schrodinger equation issue has not been addressed by Michael Price. He needs to explain why they are criticisms of the experiment and its interpretation, and the best way to do that is by writing a paper or two on the topic. Until then these "critiques" should be removed. Even AFTER Michael writes the paper(s), my response should be mentioned. As way of doing this, I am willing to start a new talk page on the issue of addressing Michael's views on decoherence and the Schrodinger equation, given an admin. like you monitors the discussion and makes sure it does not descend to the type of insults dished out by Michael. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now fixed. I was skimming a bit too quick. Its not clear to me if your rebuttals address the specific issues brough up by Motl, Drezet, etc. If they do, then links should be added to the specific bullets listingthat critic. linas 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Linas, it seems that Michael Price is itching for a bit of administrative discipline, as he reverted your changes again. If you are an administrator please act accordingly, otherwise, please let me know how this problem can be dealt with once and for all. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Linas's deletion because (1) there was no discussion beforehand (2) Linas's opinion that it was "casual and handwaving" is (2a) not a valid reason for deleting verifiably sourced material. If correct then the solution is to "improve not delete" and (2b) this is an old claim Linas made that was settled long ago (3) Linas has previously suggested that the entire article be rewritten from a decoherence POV, so why he should now delete a more modest version of this suggestion, amongst others, seems inconsistent. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal, you are not being helpful. Sometimes improvement comes through deletion. There has been a lot of material that has been deleted from that article, and deleting more won't hurt. I'm sorry I suggested pursuing decoherence -- it would indeed be an interestting thing to do, but in this case, it constitutes "original research", and is inappropriate for this article. linas 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the OR claim (which was also settled between us long ago) on the talk page here. Your claim that more deletion won't hurt is highly subjective and I disagree. Please do me the curtesy of debating the issue at the talk page first before deleting. If you don't have the time to debate, fair enough, but then I don't think you have the right to delete either. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal, the text I deleted contained several flavours of logical fallacies. Its not only OR, but its not even logically coherent. This is not something we should even be debating. Step back, and look at this from the distance. linas 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections. We shall have to disagree about the issue of OR. I assure I do reflect on whether this is worth pursuing and I shall continue to reflect: for the moment I have decided to continue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Linas, in your recent paper norlund-l-func.pdf you mentioned about easily constructing e.g. 1/zeta(s) series. How this can be done? And can such a series be constructed, which converges on some left-side half-plane of the complex plane?

Markku N.

Having fun with Topology? Paul August ☎ 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wanted to understand the topology of operator algebras and topo vector spaces, and all that fancy modern high-falutin stuff, but, to get there, am taking the slow boat by reviewing all things basic. Besides, you've pulled too far ahead on WP:PMEX counts. linas 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Paul August ☎ 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seemed so excited. What answer were you hoping to get? That I dream of being a topologist, categorically? linas 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linas I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linus,

Thanks for your kind words re: AIDS edits. I'm afraid my temper is really at a limiting point on this issue. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) Wikipedia is a minor stage for the HIV debate at the moment. The orthodoxy is under intense attack and its days are numbered (I'd give an upper limit of about 12 months or so before the public catches on and all hell breaks loose.) So, I'm trying to ignore Wikipedia and possibly return after the "shit has hit the fan" in the public arena, so to speak. 69.252.201.61 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You created the Category:Article proofs. A related subcategory (of Category:Proofs) called Category:Geometry Proofs is being considered for deletion or renaming. Please comment on what structure you deem is appropriate. It is the bottom entry on here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2. Cheers! Royalbroil ^T : C 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The footer of your page says that it's been last updated in 2002, is that right?

We've developed a project-management, -controlling and -collaboration software for Linux and other OSs, and would love to be included in your page. We're currently #25 on SourceForge. Our description:

]project-open[ (http://www.project-open.org/) is a:

Web-based project management system for service and consulting companies with 2-200 employees. ]po[ helps you to run your business by covering areas such as CRM, sales, project planning, project tracking, collaboration, timesheet, invoicing and payments.

Cheers, Frank

Dear Linas, Danko has once again infected the article. I have removed the related text, but would like you to keep an eye on this guy. The article is getting more and more unecyclopedic by the minute. This has to stop! Below is the exchange that promted my action.--Prof. Afshar 07:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC):[reply]

" For example Danko Georgiev works from a pure math position and a QM definition of complementarity. He arrives at a situation in which he has two incompatible equations. The "=" sign doesn't work. And so one divides the universe in two, one in which one equation obtains, and the other in which the other equation obtains." Carl Looper

I am pleased that at least one person has realized the importance of my paper, and has verified the math content of it. The next step is to find out what have proved Afshar. While I am prone to accept (after suitable quotation provided by Afshar) that Bohr's view/interpretation of complementarity is wrong, I have mathematically proved that Afshar's claim to have violated the duality relation is inconsistent, and also I have proved that Afshar has not violated the mathematical definition of complementarity that is very nicely and profoundly linked to the (reduced) density matrix of the photon (qubit in general). I have suggested to Afshar that he has gone "too far" but he did not take seriously my advice. Only the claim that Afshar has disproved Bohr's interpretation of complementarity is possibly acceptable [yet, I need to see exact quotation by Bohr where Bohr exposes his own views]. But the absurd Afshar's claim to have proved deserves more attention by all participants of this discussion, because such a huge mistake immediately must question Afshar's competence in QM. Again I want to stress on my main thesis which has never changed - even if there are no wires there is no which way information. This is clear - Afshar starts from wrong premise, and derives wrong conclusions. Unruh and others accept the wrong premise of which way information and then wrongly try to save complementarity. So please do not play with the semantic load of physical terms, mathematical definitions have been already done by physicists, I did not invent them, just have shown how a real scientist must approach the problem through rigorous mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is where I draw the line on insanity in Wikipedia. As discussed before the material presented in Danko's paper is Original Research and will be removed from the main article due to the admin. Gareth Hughes's request and Danko's own promise: "I will prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued." Your questioning the which-way information in my experiment is a bigger claim than my claim on violation of Complementarity. There is a good reason why Unruh, Drezet and Motl disagreed with you, the conservation of linear momentum ensures validity of which-way information (See my paper on the crossed-beam experiment AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299.) It has been explained to you a number of times by world class physicists before (in a not so flattering language, which if need be will be publicized), and just because an uniformed person (Carl Looper) happens to agree with your nonsense (I'm sure due to lack of knowledge about your pathological past which included claiming I had falsified facts and committed scientific fraud) you feel justified to advertise your OR in Wikipedia. I am removing the ref.s to your paper and anyone who disputes it can start an arbitration request. I will not allow an article on my work to be tainted with utter crackpottery. -- Prof. Afshar 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a notice on the admin's noticeboard for WP:LIVING. Its kind of a stretch to have this article fall under the WP:LIVING guidelines; I emphasized that the attacks are libelous in nature. Also, we should both read up on the WP article protection policy, as I am not exactly enjoying trying to mediate. See: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- Wikipedia:Protection policy -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I don't know what to suggest. You appeal to me, and there is little that I can do, other than to revert the occasional edit, and try to interject in the conversations on the talk page. The only obvious solution is to embark on an RfArb. Is that what you want to do? -- linas 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Linas. Let's hope the clowns leave on their own.-- Prof. Afshar 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod is a middleground between speedy deletion and Articles for deletion. If the prod stays uncontested for a week, then the article can be deleted (at administrator discretion, of course). Once a single person disputes the prod, like I have done with Transreal number, the article is no longer eligible for proposed deletion and must be taken through the standard articles for deletion process, which I encourage you to do if you do not feel this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You say that the article was deleted a week ago in your prodding edit summary, but I can't find any deleted edits on the page. If it was recreated under a different name this time after a valid deletion at AFD, just give me the link to the original AFD and I will take further action. --Cyde Weys 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number line. linas 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked hard for evidence that it was contested, but found none. I put it up for AfD. linas 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through Bohm interpretation and was unable to determine what it thinks is wrong. It would be helpful if a detailed note could be left on the talk page, indicating what the problem is. For now, I am removing the cleanup notice. linas 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the cleanup notice, I notified users of its existence. It is the duty of the person adding the cleanup notice to put a note on the talk page saying why. If they failed to do so, thats nothing to do with me. - PocklingtonDan 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Linas. I removed Transform from Category:Mathematical disambiguation, since it has very little to do with math, just one link. I'd think Category:Mathematical disambiguation should be used only for disambig pages where most or a good chunk of material is math. Otherwise I'd think a regular disambig would suffice. Wonder what you think. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. linas 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here, you told a user not to place his opinioon if he didn't have some prior knowledge. This action is, to be honest, out of order! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and part of the beauty of this is that an outside opinion can be brought to the discussion. Just leaving a note to ask you to bear this in mind - no registered user is prohibited from making his good faith !vote in any wikipedia debate - knowledge is never a limiting factor. Martinp23 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on matters on which one is incompetent is certanly NOT voting in good faith. Such users and such attitudes should be discouraged. Such behaviour patterns drive away highly qualified editors and lower the quality of the information on WP. The good guys get exhausted trying to clean up the little piles of dog poop left behind. linas 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the consequences, but that is not an act of bad faith. You are assuming that the ignorant and incompetent recognise their limitations, which is not usually the case. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. But how does one politely tell someone they're incompetent? The user in question was a teenager who claimed to have computed hundreds of Feynman diagrams, which is hundreds more than even most physics professors. I had to call him a liar after he failed to recognize the Dirac equation, which is like claiming to be a world-class mahjong player, and then failing to recognize a picture of a mahjong tile. I should be careful here, I've made some big blooper mistakes when I first signed onto WP, just ask Oleg about the shameful episodes. So newcomers should be given leeway and guidance. I'm just concerned about the "anyone can edit" attitude, which leads to a lot of trouble. Speaking of which, are you going to remove that orignal-researchy cirtique from the Afshar experiment page, or what? I don't much like it there. linas 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What graphing tools did you use to make your graphs, such as this?[[2]] Thank you very much.--Luckybeargod 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual image was generated using gnuplot. I updated the mediawiki page to give the commands used to graph the thing. Of course, it only graphs the data that I give it ... I use home-made programs of various sorts to generate the data. If gnuplot is too low-level for you, and you're a linux user, you might also try George Jirka's "Genius Math Tool", it might do what you want. linas 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would kindly look on my talk page, you will see that that vandalism matter has been overlooked, as there was a spur in the server while I was removing vandalsim by an IP address, and the page automatically saved it self. If you look at the history of that page you will see the exact IP that did do it. Also, could you please remove that warning that you put on my talk page, as it is horrid for my PR. Thanks ~ Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Indeed, sorry, I just blanked the remarks on your talk page. I'm somewhat concerned that there has been some change to the way WP distributes database updates, as I've seen some crazy behaviour recently. I was editing an article on 17 December, and on every third save, it would resurrect some text from and older version of the article. It was mind-bendingly strange. Yes, a stale browser cache could explain this, but I've been doing this for years, and not had this problem before. I was thinking of reporting this to the server operators, but ... unless lots of people are affected, I didn't think my complaints would go anywhere. linas 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, browser cache is to blame. Or sometimes the new version is already in the database, but the servers still serve the old version (that may happen during heavy usage when things take some time to synchronize I think). Doing a hard reload (Ctrl-Shift-R in firefox) should solve the problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I edit WP, I reset my cache when I log in. I am sure that I did it before I reverted that edit to that article. I have no idea what happened, and know for sure that I reset my cache. Its really weird. ~ Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 14:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've totally rewritten the retrocausality article, which was an embarrassing mess at the time it appeared on AFD. Although I by no means consider myself the most qualified editor to provide an encyclopedic discussion of physics topics such as Feynman's model of the positron, Wheeler-Feynman absorbed theory, and CTCs, nor of philosophy topics such as the bilking theory, I took your suggestion to heart and attempted to make the substantive rewrite myself. I would greatly appreciate your input on its current form, in which I have tried to ensure that the distinctions between philosophy, flawed or outdated science, and appropriate peer-reviewed scientific inquiry remain strong, citing Physics Review, Review of Modern Physics, etc. where appropriate. Feel free to respond either here or at my talk, as you prefer. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can you explain why you removed all the material on generating functions from the Stirling number articles? Should we move it to a fourth article Stirling numbers and generating functions? Thanks. - Zahlentheorie 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the talk pages for the respective articles. The text had a variety of problems: my biggest objection was that it used a lot of unexplained symbols. Another problem was that most of the added text appeared to be a proof; proofs are not quite approprate for wikipedia; see Category:Article proofs for examples and pointers to a general discussion. linas 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, notice how the old article always says that the fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration applies? That's where the symbols are defined. The article mentioned this theorem twice, always right at the beginning of the relevant section. As for the coefficient extraction operator, it is widely used in combinatorics, see for example [Generating functions at CTN.org].

This conversation should be held on the talk pages. The article you mention does not appear to use any blackletter symbols. The article should be accessible to those who have not studied combinatorics; I know nothing about combinatorics, but have been working with stirling numbers because they occur deeply in dynamical systems; I think other readers will have similar non-combinatorics interests. linas 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please move it to the talk page that you think is appropriate. I don't understand about the blackletter symbols. They're right in the section titles, as well an explanation of how they are derived. I don't think you can expect all readers only to have a physics background. Some readers that consult Wikipedia will have a number theory or combinatorics background. Would you remove all the number theoretic material concerning the Riemann Zeta function just because this is not how physicists motivate the study of this function? Shouldn't we serve all potential readers? Anyhow, should we put the generating function material into an external link (PDF)? -Zahlentheorie 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:Stirling numbers of the first kind, you will find the removed text has been there all along, including the reasons for its removal. I don't think it would be hard to put it back in; all that you need to do is to explain what some of the symbols are. Such as what is. Its clear that , but I cannot guess its meaning. When one uses strange notation in basic articles on basic topics, such notation should be explained. That's all. linas 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot -- the strange operators are not only documented on the page on the fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration (which I entered) but also on the page on symbolic combinatorics (which someone else entered). That page also includes a link to Analytic combinatorics - Symbolic combinatorics., written by two of the most brilliant people in the field. May I respectfully suggest you have a look at it. You might find it exciting reading. As for the Stirling number/Generating function stuff, I agree it should not go into the main article, but we do not want to miss out on the powerful combinatorics techniques formalized in the eighties. More later. Happy New Year! -20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The point, I think, is about article structure. Simpler material should come before the more complex material. And every article should review the notation it uses. It simply needs to be modified to say that is the Froobaz partition of the nth degree, as otherwise readers will think that . The Fraktur symbols should also be given names: the article should state that is the Stirfry operator and the is the transmogrification of Q, or whatever. linas 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your latest edit:

by summing over even n=2k in the first sum over k and over odd n=2k+1 in the second sum over k. Also 2^s-1 ≠ 1-2^-s. Mon4 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yowch! Right. Sorry. How odd that I made the mistake... linas 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linas - I'm still looking at your paper (HERE). That expression for the polylogarithm (lemma 2.1) I haven't seen before, and should go into the polylog article. I think it should have its bounds of applicability clearly stated, however. As it stands, it appears to me that, since you are using the summation definition of the polylog, then |z|<1 .

I believe one can make general arguments about analytic continuation to show that the expression would generally valid, provided one navigates about the branch-point at z=1 carefully. i.e. I think its valid on the principal sheet.

Also, the Gamma function expression excludes negative integer values of s.

The integrand is divergent at negative integer values of s.

However, I bet that its range of applicability is larger than that. I was trying to derive your expression from the integral expression for the polylog of but haven't got it yet.

I think it amounts to the same thing. The analytic continuation of the series is just the integral; there's a branch point at z=1 that causes grief, but nothing else besides that.

Have you thought of publishing this?

Vaguely. Not sure where. Any suggestions?

Also, I will try the mathematica algorithm in the regions you say are troublesome to see how mathematica does timewise. Do you know the mathematica algorithm? (I don't). PAR 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clue about the mathematica algo. FWIW, the borwein algo is "well known" enough that perhaps the mathematica folks just hacked it up, without bothering to publish. Or perhaps they even published, something and we're ignorant of it. Can mathematica compute Li_s(z) for s=0.5+20i, z=1.5+i0.6 ? Points near z=1 generally are giving me grief. Its hard to use the duplication formula to maneuver out of that region, into a region where things are computable.

ALSO - do you have a reference or proof for that generalization of the square relationship (the one in terms of the Gauss sum)? That definitely needs to go into the article! PAR 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference for it. I have only a simple-minded proof.

I put the generalization of the square relationship into the article, but I was only able to prove it using the sum definition of the polylog, so its really only valid for |z|<1.

Again, by general arguments about analytic continuation, I believe it is generally valid. Its not like the sum bounces you between different sheets or takes you past the branch cut. This argument is naive, but I believe fundamentally correct. Try it, for example, for the case of s=negative integer, where you have an expression for the whole z-plane. linas 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as publishing, perhaps the Journal of Scientific Computing would be a good place. PAR 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linas. What's the story with this? Herostratus 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linas: my edit for 'was' correct. To check this, note that for large (real) s, and a=1/2, the function behaves like 2^s, not unity. (Alternatively, work it out from the classical (summation) definition of the function ... I note that [User|Mon4] has corrected it back. Hair Commodore 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]