User talk:Cosmia Nebula

Hello, Cosmia Nebula, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! /wia /tlk 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However this is a value in the lambda calculus domain, it may not correspond to any value in the domain of the function, so in a practical sense it is not necessarily a fixed point of the function, and only in the lambda calculus domain is it a fixed point of the equation."

I try to keep my sentences short, for ease of reading, but your version reads better. Grammar is not my strong point ;)

Thepigdog (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Could you provide/add a source for your addition at Fagnano's problem.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I solved it when I was in Physics Olympiad competition. I can't find a source for it anywhere online. Cosmia Nebula (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't have to be an online source (though that would be nice) any good offline works too. If the physics olympiad publishes problems and solutions somewhere (and this approach is included in there), that could be cited.

Sources issues aside, there is one aspect I didn't quite understand myself and that is how angle equalities are concluded (i don't see right now on what entities Lami's theorem is applied) and how the right angles are derived from them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's basically something that only exists in our heads. We solved some other perimeter-minimizing problems this way too, such as. If you know of any journal that accepts such kind of publications I can probably write it up and submit it myself.

If you look at a point on the rubber band at point c, then there are three forces: ${\displaystyle F_{cb},F_{ca},F_{c}}$. ${\displaystyle F_{cb},}$ and ${\displaystyle F_{ca}}$ are tensions in the rubber band, thus they are equal. ${\displaystyle F_{c}}$ is the normal force exerted by the frame. Since the frame is slippery, the normal force must be perpendicular to the frame, then we have

${\displaystyle F_{cb}cos\angle bcA=F_{ca}cos\angle acB}$

${\displaystyle F_{cb}=F_{ca}}$

${\displaystyle \angle bcA=\angle bcA}$

and similarly for other two triangles. I used Lami's theorem because it's easier to quote it than to explain how three forces are in equilibrium. Cosmia Nebula (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, this question can also be solved using Fermat's Principle. Imagine the triangle is made of mirrors, and a light bounces through the three mirrors. At any point of reflection, if the angles of reflection are not equal, then the reflection point can be moved to equalize the angles and thus reduce the perimeter. Thus the minimal triangle must have three pairs of angles of reflection equal.Cosmia Nebula (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I get it now. Maybe the wording in article can a bit tweaked and extended. The problem for me for example was that I did not understand the intended order of conclusions/implications. For instance I didn't realize that the right angle of the force to the triangle side was already is given for physics reasons rather than derived geometrically. Originally I thought you argument about the angles was intended to establish that right angle (rather than just the orthic triangle through its properties).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banach Game, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the following dispute interesting: Talk:Pythagorean_theorem#explicit_sources_needed?. Feel free to comment there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shogi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Computational complexity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kakuro page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit summary you direct readers to a talk page with no discussion of a merge. Was there in fact discussion somewhere? --JBL (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion whatsoever because no one was interested. I added that edit summary because that's what Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge told me to do. User:Cosmia Nebula (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you performed (on 8 Oct 2016) a merge as result of which Coreflexive relation became a redirect to Binary relation#Relations over a set. I think meanwhile it is better to redirect to reflexive relation, as this article is more particular, and adding details about coreflexivity is more appropriate there. - Since I'm not familiar with the merging procedure, I don't dare to change just the contents of Coreflexive relation; it seems that this might cause the edit history to get lost if not done carefully. Can you give me some advice on how to proceed best? Many thanks in advance! Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jochen Burghardt,

There is no reason not to change the redirect target, and I agree with you about what the better place for it to point is, so I will go ahead and change it.

All the best, JBL (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, never mind, Cosmia Nebula got there just before me! --JBL (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmia Nebula and Joel B. Lewis: Thanks for your advice and your help! - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scalar–tensor theory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scalar and Stress tensor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George G. Lorentz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cartan–Ambrose–Hicks theorem, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Stevey7788 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Distance geometry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamant.pwn -- Adamant.pwn (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Distance geometry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Distance geometry for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamant.pwn -- Adamant.pwn (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final call to return to your nomination and work on the article if the review is to continue. Otherwise, it will probably close in a matter of days. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Distance geometry you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Distance geometry for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamant.pwn -- Adamant.pwn (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what happened with the review of Anania Shirakatsi. I think it should be a GA and you seem like the right man for the job. Thanks. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi Cosmia Nebula! You created a thread called Maps and geneologies by Ian Mladjov at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Total Fertility Rate, 1950 - 2100, World Population Prospects 2015, United Nations.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as free equivalent could be plausibly created.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. funplussmart (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

e11438f737fa5c8bd58e3785330dc399

Hi Cosmia Nebula, Udwadia–Kalaba equation has been nominated for deletion. Since you went to the trouble of improving it (by removing advertisement-like paragraphs), you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udwadia–Kalaba equation. --RainerBlome (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://docplayer.net/37834474-Robust-real-time-face-detection.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Generative adversarial network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empirical distribution. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gérard Debreu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourbaki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Hello Cosmia Nebula, I am a scientist using Bregman divergences in my publications and wanted to appreciate a specific figure of yours (see at the end). I have some further results that are based on this figure and want to cite the original source for this kind of depiction of a Bregman divergence. If you are the sole creator of this idea (not just the specific figure), I will be very grateful for a way to cite you. Thanks a lot for your help! Greetings, Sebastian Gruber The respective figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bregman_divergence#/media/File:Bregman_divergence_diagram_used_in_proof_of_squared_generalized_Euclidean_distances.png Sebastian Gruber 96 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's my original design. I was inspired by pictorial proofs of integration by parts.

You may credit me as Cosmia Nebula from Wikipedia. pony in a strange land (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for adding the new proof to Myhill–Nerode theorem. I tried to match it with the textbook Hopcroft+Ullman 1979 (Thm.3.9, p.65), but I failed (even the theorem is stated slightly different). So I'd like to ask you to provide a source for your version of the proof. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement and proof are a combination of Theorem 3.9 and 3.10. The proof is simplified to use less of the formal notations of DFA, but the idea is exactly the same as those presented in Hopcraft and Ullman 1979. pony in a strange land (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After careful reading I noted that I missed the statement of Theorem 3.9(2). Well it is simple enough to incorporate into the proof. I think it's a bit obscure but if you think it's important enough I can add it and the proof to Wikipedia. pony in a strange land (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Explorer 1 into Tennis racket theorem. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Neural scaling law, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jane Ising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caputh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reparametrization trick, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sicco Polenton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Codex Ottobonianus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artificial intelligence in mathematics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial intelligence in mathematics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

D.Lazard (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Reparametrization trick".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cosmia Nebula, do you have a source I can cite for the proof on the page of the Carathéodory theorem you added. I would be very grateful :) Tealoni (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? (there are several: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carath%C3%A9odory%27s_theorem ) pony in a strange land (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I already replied, I was looking for the a source of the proof for the convex hull Carathéodory theorem (Carathéodory's theorem (convex hull)). Tealoni (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard, I. Ed; Lewis, J. E. (2016). "3.3 Convex Hulls". Geometry of convex sets. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-119-02266-4.

added to the page too. pony in a strange land (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !! Tealoni (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted your editing, but I do think what you have inserted is WP:OR. You said it is literally just rephrasing the relevant parts of the paper itself, but that's the point - you as a wikipedia editor are summarising his work, rather than including what secondary sources say about it. I would urge you to find a source for what you are wanting to include. Melcous (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the paper itself. To find a secondary source would be simply looking for a secondary source that rephrases the paper, and then I rephrase the rephrasing -- I can't copy paste it, of course, since *that* would be copyright violation. The paper is already quite clear. I would be pretty alright with just the key parts of the paper without rephrasing -- but *that* would be copyright violation (I have done it before and got that deleted).

Calling this as WP:OR is silly. pony in a strange land (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask if the section #Stolz sector you added to the article Abel's theorem is original research or not. Jayy V (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just expand ${\displaystyle |1-x-iy|\leq M(1-|x+iy|)}$ and solve for ${\displaystyle y^{2}}$. It is just quadratic equation, middle school algebra. pony in a strange land (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course - it's whether it is important enough to be in the article that I'm thinking about; it seems to me that a polar equation would be much more useful than a cartesian one (because we care about the Stolz angle), which is presumably also why I don't see the cartesian equation anywhere in the literature. Jayy V (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cartesian equations are quite useful for plotting on a computer.

You are free to convert it to polar coordinates and add those to the article. pony in a strange land (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. Thank you for your work on T5 (language model). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. Thank you for your work on Young function. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cosmia Nebula. Thanks for adding the extra details to the Stirling's_approximation#Higher orders section in response to my earlier query. It's a neat way to do it. I think the source of my confusion was actually the in an earlier formula. I think we should have

${\displaystyle x^{-x}e^{x}\Gamma (x)=x^{-x}e^{x}\int _{0}^{\infty }s^{x}e^{-s}ds=x\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{x\left(t+1-e^{t}\right)}e^{t}dt}$

The point is I think there is an extra ${\displaystyle xe^{t}}$ coming from the change of variables ${\displaystyle s=xe^{t}}$. For the subsequent change of variables, ${\displaystyle t+1-e^{t}=-{\frac {1}{2}}\tau ^{2}}$, I obtain the same power series that you write using the Lagrange_inversion_theorem but the change of measure term is ${\displaystyle e^{t}{\frac {dt}{d\tau }}d\tau }$ rather than just ${\displaystyle {\frac {dt}{d\tau }}d\tau }$. In this case, it seems that ${\displaystyle e^{t}{\frac {dt}{d\tau }}={\frac {dt}{d\tau }}+\tau }$ (from the relationship between t and ${\displaystyle \tau }$) so that the resulting power series differ only in the first order term - which then integrates to zero by symmetry!

I didn't notice this at first and thought incorrectly that my calculation differed from yours at higher orders (it doesn't). If you agree that I haven't made a mistake with these calculations, it might still be worth us updating the presentation since this method looks like it could be used more generally. However the symmetry that renders the ${\displaystyle e^{t}}$ factor irrelevant is probably not general.

Also, if you have a reference for this calculation, I think it would be worth adding - I really struggled to find such a concise explanation for this either in the literature or elsewhere online.

ColmConnaughton (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle \int _{\mathbb {R} }e^{x(1+t-e^{t})}dt{\overset {t\mapsto \ln t}{=}}e^{x}\int _{0}^{\infty }t^{x-1}e^{-xt}dt{\overset {t\mapsto t/x}{=}}x^{-x}e^{x}\int _{0}^{\infty }e^{-t}t^{x-1}dt=x^{-x}e^{x}\Gamma (x)}$

I have no reference for this calculation. pony in a strange land (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff near the end of the "Higher Orders" section of the "Stirling's approximation" article that seems not to belong. It starts "series = tau." Rickhev1 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your recent addition to Diffraction, I don't think it will be very clear to general readers as the book is behind a paywall. Did he, in some earlier year (please include what) describe it enough that he should have first credit? Similar to standard, a cursory mention is not enough. Therefore please either expand that sentence so it is clearer or remove it. Thanks. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

idk, I just found the reference in Born and Wolf's Optics, 60th anniversary edition, section 8.1. I can't find any good reference on it either.

I guess removing it is fine. pony in a strange land (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reparameterization trick, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had to smile a bit reading this. A while ago I removed a big chunk of text from the Aesthetics article describing in extreme detail his theory of computational aesthetics and thought that surely he wrote it himself. Apoptheosis (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he already has a few LLM trained that generates writing in his style.

(I have one, CosmAI, that writes in my style. Actually, this is written by it.) pony in a strange land (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmia Nebula. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Reparameterization trick".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to LMSYS. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to AI+rationality articles :)

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Transformer (deep learning architecture) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Transformer (deep learning architecture) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please let me know why you removed the information from with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformer_(deep_learning_architecture)&diff=prev&oldid=1239899346 You could have better moved it to another paragraph if you felt it was not appropriate in the beginning of the article. Now the reference to fast weights is missing. Biggerj1 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually already a mention of the fast weights programmer in the Transformer history. It says

However, LSTM still used sequential processing, like most other RNNs. Specifically, RNNs operate one token at a time from first to last; they cannot operate in parallel over all tokens in a sequence. An early attempt to overcome this was the fast weight controller (1992). It used the fast weights architecture (1987), where one neural network outputs the weights of another neural network. It was later shown to be equivalent to the linear Transformer without normalization.

I have read through all these cited papers, and I think this is the fair characterization.

Schmidhuber is on a campaign to push his claims of priority to the wider world. In general, Schmidhuber's claims of priority are unreliable, especially in terms of "We had this general idea and made some simple tests of it, then several years later someone implemented a working example which is a special case". A few days ago I actually went through Wikipedia and carefully removed much of his advertisement scattered all across Wikipedia, which I presume he or his fans has edited in, years ago.

See his terrible paper Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning in which he claimed:

[MOST] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2021). The most cited neural networks all build on work done in my labs. Foundations of the most popular NNs originated in Schmidhuber's labs at TU Munich and IDSIA. (1) Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), (2) ResNet (which is the earlier Highway Net with open gates), (3) AlexNet and VGG Net (both building on the similar earlier DanNet: the first deep convolutional NN to win image recognition competitions), (4) Generative Adversarial Networks (an instance of the much earlier Adversarial Artificial Curiosity), and (5) variants of Transformers (Transformers with linearized self-attention are formally equivalent to the much earlier Fast Weight Programmers). Most of this started with the Annus Mirabilis of 1990-1991.[MIR]

To say A "builds on" B means that A actually took inspiration from B. The ResNet was concurrent with Highway Net, and as far as I can see, the idea of residual networks appeared all the time, dating back at least to Rosenblatt's 1961 book (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_neural_network#Previous_work ). The GAN was "an instance of the much earlier AAC" only in the sense that "the AAC is an instance of the much earlier [vNJ1928] Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele which founded the theory of zero-sum games".

And to say "variants of Transformers build on his work" requires a level of tunnel vision that only Schmidhuber can have. I have tried to write a fairer characterization of the history of Transformers and attention mechanism, which you can see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_(machine_learning)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_(deep_learning_architecture)#History pony in a strange land (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of Schmidhuber propaganda:

• Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recurrent_neural_network&oldid=1220695644#History
• After: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_neural_network#History
• Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_learning&direction=prev&oldid=1239060400#History
• After: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning#History

A good sign of Schmidhuber propaganda is citing his Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning. For example, the Deep learning page used to cite it 14 times! pony in a strange land (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. I appreaciate the work you put into the article. I personally think that Schmidhuber has a valid point in pointing out that fast-weights are (more or less) at the heart of Transformers. If this makes it worth to claim he invented a transformer? I agree, I would doubt it. It only started working for real in 2017. But the heart of the transformer he presented with the fast weights (think about the dynamically computed matrix inside the softmax)... If you want I woul really appreciate if you could write an article about Dynamic neural networks :) Biggerj1 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits of the wave equation article. As it appears you put a lot of effort in the new subsection you've introduced, I thought it would be more considerate to address the issues I have on your talk page.

First, the lack of references. The pdf as well as chapter 2 of Taylor (2023) do not seem to cover any of the material you introduced. This is especially important when you just state solutions as in Wave equation#Duhamel's principle.

Second, please introduce the symbols you use such as the Dirac delta or ${\displaystyle D}$ for dimension. It would already help a lot if the symbols you use are in line with the rest of the article, i.e, using ${\displaystyle u}$ instead of ${\displaystyle \phi .}$

Third, it would really improve the readability if you start a new section by explaining it's relevance to the main article. Is it a way of solving the wave equation? How is it different from the General solution? What is the purpose of lowering/raising dimensions? Etc.

Fourth, and this is more a personal question, are we talking about the homogeneous or inhomogeneous wave function? As the latter is being introduced later in the article.

Kind regards. Roffaduft (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think I got all the citations done. Except the lead section for which I can't find a verbatim citation, but it is routine for Green's function, and essentially justified by the following section on Duhamel's principle which do have citations.

2. Done.

3. I'll try improving it.

4. Technically it is the inhomogeneous wave equation. However, the method of Green's function is typically used for the initial value problem of the homogeneous wave equation. Most of the section stands on its own. pony in a strange land (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits, it has significantly improved the article. However, the following sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

For velocity impulse, ${\displaystyle s(t,x)=\partial _{t}\delta ^{D+1}(t,x)}$, so if we solve the Green function ${\displaystyle G}$, the solution for this case is just ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$.

First, because of the notation of the Dirac delta. Second, ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$ in the sections below it do not necessarily involve ${\displaystyle s(x,t)}$ (as ${\displaystyle s(x,t)}$ is only relevant in the inhomogeneous case). In fact, I can barely find any description of ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$ in the provided references. Roffaduft (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence sounds clear enough to me.

${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$ appears in https://users.flatironinstitute.org/~ahb/notes/waveequation.pdf as ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}W_{t}}$. pony in a strange land (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just addressing the "Solution by Fourier transform" subsection, that's not the issue. The issue is linking the inhomogeneous component ${\displaystyle s(x,t)}$ to ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$. That is not discussed in the references you provided. In addition, the terminology you're using; acceleration impulse and velocity impluse, is anything but common. The fac that it sounds clear enough to you is not sufficient unfortunately.

For now, the claim is just "out there" and should be backed by a reference IMHO. Roffaduft (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the inhomogeneous component is part of the Duhamel's principle, and discussed there https://users.flatironinstitute.org/~ahb/notes/waveequation.pdf . I don't see why you insist that it is not. Does this https://people.umass.edu/bvs/605_wveq.pdf seem more relevant?

The terminology acceleration impulse and velocity impulse are just what seems useful here. I don't know if they have a good terminology anywhere, but it is how you solve second-order impulse response. pony in a strange land (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the validity of the claim. All I'm asking is that you back it up by a reference. There is no reference in the introduction of the subsection. Nor is there any mention of ${\displaystyle s(t,x)=\partial _{t}\delta ^{D+1}(t,x)}$ in the references you provided so far.

If you disagree, then please give me the exact page number and I'll gladly take back everything I said so far. Roffaduft (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In http://julian.tau.ac.il/bqs/em/green.pdf it clearly states in equation (2) that ${\displaystyle (\partial _{t}^{2}-\nabla ^{2})G=\delta ^{D+1}}$.

In https://people.umass.edu/bvs/605_wveq.pdf it shows ${\displaystyle u=G^{(0)}\ast u(0,\cdot )+G^{(1)}\ast u_{t}(0,\cdot )}$. Then it says

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&G^{(0)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=\delta (\mathbf {r} ),\quad G_{t}^{(0)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=0\\&G^{(1)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=0,\quad G_{t}^{(1)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=\delta (\mathbf {r} )\end{aligned}}}$

which if you plug in the wave equation gives ${\displaystyle (\partial _{t}^{2}-\nabla ^{2})G^{(0)}=\partial _{t}\delta ^{D+1}(t,\mathbf {r} )}$ and ${\displaystyle (\partial _{t}^{2}-\nabla ^{2})G^{(1)}=\delta ^{D+1}(t,\mathbf {r} )}$. -- WP:CALC pony in a strange land (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equation (2) is not the issue here. Let me try and explain it another way:

1. Assume the homogeneous case, i.e., ${\displaystyle s(t,x)=0}$

2. Then ${\displaystyle u=(\partial _{t}G)\ast u+G\ast \partial _{t}u}$ obviously still holds

3. Consider the above initial conditions:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&G^{(0)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=\delta (\mathbf {r} ),\quad G_{t}^{(0)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=0\\&G^{(1)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=0,\quad G_{t}^{(1)}(\mathbf {r} ,0)=\delta (\mathbf {r} )\end{aligned}}}$

4. Substitute and look back at the original sentence regarding velocity impulse

In other words, the initial conditions, homogeneous and inhomogeneous case are getting mixed up in a rather convoluted way. Which only emphasizes my point: Please could you add a proper reference in the intro of the subsection. What you are basically telling readers now is: "Well if you scroll down a couple of subsections and shove the provided pdfs together [one without an author or any references i might add] you can vaguely deduce the claim in the introduction". What you've written down may be completely correct, but can we at least agree that that's not the way to do it.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is the way to do it. I just don't understand your problem. It is extremely clear. I have already added the pdf reference to the intro as well. Also, the pdf is not without an author. It is the lecture notes of Boris Svistunov for https://people.umass.edu/bvs/605.html

As for the "mixing homogeneous and inhomogeneous", it is completely routine procedure in the use of Green's function. It is not convoluted (unless it is a pun on "convolution"). It is routine. The idea of Green's function is to solve an inhomogeneous equation where the inhomogeneity is the Dirac delta function. Then the Green's function is convolved to the initial values to solve an IVP in the homogeneous case. pony in a strange land (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

Go through points 1 to 4 and explain what it is you disagree with. The reference by Boris applies to the homogeneous case. The fact that the method may easily extend to the inhomogeneous case does not automatically make it an appropriate reference. If you start talking about the solution in the case of a velocity impulse then you should provide a reference that backs your claim.

I just don't understand your problem

[1] "First, the lack of references."

[2] "the claim is just "out there" and should be backed by a reference IMHO."

[3] "All I'm asking is that you back it up by a reference."

[4] "Please could you add a proper reference in the intro of the subsection"

It is the way to do it.

If that is the case, then it should be no problem providing an appropriate reference, preferably a textbook.

The idea of Green's function is to solve an inhomogeneous equation where the inhomogeneity is the Dirac delta function.

[1] "The following sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

For velocity impulse, ${\displaystyle s(t,x)=\partial _{t}\delta ^{D+1}(t,x)}$, so if we solve the Green function ${\displaystyle G}$, the solution for this case is just ${\displaystyle \partial _{t}G}$,"

[2] "Nor is there any mention of ${\displaystyle s(t,x)=\partial _{t}\delta ^{D+1}(t,x)}$ in the references you provided"

[3] "Equation (2) [${\displaystyle (\partial _{t}^{2}-\nabla ^{2})G=\delta ^{D+1}}$] is not the issue here."

So for the fourth time, I'm not talking about the general inhomogeneous case, I'm talking about the velocity impulse case. If you state something like "the solution for this case is just.." then back it up with a reference proving exactly that and everything is ok.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. I have made my case. Do not reply. pony in a strange land (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I disagree. It is the way to do it. I just don't understand your problem. It is extremely clear. is not making a case. I'll move this discussion to Talk:Wave equation Roffaduft (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to recommend the following website:

https://citer.toolforge.org/

It really makes adding references and citations a lot easier in future.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful. Thanks. pony in a strange land (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I like to know if the citation of Pratt-Harmann, predominatly used in Entscheidungsproblem#Fragments have a free license to be used. Thanks for any anwser. Ravi Heidegger (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book is © Ian Pratt-Hartmann 2023

https://academic.oup.com/book/46400/chapter/405994086 pony in a strange land (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but have license? Because the Oxford University looks to reivindicate copyright. Ravi Heidegger (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"apparents" instead of "look" Ravi Heidegger (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lernmatrix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardware.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]