lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Elasticity of a function

message: What is going on here? This is essentially the economics use. Elasticity in mathematics generally means the mathematical theory of elasticity.Billlion 05:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

message: I have two problems with unsourced math assertions in the Rules section. First, it says 
:The chain rule is similar to the derivative
::E (f \circ g)(x) = [ E(f(x)) \circ g(x) ] \cdot E(g(x))
I don't get the bracketed expression on the right side. In a composite function expression the argument of the first function is the output of the second function. But here the argument of the first function, f, is given as x, which is not the output of the second function, g(x). I'll put a clarification needed tag on this and delete it in a couple days if it doesn't get corrected.
Second, the same section says
:For Homogeneous functions
::E (f(ax )) = E(f(x)) \ 
This seems just wrong. If f is homogeneous then  f(\alpha x) = \alpha^k f(x).  Then by the rule that the elasticity of the product equals the sum of the elasticities, we have E (f(ax )) = k + E(f(x)) \  where k is the degree of homogeneity, which can't be zero except for trivial functions. So I'm removing this assertion.  Duoduoduo (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious math

message: The definition of semielasticity, with its mentions of percentages and "not percentage-wise", is difficult to understand. There are no percentages involved because there is no factor of 100. Is the definition not just the instantaneous change in f(x) relative to f(x)? — Paul G (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage
Talk:Elizur Wright

message: This entry relies in part on Appleton's Cylopedia, which has been shown to include a number of fictional biographies, calling into question the credibility of its other entries. While most of the fact here seem fine, this entry should be revised using the two excellent biographies of Wright, one by his descendants and an academic one:   Lawrence B. Goodheart, Abolitionist, Actuary, Athiest: Elizur Wright and the Reform Impulse (Kent State University Press, 1990).  At some point, I'll chip in and do some of it.... Troutfang (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs credible sources 

message: I've corrected the description of Wright in the lead paragraph.  Although Wright used actuarial tables in his pioneering insurance work, he was not a pioneer in the theory or construction of the tables themselves.  I also clarified that the "father" appellation is used only in the United States.  I doubt very much that British or German actuaries consider Wright to be the "father" of their insurance industries (but if I'm wrong about this, please let me know).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description in lead paragraph
Talk:Time Commando

message: If found out that the two entries I added in a Trivia section were removed. It seems that 'trivia' sections are not welcome anymore on wikipedia, but I really wish the information to be back in some way in the page:
I have somewhere on some backup cd roms the complete background design of the game, including the individual stories of characters, some original concept art, etc...
Mike 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of that information could be great for the article --Lashiec 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not only Wikipedia:Handling trivia, but you directly asked to break the Wikipedia:No original research rule. -79.177.73.105 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: This Hidden rooms and bonuses I have been able to find, if someone knows where are the other rooms and hidden bonuses please edit here in the article. Thanks. Krlzh 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not only Wikipedia:Handling trivia, but you directly asked to break the Wikipedia:No original research rule. -79.177.73.105 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hidden Rooms and Bonuses 

message: *https://web.archive.org/web/19970419221115/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/121995d.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Erdős conjecture on arithmetic progressions

message: Can the edit protection be removed from this article? It impedes community members ability to make the article better. I wanted to make clearer some details concerning the recent progress that was made, but I cannot edit the article. Enaslund (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: To make such a request, please consult this page for requesting page protection reduction. Pinchme123 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Examining the edit history, it appears that this article has been the target of persistent crank-research results, spanning a decade, from 2013 to Jan 2023, coming from many different sock-puppet accounts, all trying to add variants of the same info. Examining some of the sock puppets, it appears to be an individual with at least a decades worth of intellectual investments in a broad range of recreational number theory topics (all cranky-ish). Interesting psychological profile. Made me wonder about how I spend my time. ☺  67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023
Talk:Erdős–Woods number

message: Since each erdös woods number represents a span between two numbers, one has to ask if the endpoints between which the spans reach are known for any of the erdös woods numbers, and if they are, would the article not benefit from them. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we know any of the sequences end points?
Talk:Marvel Girl

message: "Jean Grey, a.k.a. Phoenix, best known as a founding member of the X-Men" is calling Jean herself the Phoenix. Phoenix is an entity that possesses Jean with a mind of her/his own. Jean isn't Phoenix. Jean is Marvel Girl.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.222.197 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information
Talk:Khuresh

message: THe picture is from Nadaam and is not Kuresh .  Its Hahl Boke.
Tuvans are not ethnically Mongolian, they are ethnically Turkic. Just look at Tuva article in wikipedia. I am correcting this error.Isatay 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Ernesto Cesàro

message: This article seems to have been translated from Italian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.77 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: Cesaro also contributed to number theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.77 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also
Talk:Pianist, Arranger, Composer, Conductor

message: What is TBA? Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 2007 Solo Album
Talk:Agusta A.101

message: CSD tag added between the time I uploaded the template and the article itself. --Rlandmann 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed the tag from the article as it has two sources both reliable. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion

message: Jane's All The World's Aircraft 71-72 p 120 says two more prototypes were built. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number built
Talk:Expected value of perfect information

message: The first paragraph mentions 'payer', the others 'player'. It should be unified. If it is about gain and max (not cost and min), I prefer 'player'. 78.139.0.254 (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

message: The first formula is misleading. EMV does not have a max() function as shown in the formula. It's only when one seeks to find the best payoff that they introduce that function. This should be made accurate (say, by specifying with a subscript on the term "EMV" that the EMV in the formula is the best, or by removing the max function and only satisfying ourselves with specifying in the text when a maximum function is used). 77.246.53.48 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in the Text
Talk:Fσ set

message: Well, I'll say it if no-one else will ... should this article be merged with G-delta set?  Richard Pinch (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm--not implausible, but my immediate reaction is probably not. Theoretically they could both be merged into Borel hierarchy, but I think it's probably useful to have separate articles at this very low level of the hierarchy, as there are significant properties that can be mentioned that are not the same (for example, a G-delta subset of a Polish space is itself Polish; I don't know of any dual result for F-sigmas). --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I would agree with the merge, but Trovatore's point is well made. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into G-delta?

message: The terminology definitively goes back to Felix Hausdorff, 1914:
Felix Hausdorff, Grundz\"uge der Mengenlehre, 1914 (Reprinted Chelsea New York
1949; Preface: Greifswald, March 15, 1914.) viii+476.
P. 23: \S 10 $\sigma$-Systeme und $\delta$-Systeme.
Here the author defines a $\sigma$ System to be a set of subsets of a set
which is closed under the formation of countable unions, and the
concept of a $\delta$-System is defined dually.
P. 215: Here the author defines a subset of what later is called
a ``topological space  (defined here in terms of (open) 
neighborhoods) to be a {\it Gebiet} if it is open. Note the {\bf G}.
P. 305: Verbal citation: 
Wir bezeichnen abgeschlossene Mengen, wie schon \"ofter mit  $F$ 
(ensemble ferm\'e) (sic), Gebiete mit $G$.
Die $F_\delta$ sind wieder abgeschlossen, da ja sogar der Durchschnitt
beliebig vieler abgeschlossener Mengen wieder abgeschlossen ist; dagegen sind
die $F_\sigma$, zu denen u.~a.\ die abz\"ahlbaren Mengen geh\"oren, im
allgemeinen nicht abgeschlossen. Ebenso sind die $G_\sigma$ wieder
Gebiete, die $G_\delta$ nicht. Die $F_\sigma$ und $G_\delta$ 
sind n\"achst den $F$ und $G$ selber die einfachsten Punktmengen,
danach folgen die $F_{\alpha\delta}$ und $G_{\delta\sigma}$ usw. Wir
wollen alle diese Mengen als {\it Borelsche Mengen} bezeichnen. $\dots$
End verbal citation.
Translation:
  We denote closed sets, as we did frequently, by $F$
(ensemble ferm\'e), open sets by $G$. The $F_\delta$ are closed
since the intersection of even arbitrarily many closed sets is
closed again; by contrast, the $F_\sigma$, to which the countable
sets belong, are not closed in general. Likewise, the $G_sigma$
are open again while the $G_\delta$ are not. The $F_sigma$ and
$G_\delta$ are, right after the $F$ and $G$,  the simplest
point sets, followed by the $F_{\alpha\delta}$ and $G_{\delta\sigma}$
etc. We are going to call all of these sets {\it Borel sets}. $\dots$
End translation.
130.83.2.27 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The terminology
Talk:Fiducial inference

message: I have written a short introduction to fiducial inference to start the ball rolling. It is not yet highly polished, but it's a start. I would sign my name, but after dozens of attempts to create a username that was accepted by the system, I gave up ("only takes a few seconds"--yeah right!)218.101.112.213 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

message: The phrase "not a probability distribution in the usual sense" appears on page 156 of Stuart, Ord, and Arnold, which tries to update Kendall and Stuart. (I removed the "neither truthful nor 'good faith' in the usual sense" phrase.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations should have quotation marks 

message: In the categories "obsolete statistical theories" or "obsolete statitistical procedures", the adjective "obsolete" was chosen for compatibility with the super-category "obsolete scientific theories". Would Melcombe and other editors suggest an appropriate term to replace "obsolete" --- e.g., would "widely deprecated" be acceptable? 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Obsolete" scientific theories

message: I added the quote from Davison, in Cox's collection from Biometrika. Even the most renowned statisticians associated with the neo-Fisherian revival of the 1970s clasify efforts at resurrecting "fiducial inference" as a form of necromancy, if I may state my POV here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Resurrection]]

message: Melcombe's stating that a remake of Kendall's dictionary mumbles something about fiducial inference (under statistical inference) was original research. My stating that a better dictionary (also based on Kendall's) doesn't mention fiducial inference under statistical inference is also original research. Both statements should be deleted. 
It is inappropriate that Kendall is being used as the main source for this article, since Kendall's reliability has waned, while the reliability of Cox and his students (Hinkley and Davison) have waxed, and they don't repeat Kendall's weird tics about the confusion between confidence intervals and "fiducial intervals". (Kendall's statements of the 1940s would have been appropriate sources for a 1940s Wikipedia.) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tags 

message: The formula
:P\left(X >  \frac{\omega }{a}\right) = 1-a^n = \alpha.
is unattributed and clearly does not make sense.  Based on the previous formula is should be
:P\left(X >  \omega {a}\right) = 1-a^n = \alpha.
EcuPadic (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious error 

message: without a lot of fancy lingo, can someone write a paragraph taht explains the subject
the article as writtenfails totally
sorry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4280:F0D0:419F:4CBE:7BA7:4986 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: totally incomprehensible to non expert
Talk:Finite type invariant

message: tee chuta yud
Some comments:
(1) The first one to write down the Vassiliev invariants of order 2 and 3 
in terms of chord diagrams was Lannes: 
Lannes, Jean
Sur les invariants de Vassiliev de degré inférieur ou égal à $3$.
Enseign. Math. (2)  39  (1993),  no. 3-4, 295--316. 
(2) Who is Turaeva? Could it be that it is in fact Svetlana Tyurina?
E.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9905162   ?
(3) Is there a reference for the fact that the work of Polyak and Viro is wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.2.132 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other than the first part, this article is very poorly written!
Talk:Five-point stencil

message: I don't know if this is of interest, but the five-point stencil can indeed be obtained using Richardson extrapolation. The idea is to linearly combine two levels of approximation so as to cancel the leading error terms.
The example here is to take the three point stencil on interlacing grids. 
f_h'(x)=\frac{1}{2h}\left[f(x+h) - f(x-h)\right]+O(h^2)
f_{2h}'(x)=\frac{1}{4h}\left[f(x+2h) - f(x-2h)\right]+O(4h^2)
Using these two approximations, we cancel error terms with Richardson extrapolation
f'_{RE}(x) = \frac{4}{3}f_h'(x) - \frac{1}{3}f'_{2h}(x) =
\frac{1}{12h}\left[-f(x+2 h)+8 f(x+h)-8 f(x-h)+f(x-2h)\right]   
Anyone want to include this in a tidier form?
Gregvw 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I added a sentence to the article. Feel free to improve on it if it isn't what you had in mind. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richardson extrapolation 

message: Not to clutter the page too much, but there is yet another way to get the weights, which is to differentiate the Langrange interpolating polynomials. Does anyone want me to write an explanation of this? I could make a "Alternate methods of computing the weights" section. I could also make a table of the non-centered weights if this seems useful. 
Gregvw 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that adding in the Lagrange interpolating polynomials could make the discussion rather technical and lengthy. Perhaps just a sentence could be added saying that  the weights could be obtained that way, without going into details. At leas that's what I'd think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, this is probably overkill and might want some clean-up, but I haven't seen this elsewhere in Wikipedia. Maybe I should just start an article on pseudospectral methods? Gregvw 08:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, this was shorter than what I thought would be. And yeah, an article on pseudospectral methods would be nice. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weights

message: Is that all a stencil is? A notational convenience? Sancho 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. At least that's how I use the word stencil. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this just a way to describe the arrangment of the finite difference approximation and coefficients?
Talk:Fixed effects model

message: Fixed effects model should be merged into this article, and the seemingly opposite descriptions on that page should either be harmonized or deleted if they simply represent an error. Torfason 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES.  Jeremy Tobacman 10:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going ahead.  Jeremy Tobacman 10:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

message: When learning about various regression techniques, I've had the most luck understanding things when an example table has been given. If there is a way to run a fixed effects regression, and present the results in a form similar to the output of a popular statistics tool, I think this would be incredibly helpful in understanding what fixed effects regressions are measuring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.12.33 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some example tables?

message: Is there a difference between X_{it} and x_{it} in the section Formal description? 129.247.247.240 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then general convention in statistical notation is that a capitals such as X_{it} refer to random variables, whereas lower case such as x_{it} refers to observed values.  Tayste (edits) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal description --- difference between <math>X_{it}</math> and <math>x_{it}</math>? 

message: Dr. Farsi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Farsi has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Philippe K. Widmer & Peter Zweifel & Mehdi Farsi, 2011. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the measurement of hospital performance," ECON - Working Papers 052, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Farsi's comment on this article 

message: As another method of estimating fixed effects models, it should be mentioned here. Furthermore, I think it should be merged here. Wikiacc (¶) 19:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge request removed. The article is somewhat long, and it really doesn't need to be condensed. Wikiacc (¶) 02:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chamberlain's approach to unobserved effects models]]
Talk:Fluent calculus

message: This sentence really doesn't seem to make much sense:
"This formula states that the state after the move is added the term on(box,floor) and removed the term on(box,table). Axioms specifying that \circ is commutative and non-idempotent are necessary for such axioms to work."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.42.204 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Fourier–Motzkin elimination

message: why on earth are variable denoted with \xi ? What's wrong with regular old "x"? The overuse of Greek symbols does nothing but put people off
Ghaa!! Shun all who want to cheapen mathematics by making it easier to learn!! LoL
"Double-exponential computational complexity" isn't too clear. How about an explanation in Big-Oh notation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.246.210 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Define the history H_i of an inequality i as the set of indexes of inequalities from the initial system S used to produce i. 
[...]
A variable x_j is in the set as soon as at least one inequality in the history H_i of i results from the elimination of x_j."
AFAICT, the underlined part cannot be correct. NO inequalities in H_i result from any elimination, since these are the starting set. I suppose it should instead say something like "... the elimination of x_j is involved anywhere in the process of creating i"? 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:40CB:9260:295F:C18E (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appears not to be correct
Talk:NO CARRIER

message: Why is this page at NO CARRIER (modem) rather than just NO CARRIER? There doesn't seem to be any other article to disambiguate... 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

message: It's also used, particularly on Fark, to signify that someone is suddenly being censored.  I.E. their connection is suddenly severed by the powers that be. Superm401 - Talk 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang 

message: There ought to be more coverage of the use in jokes. One of my favorites is related, and it just came up today:
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip *BANG*
NO TERRIER
Maybe you had to be there? Shanen (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke genre should get more coverage
Talk:François d'Aguilon

message: You have a good start on this article, lots of good information. Your first paragraph under 6 Books of Optics gives me a solid idea of what you're talking about. From what you've written I begin to understand where d'Aguilon is coming from with his work and what he's trying to do with it.
The structure of your second paragraph is a bit jumbled, but subsections could help to straighten it out. I had a couple questions that might help you expand on what you already have. How does Kepler's publication affect the reception of the 6 Books of Optics? You say "D'Aguilon was given the task of organizing the teaching of geometry and science," but who gave him that task? Also, don't forget to check your grammar.
I hope this helps!
Maagicalme (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please include reliable sources for all information. The web site you used as a source is of dubious reliability and the whole second paragraph of the new section is currently unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review
Talk:Pepa (rapper)

message: *Biography - Sandra Denton (1969-)
*The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music(1998), p. 297
*The Da Capo Companion to 20th-century Popular Music(1995), p. 828
*International Who's who in Music, p. 444
*:I'm finding many publications with this name, none that I can find online access to. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1969

message: Denton has withheld her age in the past. The People Magazine reference doesn't give exact ages, nor the Deseret News article. She also says in her book that her mother wouldn't divulge her own age, nor the age of any of Sandra's siblings. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Desire to keep year private?

message: Since the above discussion, WP:DOB has been changed to include,  --Hipal (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:DOB now says to include multiple dates if references support them

message: We currently list "at a tatoo parlor" and "at home" for the same event. Unless the civil and religious (or private) events occurred at different times and locations? Rmhermen (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage location

message: The reference is VH1 Behind the Scenes, probably the best reference we have on the subject. Should we add a note? --Hipal (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 15 in Utah