lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Siegbert Salomon Prawer

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Siegbert Salomon Prawer →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME (see, e.g., ). 24.77.42.223 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 May 2021 

message: Hello Wikipedians. I've tagged the article with templates to underscore two big issues.  First, as I write this, the article is 100% unsourced due to WP:LINKROT. Neither of the two reference links are working, nor are there Internet Archive copies for them (I checked). I did find an archival copy for the (also dead) external link, at least. Secondly, even if those two ref links worked, the article needs more sources.    I don't have any expertise in the subject matter at all, and I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, so I'm afraid others will have to work on improving things. Itsfullofstars (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs working references (and more of them)
Talk:Siegfried Jerusalem

message: I've always wondered what the "story" is behind his name -- surely one of the most striking in all of classical music. To start with, where does the family name "Jerusalem" come from -- and how does a boy born into the Jerusalem family get named "Siegfried"? (It makes me wonder if he has siblings and what their names are.) And then, of course, how remarkable (and perhaps ironic) that someone with those names ends up as a Wagnerian heldentenor. If anybody has the answers to any of these questions, please be kind enough to add that info to the article. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a name!
Talk:Quadratically constrained quadratic program

message: Is this not the same as Quadratic programming? 68.174.98.161 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In quadratic programming, the constraints are linear. Here, they are quadratic. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.. Thanks! 68.174.98.161 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadratic Programming 

message: The constraint Ax=b is unclear here: are A and b just any two vectors? But then one could just pick any matrix for A and vector for b. They don't occur anywhere else in the constraints.
I guess they are given, but that could be made clearer.
Niplav (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ax=b unexplained
Talk:Quantifier elimination

message: What would people think of moving this title to "elimination of quantifiers", which now redirects to this page? Michael Hardy 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Quantifier elimination" has far more Google scholar hits, for what that's worth. Algebraist 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Changed this over because QE is for all formulae not just sentences.
Note that for any complete theory T (in a language with a constant symbol a) we have that every sentence is equivalent mod T to either a=a or \lnot (a=a). Thehalfone (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula / Sentence 

message: I think that Skolemization and Herbrandization should be mentioned or at least linked to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.82.87 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skolemization and Herbrandization 

message: John Doner and Wilfrid Hodges, in their paper "Alfred Tarski and Decidable Theories" (Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol 53, no 1, March 1988, pp 20–35), give a formal definition of "the method of eliminating quantifiers" wherein the definiens does not require (or even mention) eliminating any quantifiers.  See specifically page 24 of Doner and Hodges's paper. 
Tarski himself, in his paper "Grundzüge des Systemenkalküls. Zweiter Teil" (Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol 26, 1936, pp 283–301), uses the phrase "sukzessiven Elimination der Operatoren" (successive elimination of quantifiers) in describing his proof that every sentence in the elementary theory of dense order is deductively equivalent to a Boolean combination of the two sentences: "There is no first element" and "There is no last element" ... even though both of these sentences, on the face of them, employ quantifiers.  See specifically pages 293 and 295 of Tarski's paper. 
Jan Zygmunt, in a paper titled "Alfred Tarski: Auxiliary Notes on His Legacy" (in the Birkhäuser volume The Lvov-Warsaw School. Past and Present, 2018, pp 425–455), gives a succinct overview of the method of eliminating quantifiers in the context of decidable and undecidable theories, quoting both the Doner and Hodges paper and the Tarski paper, and also quoting Chang and Keisler on the subject.  See specifically pages 440 and 441 of Zygmunt's paper. 
The scope of the concept appears to have quickly broadened as its usefulness as a tool of discovery became clearer, and thus it outgrew its original name.  However the name seems to have been too catchy to be bothered changing.  
The article in its present form (2021-Aug-15) speaks to the concept that originally gave rise to the name.  The article is silent on the broadened definition that apparently supplanted the protoconcept sometime before Tarski's 1936 paper. 
Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Definition of Quantifier Elimination
Talk:Sigrid Wolf

message: Dear Sir, I did correct several results, because the race on January 5th, 1988, was a Giant Slalom (winner: Vreni Schneider), and the race on December 17th, 1989, was a Downhill (winner: Petra Kronberger) - and the race at Steamboat Springs was held on February 25th, 1989. - There was no female race on March 7th, 1987, but on March 8th, 1987 (a Downhill, won by Michela Figini. Skiscout (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: Dear Sir, I did cit. the German Wikipedia (but most of it I am knowing by myself). Skiscout (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 
Talk:Radical of an integer

message: Is there a way someone could expand this to include various tasks with radicals, such as division, multiplication, subtraction, addition, fractions, and simplifying fractions? I am currently working through some of those in my Algebra class, and would like more information.
God bless, 12.201.82.94 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Division of Radicals?

message: Is the radical the same as the square-free part?  I would have said that the radical of 12 was 6 but the square-free part of 12 was 3.  Any references?  Richard Pinch (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: rad(n) is formed by taking the prime factorization n = Π piei and replacing each ei by 1. For example, 360 = 23×32×51 so rad(360) = 2×3×5=30. The squarefree part is formed by replacing each ei by ei mod 2, or equivalently taking the product of only the primes with odd exponents, so for 360 you get 2×5=10. See e.g. OEIS. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, thanks.  Richard Pinch (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square-free part 

message: The current formula,  rad(n) = product_{ p|n } p
is not correct: in this formula, the condition "p prime" is missing. (It is said in the text but   IMHO this does not justify to omit it in the formula.)— MFH:Talk 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In number theory, certain variables are usually assumed to vary over the prime numbers: p,q,\varpi and often r and s. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad notation 

message: Hi, the link of this article to it's corresponding german wikipedia-article is obviously wrong. Currently it's https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahlentheoretische_Funktion#Multiplikative_Funktionen, but it should imho be https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radikal_(Mathematik)#In_der_Zahlentheorie. I don't know, how to correct this... Somebody else?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1B1B:5C20:7515:B304:A66B:8561 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link to german Wikipedia article
Talk:Radix economy

message: Layman here. I think in base 10; nevertheless I can understand how binary maps to base 10. I have no clue how , an irrational, transcendental number, can form the basis of a numbering system. Could somebody fill in this table for , and briefly explain...
 Binary vs. Decimal
Decimal	0	1	2 	3 	4  	5  	6  	7  	8   	9   	10  	11  	12
Binary 	0	1	10	11	100	101	110	111	1000	1001	1010	1011	1100
       	 	 	  	  	   	   	   	   	    	    	    	    	
It could be nice for those who need it ELI5 to have something similar in the article. Niubrad (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on: "''e'' has the lowest radix economy" 

message: If this is supposed to mean that the bases with the lowest radix economy are the best for humans to use, I think this is complete uncited BS. Firstly, it's not cited. Secondly, just try performing calculations in a base that's 4 or less. I can guarantee you that unless you septuple-check everything, you will mess up some digits. And you'll need such long numbers! There's a need to quickly distinguish numbers like 64 and 32: suppose you're driving quickly past a speed limit. Will you be able to quickly count the number of zeroes in "1000000" vs "100000"? I think not. I do not know what the optimal range of bases for humans to use is, but it self-evidently is not centered around e. 10 is definitely in it (citation definitely not needed), probably close to the centre. My gut feeling is that it would be in the range between 6 (senary) and 16 (hexadecimal) inclusive, with 6, 10, and 12 as outstandingly good choices, and 8 and 16 somewhat further behind, the rest not even being in the running. Given that this statement isn't cited, and doesn't make sense, I have removed it. (Of course I have not replaced it with what I just wrote, as that is uncited too!) Double sharp (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About cognitive function and learning 

message: A recent YouTube video, "the best way to count", observes that if leading zeroes are prohibited, as is typical for human use, then the leading digit contains less information, causing the calculations to be different. As a result, binary has the lowest radix economy for human use.
I am just putting this information in the talk page for now until I (or someone else) can draft a revision to the article to add a section for how applying radix economy to human (rather than computer) use causes the calculations to change. taulover (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary has the lowest radix economy for humans 

message: ðe equation multiplies by b, when it should be multiplied by log(b). also, because ðe leading digit cant be zero, ðe most significant digit carries less information. as such, instead of a minimum at e, ðe function is strictly decreasing. Jan Eten (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ðe equation is wrong.
Talk:Rafael Bombelli

message: It is important not to introduce +i and -i at the stage of Bombelli. It is an invention by Euler and has many other significances. Rafael introduced "piu di meno" and "men di meno". See www.fractalforums.com, in the maths section.Jehovajah (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

message: I have found to be interesting in that composed in Bombelli's book, Algebra, is the symbols reminiscent of those of Nicolas Chequet, who invented his own notation for algebraic concepts and exponentiation. Bombelli sometimes wrote 1Z p.5Rm.4, meaning zenus plus 5 res minus 4, for x^2+5x-4. He also used the Italian symbols p and m for additional and subtraction, but had no symbol for equality.
67.168.190.140 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombelli's book called Algebra 

message: I am always interested to know what got mathematicians started with mathematics. Do you know how Bombelli founded his passion for mathematics?
~~morgantw~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgantw (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombelli
Talk:Ramanujan prime

message: A056171  Number of unitary prime divisors of n!.
at http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A056171
Note the:
 COMMENT  A unitary prime divisor for n! is not smaller than n/2. a(n)=PrimePi[n]-PrimePi[n/2] 
This means that this list of numbers are related by the fact that each R(k) is next number to the largest a(n) of some value. The largest x for which π(x) − π(x / 2) ≤ n, when x < R(n+1). For example, in A056171 a(x) = a(10) = 1 = n, so R(2) = 11.
What is the largest known Ramanujan prime? Is there a good list of over the first 1000?
You might also include a conjecture of mine:
There is at least one Ramanujan prime between each triangular number >= C(22) = 22*(22+1)/2 = 253.
This conjecture, of course, leads to the question of the growth rate of Ramanujan primes to the number of primes.
John W. Nicholson
Reddwarf2956 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources. Has a source satisfying Wikipedia:Reliable sources published your conjecture? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of unitary prime divisors of n! 

message: I don't know how to add a repeated reference. Namely, reference 7 to the section "Ramanujan prime corollary" after it was used in "Bounds and an asymptotic formula". John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a repeated reference
Talk:Random measure

message: Continuing the initial discussion, I think it would be helpful to include somewhere (on one of the pages linked) a clarification of the following terms:
* Poisson random measure
* Poisson point process
* Poisson process
* Spatial Poisson process
It seems that some authors use these terms interchangeably, while others attach different meanings to them, depending on (among other things) (1) whether there is an explicit time component, (2) whether the representation consists of measures, or (3) whether the values are integers. Any experts around? --88.64.81.175 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: It seems to me that merely being boundedly finite and integer-valued is not enough to be a counting measure. We want it to actually assign a measure of 1 to the atoms...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Lee Baker (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of counting measure
Talk:Silvio Danailov

message: This article appears to have been scrubbed clean of highly relevant information concerning its subject. Silvio Danailov is notorious in the chess world for (above all other things) having masterminded the so-called "toiletgate" scandal of the 2006 World Championship; and yet a passage in this article which previously detailed that scandal was deleted in January of 2015. For several revisions after that, no mention of the scandal appeared at all, until the current passing (and insufficient) mention was added in June 2015. An examination of the revision history shows that the anonymous individual who censored the article in Danailov's favor has never edited any other Wikipedia articles, which suggests that this user may have had only Danailov's interests in mind, indicating bias. (It may well have been Danailov himself who deleted the information, which would be against Wikipedia rules.) In its present censored form, this article now lacks critical information, which everyone in the chess world knows. The fact that the general public is being deprived of this information means that true, relevant, and important information about Danailov is being withheld from the record. Chillowack (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has been improperly "sanitized"
Talk:Simcha Felder

message: page seems to read from a person who is biased against him StStein1 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased
Talk:Reduced row echelon form

message: In integer matrix computations, it may not be possible to all the leading coeff's one - one cannot divide columns by arbitrary integers and keep the matrix coeff's integers. The requirement is then that the coeff's above the leading one are smaller by absolute value. Is this generally interesting enough to merit a discussion? --130.230.19.134 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I have partially relabeled the provided pseudocode.
I had an assignment to come up with a program that converts a matrix to RREF, and tried to follow the pseudocode, but found it somewhat difficult to implement the way that it was written. Mainly, the way it's formatted had little indication of when control structures (if, for, while) ended. So, I very simply added in an END CONTROL at the proper places. I still think that the pseudocode could be written so that it could be understood more easily, or implemented on a computer more easily, but I'll leave that one up to the discretion of everyone else. I mean, the pseudocode is most likely provided for the programmer, and not for someone who's just trying to understand the concept. The reader who's trying to gain an understanding of it should probably be able to understand it simply by reading through the algorithm overview and if not, then by following the trailing links. 
However, if you believe that my additions only add confusion, please revert it to the previous version, and accept my apologies for bungling things.
RemyK313 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudocode
Talk:Simon Baldry

message: Hi. I don't understand why "recalled back" is better than "recalled". It's this sentence: "Bury offered Huddersfield £300,000 for the winger and the move looked a done deal, until Huddersfield, impressed with his form, recalled Baldry back to the club." or "Bury offered Huddersfield £300,000 for the winger and the move looked a done deal, until Huddersfield, impressed with his form, recalled Baldry to the club." Since "recalled" includes the idea of a move back, do we really need to say "back" for what is in effect the second time? Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recalled back? 

message: Is it really Simon Johnathan Baldry or the more common Simon Jonathan Baldry? I've assumed the latter but of course I don't really know for sure - do you? Is there a reference for either spelling? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Jonathon according to the GRO Index see here. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, nice one! Thanks DBaK (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name spelling
Template talk:Navbar-header/sandbox

message: I added the option of using this header with either "mini" or "plain" style as defined in the original :
:
:
Unless "mini=1", the template uses the plain style.  I thought this would be more flexible as I prefer the plain style over the mini. --MattWatt 04:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realized that I did not properly consider the original appearance!  It was originally in the "mini" style, and therefore I will revise the default style, which I inadvertently changed.  Therefore, unless you specify "plain=1", the appearance will be that of "mini". I'm not sure how I proceed in requesting this revision to be incorporated into the active template.  --MattWatt 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  This change has been included.  Thanks! --MattWatt 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini or Plain style
Talk:Residual mean square

message: What is WRSS? Woodlands Ring Secondary School? I guess it stands for "weighted residual sum of squares", but how should the reader know this? Also, in statistics RMS conventionally means Root mean square, which is more-or-less the square root of the quantity defined here, so this can get confusing. This paragraph is in urgent need of a home in which it can be embedded.  --Lambiam 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRSS
Talk:Residual sum of squares

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus--Jorfer 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Do people think it would be instructive to mention that this can be calculated in Excel using the function SUMXMY2(actual_values, predicted_values) ? Ts4079 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excel formula: SUMXMY2
Talk:Simon Chapman (academic)

message: I have removed the following text:
:In August 2015 Chapman apologised to Dr Sarah Laurie, a campaigner against industrial noise, for incorrectly claiming she had been deregistered as a doctor.Graham Lloyd, Wind farm advocate Simon Chapman sorry for false allegations in The Australian dated August 29, 2015, accessed 20 August 2015
The background is that Sarah Laurie is associated with an organization claiming wind turbines cause health problems—see Waubra Foundation#Qualifications—while Simon Chapman claims wind turbine syndrome is a nocebo effect spread by claims that turbines cause ill health. The above ref explains that a tweet by a turbine supporter included a false claim that Laurie was a deregistered doctor, and Chapman repeated the tweet. When his error was exposed, Chapman issued a full apology. That is a very minor issue and quite undue for inclusion as it was a simple mistake with no lasting significance. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology text 

message: I have removed the controversy section because it is a beat-up of one round in an ongoing battle between pro- and anti-turbine advocates. Per Criticism any WP:DUE material from such a section should be incorporated in a discussion of the topic (views regarding claimed health effects of wind turbines).
Apparently it is common for Senate inquiries to be held, and the findings of such an inquiry are those of the senators who chose to participate. A committee chaired by John Madigan (see "Madigan has campaigned against wind turbines") produced a report which included criticism of Chapman, and much of that criticism was quoted in this article. However, the criticism is quite undue as it shows a profound misunderstanding of how epidemiology is conducted, and fails to acknowledge that Chapman is emminently qualified to review studies on health effects: see his university page; he has a PhD in Medicine; his awards include NSW Cancer Researcher of the Year and an AO "For distinguished service to medical research as an academic and author, particularly in the area of public health policy, and to the community."
A media report on the inquiry includes 
The National Health and Medical Research Council released a report in February 2015 here concluding there is "no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects"—a finding that coincides with Chapman's views and contradicts the Senate committee's criticism.
A discussion of Chapman's views on wind turbines cannot focus on what Chapman's opponents have said and this article should not include pro/con material that might better be at wind turbine syndrome. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy text