Talk:Kempner function

message: Now all the Smarandache constants from 1 to 16 are latex typeset in the article. Please improve the article, but do not blank portions of it. Your cooperativity is appreciated. Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appreciated if you placed the full name of the authors of the articles, rather than Name I.  That is considered a depreciated style in Wikipedia.  I fixed most of your other articles, but I don't have adequate information to do it here.  Alternatively, remove the initials entirely.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for comments, however this is the preferred reference style by me and follows the guidelines of PubMed. I am not aware whether in mathematics this is bad style to provide refs, but as I have provided DOI clickable links at all places where possible, I don't think my ref style is bad. I prefer to edit something with meaning, and although I conform my articles to the PubMed ref style, I have no time to re-edit the refs. Please appologize me for that, there are Wikipedians that are spell-checkers, etc., so some person who is interested to repair the ref style of articles is free to do it. I don't mind this :-) Danko Georgiev MD 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original wikipedia page seems to have been copied and pasted practically unchanged from MathWorld by a lazy editor. As a result the conventions used for references there are what appear here. The only contribution of the original editor seems to have been to add faulty links to Smarandache's Notions Journal on Smarandache's home page. They appear as SNJX.pdf rather than SFJX.pdf on Smarandache's home page. I have therefore removed these faulty links. Any person who is interested in providing correct links may do so. I don't mind this ;-) I hope such a person will find the time to do so.  --Mathsci 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am the "lazy editor" both on Wikipedia and PlanetMath see my user page. I have replied in detail at MathSci's talk page. Danko Georgiev MD 13:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I propose that the material on convergent series related to S(n) be considerably shortened or removed altogether. It could be replaced by a short description
of one or two representative results, possibly with a corresponding result for the pseudo-Smarandache function. Taken as a whole, the sixteen constants of Samarandache are arbitrary and seem to be quite unremarkable. They do not seem to merit the disproportionate amount of space devoted to them. (In addition some
errors seem to have been introduced during the transfer from MathWorld articles or the orginal primary sources.) --Mathsci 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the proposed changes, including Richard Pinch's result on the convergence of the series for Z(n). If you object to these changes, please discuss them on this talk page. Throughout its history S(n) has appeared in recreational problems, often of an advanced nature, but sometimes trivial; we don't need to list all these problems on WP. --Mathsci 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove some material on Smarandache constants

message: The article says
:... Paul Erdos pointed out that for almost all n the function S(n) coincides with the largest prime factor of n.
Unfortunately it's not clear from context what "almost all" means. It could mean "with only finitely many exceptions" (that's probably the most available reading, but intuitively it seems unlikely; if there are exceptions I'd expect infinitely many). Or, it could mean that the set of exceptions has asymptotic density zero. Or it could mean something else. Can anyone clarify? --Trovatore 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained in the reference (it can be accessed through jstor).  Erdos himself used the phrase "almost all". He then made this precise: the number of integers less than n for which the assertion is true, when divided by n, should tend to 1 as n tends to infinity. I suspect this is what you mean by asymptotic density. Pleae feel free to clarify this sentence ... without making it unreadable. --Mathsci 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  almost all 

message: Why not calling it Lucas function? Since Lucas was the first not Kempner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.2.251 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Stigler's law of eponymy, presumably. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Kempner and not Lucas?

message: Thank you for your hard work. I often read wiki entries with great interest.
I am not perfect, but I am not the worst person of the world either as some wikipedians portrait me.
Unfortunately I saw much hostility and bias-ness against me in Wikipedia. If I committed mistakes, I apologize and I ask for forgiveness. I’ll not do in the future. Maybe because of some misunderstanding from both parts, between some supporters and some wikipedians, it brought me in this horrible situation. For example I was unfortunately named in Wikipedia “criminal,” “bank robber,” “suicide bomber,” etc. –- just too much exaggerations. But I forgave them and this misunderstanding has stopped long ago and I apologize for all that happened. There is nothing positive in wiki about me, only denigrations. I am not only bad, as this entry says, I have also many positive sides ( the readers should check the below site too, since I have the right to defense: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/FlorentinSmarandache.htm ).
::At History, in this entry, the paragraph about me is unfortunately malicious, biased and untrue. I proof this below.
:	1) “In 1980, following his habit, Florentin Smarandache re-named this function after himself.” 
This assertion is untrue, since up to 1980 I had published very few research math papers only, and there was no notion at that time named after me. In 1979 I had barely graduated from my university. The paper was written in 1979 and submitted to a university journal. Its title was simply “A Function in the Number Theory”, not after my name.
The function was much later named after me by my university professors Dr. Constantin Dumitrescu and Dr. Vasile Seleacu, in honor that I had graduated with the highest GPA among all my student colleagues.
:	2) “Several self-published and possibly pseudonymous books also used the same name…”.
This is also untrue. The books were published from several grants received by the above professors, and they are real persons (Dr. C. Dumitrescu and Dr. V. Seleacu – both from the University of Craiova, and Charles Ashbacher – American researcher), not pseudonyms. Charles Ashbacher is an author, editor, mathematician, computer programmer and sometimes adjunct instructor at Kirkwood Community College (Cedar Rapids, Iowa); see his site http://charlesashbacher.net/ . See also his contact information in Iowa: http://charlesashbacher.net/3.html and please call him to get convinced.
People who brought positive things about my work were labelled sockpuppets in order to discourage or intimidate them unfortunately. Only negative things were left about me in wiki.
:	3) In 1979, when I wrote the paper “A Function in the Number Theory” in the communist Romania, I did not have access to old western journals to check my research, since we did not have much contact with western countries, as you know.
:It happens in science that the same scientific result is discovered independently by different researchers. For example, L’Hospital’s Rule was discovered and proved by John Bernoulli in a letter sent to Guillaume L’Hospital. 
:	4) References 7 is incorrect, since the book authors and the book title are: C. Dumitrescu and V. Seleacu, “The Smarandache Function”, not four authors and not that title.
:	5) Reference 8 is also inaccurate, since the book author is only Charles Ashbacher, not two authors.
::I suffered for more than 10 years under this untrue stigma in Wikipedia. If I committed something wrong, politically, ideologically, etc. I apologize and I humbly feel that I was punished. I am a good American citizen and I love very much America.
::I am now old and sick and I plan to retire.
::So please let's reconcile. Please update this entry, and please let positive things about me to be added to other wiki entries (do not censor my name as a blacklisted person), and please remove those things that are untrue, or biased, or based on speculations. I do not want to fight with anybody. I appreciate your future fairness. 
::Wikipedia is a serious site, based on documentation, not on speculations. So, please correct the wrong paragraph about me.
::(Florentin Smarandache)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlSmarandache (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you can try to give Charles Aschbacher a ring, but you'll be answered by Florentin pinching his nose. Also, Gallups still lists FS as professor, so his retirement plans must have hit a snag. 137.205.183.31 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untrue paragraph

message: "The function was called the "Smarandache function" in a 1980 publication by Florentin Smarandache that noted the existence of many other publications on the subject but cited none of them.[5]"
This is false again. You compromise Wikipedia by inserting biased, untrue ideas. Please do not delete my response.
My paper was called A Function in the Number Theory (1980), see the paper as it was published  http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/AFunctionInTheNumberTheory.pdf, not Smarandache Function. Nowhere in the paper it was called Smarandache Function, but it was called "function \eta".
Please ask NSA and CIA and wikipedians from Timisoara to check at the University of Timisoara library the paper printed journal An. Univ. Timisoara, Seria St. Matematice, Vol. XVIII, Fasc. 1, pp. 79-88, 1980; see
Mathematical Reviews: 83c : 10008, to get convinced that I DID NOT CALLED IT SMARANDACHE FUNCTION.
Please stop continuously insulting me and inventing lies about me.
(Florentin Smarandache)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlSmarandache (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The error was believing that the 2004 arXiv version of your paper was an accurate reproduction of the 1980 journal paper. The part where it calls it the Smarandache function, mentions past work, and doesn't cite any, is footnote 1 of the arXiv version. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias sentence

message: “The function was called the "Smarandache function" in a 2004 publication by Florentin Smarandache that noted the existence of many other publications on the subject but cited none of them.” This is not true. 
The function became popular as the Smarandache function after the publication of the books by C. Dumitrescu & V. Seleacu (1996) and Charles Ashbacher (1995, 1998). These publications were one decade before I included that note into my arXiv paper where I actually meant as citations these books, so they deserve to be cited first. 
C. Dumitrescu, V. Seleacu, The Smarandache function, Vail, AZ : Erhus Univ Press, 1996; see the Library of Congress record on this book: https://lccn.loc.gov/97146933 
Charles Ashbacher, An Introduction to the Smarandache Function, Vail, 1995, 60 p.
Charles Ashbacher, Pluckings from the tree of Smarandache: sequences and functions, Lupton, AZ : American Research Press, 1998; see the Library of Congress record on this book: https://lccn.loc.gov/99200248 
Please check the Library of Congress for the above hard copy books and document yourself (I gave you above two links). Please stop continuously incriminating me and spreading out unverified statements in Wikipedia! (Florentin Smarandache)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlSmarandache (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So when you say your footnote was meant to serve as a reference to these books, that means that by 2004 (24 years after the original publication of your paper) you were still unaware of the earlier work by Lucas, Neuberg, and Kempner? This despite the existence of the paper "The Smarandache function introduced more than 80 years ago!" by József Sándor in Octogon Mathematical Magazine, 2001? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: False statement again

message: Discuss here rather than back and forth reverting. Enigmamsg 23:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kind of late to the party. The edit-warring stopped hours ago, and one of the edit warriors has been indefinitely blocked (not for the edit warring itself but for going on a rampage afterwards); see WP:ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit-war noticeboard report must still be open.  --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

text: It was reported to RfPP due to all the reverts over the last day, so I protected it... Enigmamsg 03:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war