User talk:Ryan Reich

1421:"The last one" referred to the last item in the previous sentence (which you didn't copy here), namely, that your text was sometimes opinionated. Basically, it seemed to me that your main goal was to correctly instruct the reader in the art of proving Cayley-Hamilton, and in particular, to push the point that trying to use the evaluation map directly could never work. All of your examples, including one example false proof, made this point; this is the thing that I thought was not right in what you wrote, since in fact it 1363:

arrives at the Cayley–Hamilton theorem as a corollary to something more general). The consideration of Euclidean division was a result of discussions with colleagues at our math institute. But later I found much of it also on the French wikipedia (in some indirectly related article I cannot trace right now), so there is no point in claiming (or being accused of) original research here. In fact somebody sent me a paper reviewing some 20 different proofs... It seems like that many people have been thinking about this.

583:

the topics they oppose, as is true of any asynchronous Internet communications, but they are only ever justified in this in the case of the most frivolous or deliberately fraudulent articles. I often find myself defending material which is being attacked as "unencyclopedic", but which I think is important to any writing on mathematics. I take this as a sign that I don't get along with the enyclopedia model, and I don't want to have anything to do with the legal wrangling. I'm through with AfD's.

1619:

opportunity to give the "matrix equals scalar" dichotomy, but there is an obvious place to do so also right before the first proof, and I will make that correction. The point about multiplication is also implicit in the juxtaposition of the second and third proofs, though as you observe, the proofs as a whole are long and detailed, and perhaps extracting their "meaning" is not easy. I will expand the discussion before the proofs in order to reincorporate these points.

1992:, and the guy playing my role gave the same justification for reverting, so you might say I had prejudice. Still, I have reasons. I agree that the note does no harm, but it does single out just one of the alternatives when in fact I would say that in addition to the mathematical phrase, the ones most likely to be searched for are the physics theory, the Feynman book, and the play. When it's a choice between one of the two 1344:

understand what it is affirming) and seem to have little to do with Euclidean division). The first three proofs are all quite long, and apart from the first one I doubt there are many wikipedia users that can actually understand them (given that their average level seems to be high school). The second took me long to absorb, and the essential point, that the determinant of

1724:, of course, I did make that point in the fourth proof. I didn't mention that the coefficients are those of the characteristic polynomial, though that would of course give still a third way of using the Euclidean division technique to prove the theorem (the first two are: do division, observe that the remainder is 1969:

Like I just tried to think "where would someone looking for quantum electrodynamics" end up and also "is it doing any harm?". The last is weaker because otherwise, yeah, might as well just stuff everything in as a seealso or whatever, from querelous erratic damned children to quite educated democrats

1635:

I didn't mention original research because I think that any attempt to be philosophical about the proof of any theorem borders on it (comparison of proofs is not a major mathematical activity, although you say that for this theorem, it may be). I believe that a discussion such as you wrote is a good

1624:

The reasons I replaced your analysis of erroneous arguments with just some proofs are that first, I felt that the existence of my third proof invalidated your frequently-expressed assertion that there could be no proof based on the evaluation homomorphism; second, although the above points are worthy

1362:

The proof I wrote was loosely based on a book I found in our library (being dazzled by all the wrong proofs I looked for some solid ground), which happened to be an algebra course by Patrice Tauvel (in French); I undid it of some of what seemed to me unnecessary generality for the context at hand (it

1173:

Seeing them together like this I'm not sure I don't prefer your version, though. When I originally wrote all the definitions on that page, I wanted to keep them very short, since it's a big list and many of them have articles elsewhere. "Strong" is easily the worst offender in terms of length and I

936:

Hey Ryan, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project.

808:

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.

582:

Maybe unintentionally. More to the point is that in general, what I enjoy about Knowledge is much more creating articles than deleting them; arguing over what should or should not be said is not rewarding for me. The participants in these arguments (including myself) are always hugely dismissive of

506:

Yeah, I was positive that you didn't mean anything nasty when I read it, and I'm sure Michael wouldn't have taken it the wrong way... but I still had a laugh. It could have been an instant Knowledge classic! I guess it just goes to show the dangers of communicating through text. Anyway, let me add my

266:

tags. To learn LaTeX...Google it, there are zillions of tutorials. You'll need to practice to get any good, though. Try typesetting random math documents (don't put that on Knowledge, of course). Also, it would have been more appropriate to start a new section on my talk page rather than burying

1326:

Your first edit summary mentions a didactic diatribe, but I did not want to push any didactic point. It is just that I think it is really a singular property of the Cayley–Hamilton theorem to inspire false proofs, and it is valid for the article to say so. I've seen many false proofs, some in print;

1287:

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid

1014:

does not deserve an image of its logo on its page? Or is it simply that you think that the image itself belongs to be hosted on the Commons site rather than on Knowledge itself? I am not experienced in these political matters, so I don't know what the rule is with where images of various licensing

972:

Well I knew that it was not a true stub but it needed work and I sometimes rate lower than the article's true value, which I think is start, in hopes of attracting angry editors who will improve their article to prove me wrong;), but if that is all there is to say then that is all there is to say on

1425:

possible to formulate a proof correctly using the evaluation map (you just have to be more careful, as in the third proof I wrote). The whole effort seemed "didactic" in that it was primarily concerned with correcting a misconception and instructing the reader through numerous but subtly different

1833:

As you mentioned, this discussion was a waste of time and one of the reasons why I was unwilling to accept the Rubik's cube idea, was because I had been 'for my idea' for quite a while (ask yourself what you would have done in the same position if you felt strongly about a particular image and had

1238:

Hi Ryan - as you may know, the community reached consensus in relation to FritzpollBot. I believe that there is no such thing as inherent notability, per your arguments during the discussion. What I was interested in hearing was your thoughts on creating full stubs (oxymoron? :) ) on places with

334:

My apologies. I jumped on it too hastily when I found a requested article whose title actually rang a bell. These days, most of them don't, and I assumed that's what was meant. I couldn't tell who had placed the request, so I figured, given the similarity, that it might well be someone who came

1319:

Your text frequently (at least four times) mentions the "defining property" of adjugates. It is important, but not "defining". The definition of the adjugate is that its entries are certain minors, and the mentioned property follows from that. If the property were "defining" any zero matrix could

1314:

Ryan, I've seen your edits on the Cayley–Hamilton article, and I appreciate that you informed me on my talk page, since indeed I had invested quite a bit of time in the part that you replaced. The text you replaced it with is interesting, but in my opinion not an improvement, even though it seems

1243:

but creating lists of the places in particular administrative districts with information such as coordinates, population data, etc. One option might then be a redirect from the placename to the list, but I'm not sure. Anyway, this and many other discussions will be taking place at a centralised

552:

I'm glad it will turn out to be useful. At first I thought the article would end up proving to be OR anyway, but the example seems not to be, and the philosophical point is certainly worth a page. Though his original article talked about "information", which has me wondering if there is, in the

1629:

proofs, rather than as criticisms of incorrect ones; and third, that what was there concerned itself at least as much with educating the reader as with informing them. The second and third reasons are both related to the nature of the medium here: since an article is not a discussion, the false

1650:

a homomorphism but still does the job intended for it, is quite simple. The fourth proof based on your Euclidean division idea is much more elegant. You say that you don't feel like any of the proofs gets at the "why" of the theorem, except maybe the fourth, but I think that the second one is

990:

I don't mean to imply that there's nothing more to say on the Abel-Jacobi map; just that I don't have anything more to say. I know nothing about abelian varieties and I only know this bit because of a reading course I did last year. Hopefully I'm not the only "algebraic geometer" around here.

1822:

Before I respond to your comment, I would just like to note that I accepted Ozob's idea at some point in the discussion but that at that point, people conveniently changed their minds to choosing the Rubik's cube. I don't mind you changing the image as such (I could have reverted and continued

1618:

make it into my version). As for the others, I actually think that they have been partially retained in my text, although perhaps in an excessively terse form. The first numbered point and its comparison with the second are explicitly in my text right before the first proof. I did miss the

1343:

While interesting, none of the proofs given gives me the impression that it touches the essence of why Cayley–Hamilton holds (well the final argument invoking Euclidean division comes close, but phrases like the one starting "This incorporates the evaluation map" put me off (frankly I don't

961:

I'm thinking about it. Depending on how familiar you are with my edits, you might have noticed that I tend to write as much as I can when I create an article. So, if I don't write something, I don't know it. I changed the rating just because I realized that it wasn't actually a stub.

1339:

in the defining equation of the characteristic polynomial, but they are false anyway. The thing that worries me most about the text you substituted is not that it it will mislead people, but that it will soon get replaced by people honestly convinced that they can do better than

1139:

meeting stronger conditions. When used in this way, the stronger notion (such as "strong antichain") is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning; the nature of the extra conditions cannot be derived from the definition of the weaker notion (such as "antichain")."

848:

Many thanks for the help in editing wiki-papers. Obviously, my English is not perfect. Moreover, your help was rather pertinent and indispensable. I understand, that you are very busy. And nevertheless I'd like to address to you with the request of the same sort.

467:

I can easily believe nothing was being insinuated, but given the accusations and harsh tones already in the discussion, I believe it's wise if you modify that statement and note in the edit summary that it was not meant to be an insult. Better safe than sorry.

1025:

As it is the image can only be used on the English Wikipepia, but since it's a free image it can be copied to commons. Then it will become available on all Wikimedia projects. It's certainly not tagged because it's inappropriate, but rather the opposite. //

1077:. The reason I made my edit is that your definition of "stronger" doesn't cover the one I gave (although it gives related meanings), and the one I give is the only one I encounter on a regular basis. Undoing doesn't fix that. Please suggest a solution. 553:

mathematical sense, information between dependent events. Not that I know anything at all about information or probability. Anyway, even if the article gets deleted I'd be happy to find the causal/statistical independence dichotomy a more suitable home.

1174:

don't think it is necessarily better than an efficiently worded, shorter version. However, the point made in the last sentence of the current definition is a good one: sometimes, "stronger" is not a value judgement but just jargon for "subset of".

246:

thank you for the symbols on proof by induction. (Where do I go to learn how to do that?) Since I generalised it to begin at an integer 's', we need the range at the end of the line to read 'for all n greater than or equal to s' to be precise.

1843:

I never mentioned (or even implied) that real math was category theory; I only said that math symbols such as sqrt (x) or the Rubik's cube was not real math (in my opinion, but I think that you will at least agree that sqrt (x) is not real

1829:

2. I started supporting the commutative diagram hoping for some back-up but it didn't come. By then, I had argued for so long, I did not want to give up (not because I wanted to waste more time but because I felt strongly about the image).

1630:

arguments you shoot down are more of the nature of a straw man than a real opposing position; and since it is also not a page in a textbook, the instruction you provide doesn't reside in the proper context for it to be received as intended.

1315:

essentially correct (I have a few gripes but these are not so serious). But I'm probably not the most neutral person to judge, so we'll see how your change fares by other editors opinions. Let me just say a few things that come to mind.

1009:

Just curous, what is the meaning of the {{to Commons}} template you've put on this image today? It seems to imply that you think the image is inappropriate for some reason, i.e. being indiscriminately included. Do you think that

1671:) = 0 pop out of a piece of algebraic machinery. Using the evaluation homomorphism is an elegant trick, but polynomial algebras are at their core a piece of algebraic machinery, a formal device; in the second proof, the matrix 536:

meant to explain the difference between statistical independence and causal independence. This is an important point, and it wasn't yet mentioned on Knowledge, so I'm very glad if it will be saved because of your efforts. --

1864:). Perhaps one user created an additional account for more support. I am also sure that if more users participated, I would have got some more support (especially by algebraists who specialize in homological algebra). 1415:

The reason I keep saying "defining property" is that it's hard to number equations in Knowledge, and I need some other memorable device to refer back to them. Perhaps I will do as you did and insert (*) next to this

1202:

entertaining (if somewhat worrying). I'll never forget that particular AfD, in which people it was argued that a misprint (in all probability) was inherently notable. To my mind, that's why the concept is so absurd.

1996:, say, there is a good reason to point to one in particular, especially since they have the same name. I note that people searching for any of the other QED's would not put in periods at all, so wouldn't end up at 1942:

on Jimbo's talk page today. If you didn't know, there was an error on the page about Ted Kennedy that stated that he had died. Though the edit was corrected within five minutes, the change prompted some to ask for

2036:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1645:

is not as nice as I had thought, since it is not commutative. The whole thing ends up being a little technical, whereas the concept, which is to restrict the evaluation homomorphism to a context in which it

1966:

I see you took this out. I must admit I was tempted to do the same. I couldn't make up my mind. In all these cases, which are kinda a tough call, I dunno really what the rule of thumb is. Any advice?

1431:

Concerning the loss of these subtly different arguments: looking back at the last version of the page before I edited it, the two big points you made were: there is no evaluation homomorphism from

867: 1699:

already appearing considered as having matrix entries (which are all scalar matrices). This interpretation is consistent with the idea of using "actions on vector spaces" in the proof. That det(

1159:

Hmmm, looks like you're right. Then all I am unhappy with is the word "notion", where the term "property" seems common to me; and the lack of a formal definition (subset would do in most cases).

1101:

than another if the second property holds in all cases where the first property holds, but not vice versa; e.g. for positive whole numbers, being divisible by 4 is a stronger property than being

1036:

Okay, cool. I'm just being vigilant about my pet articles; from time to time, people do things which are perhaps well-meaning, but still quite wrong, on the "advice" of some guideline or other.

413:

Are you aware that "I can tell you where you should try to merge it" can be read as a vulgar insult? If not, you might want to rephrase that. (If so, you might still want to rephrase that.) --

233:

Thank you. It was my hope with the new sections that people would see more clearly what jargon had yet to be included, which should help the page grow. Plus it's easier to look things up now.

1359:

You say some of what I wrote is simply not true. I would appreciate if you were more specific. And then, you could have corrected (and added the proofs you did) without throwing away everything.

1711:) is clear once this point is made; perhaps it needs to be made better, but I think this proof (which, unlike the last two, is sourced) is an important part of the philosophy of this theorem. 2000:

but at the dab page. In this case the dab page is pretty nontrivial, so rather than psychoanalyzing the users of each particular article I think it's best just to point them to the nexus.

1323:

You say "a lot of the pedagogy of comparing and correcting incorrect proofs has gone by the wayside as a result of the last one". I don't understand the phrase, which one is the last one?

1614:

You also think that these are among your main points. The one about there being no evaluation homomorphism is the one I think is wrong (given the proper context, and this distinction

436:

Thanks... I apologize for suggesting that you might have meant that. I may be the only one who read it that way, but in case I wasn't I felt I should say something. Sorry again. --

1838:

the icon should be "real math" and by that you meant category theory, that only "real mathematicians" need understand it, that the template actually function as an instructive device

1741:

The main thing I'm getting out of this discussion is that the theorem is even more interesting than I had thought. What is this paper with the 20 proofs in it? I'd like to see it.

1509: 568:

I see no relation between your "we disagree" statement and what I wrote, and don't understand why you write that you're "through". If I offended you in some way, I'm sorry. --

1947:, meaning that all edits had to be checked by established users. Anyway, I think the alternative suggestion is good—do you know how I can propose and maybe get a vote on it? 360:

Glad I could help. I hope that I can influence enough people (one way or the other) that the debate has a resolution rather than being inconclusive, which is disappointing.

385:. Since my reformulation inadvertantly mimicked an insight about binary functions that you posted first, I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion at 1823:

pointless dispute but I didn't. So really you didn't end the discussion; I agreed with your idea), but I feel that I might look into this later on. The discussion:

887:

Hi Ryan, why do you hesitate to post your draft on rational maps? I think it is valuable. Some of the material, e.g. dominant map, might also be good to add to the

287: 1663:, and since matrices are naturally endomorphisms of vector spaces, this should be verified by considering its action on a vector space, and not simply by having 1199: 178:

I have eyes everywhere :) Yeah, I've been meaning to rewrite that article for a long time; I've just never gotten around to it. Too many things to do. --

901:

Laziness? I guess I should get it out there, it's been ages. I just never feel like it's truly correct (from a mathematical-philosophical standpoint).

1641:

This also goes for the proofs I included. I liked the third one much more before I started to write it up, at which time I realized that the story for

1369:

the observation that the inital naive method not only gives a wrong argument, but also leads to the wrong conclusion (a scalar rather that matrix 0).

1289: 168:

Wow, you're fast. I just committed that ten minutes ago. I'm glad you like it; it's a shame the thing sat around for so many months without help.

122:

Thanx for your edit. I felt like "finest battleship" should be there, but my grammar far from perfect. Now I think you found a perfect wording.

195: 1767:

Change of variable for PDE is not much discussed but it is an essential technique. Change of variable for integral equations is discussed in

1426:

arguments that the only path to a proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem is through "real work" (that phrase really did have to go, by the way).

858:

Would you be so kind to find a spare minute and examine preambles of two wiki-papers from the point of view of your excellent English style?:

951:

Hey Ryan, I notice your change to the article and I am fine with it, but I encourage you to address the comments in the comment box. thanks--

37:, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). 2061: 1826:

1. Started out with me wanting to know how to find a good image (in fact I was happy with a*b = c) but then I saw the commutative diagram.

529: 79: 973:

the topic. However I wonder if there is another editor who could help expand the article? anyway thanks so much for your prompt reply--

1331:

the proofs given there were false (rest assured, yours are not). Most false proofs are more sophisticated than bluntly substituting

614: 350:

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion page regarding AfD for this article. I found it very constructive and helpful.

66: 522: 1244:

location, which we should be able to find in the next 48 hours, but if you would like to contribute, can you drop a line over at

1390:). This is an inportant and very general fact, which implies Cayley–Hamilton immediately, without being as easily implied by it. 2057: 1885: 302:

David, I was just about to leave a message on your page. It's scary now that real people I know can read me on Knowledge too.

73: 34: 1651:

really the best (this is somehow to be expected, given the author). My reason is that since (as we both agree is essential)

1993: 1852:

the purposes of the template was to function as an instructive device; the other purpose is of course to represent algebra.

1988:

Not that you should have known this, but a while ago this exact sequence of edits was performed by two different users on

704: 689: 18: 2048:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2053: 1768: 726: 386: 1400: 1245: 1267:

Thanks for telling me! I'd be happy to participate in a day or two, when I return from my present mini-vacation.

669: 1871: 888: 716: 684: 644: 203: 62: 1897: 828: 1764:

The theory is in section 2. If you don't think the theory is well-presented, please improve the exposition.

1372:

the observation that confusion arises from confusing unwritten (matrix and scalar) multiplication operations

1293: 788: 390: 1797: 496:

Yep, it's changed now. I'm trying hard to keep my criticism of the article from reflecting on the author.

1452: 1132: 862: 542: 382: 1939: 1396: 1002: 141: 394: 1912: 1867: 983: 912: 892: 817: 757: 664: 619: 199: 532:(or whatever its current title is). I had given up on that article, but you are probably right that 2049: 1978: 1893: 1782: 1257: 1074: 780: 213: 56: 45: 911:

Just post it and others, maybe myself may see whether they want to add, rearrange etc. something.

264:

You can write in LaTeX (or a reasonable subset of it, at least) if you enclose it in <math: -->

1861: 1288:

comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See

674: 624: 374: 108: 41: 1796:

Hi, The "reactions" subsection has undergone a bit of an edit war. I already left a comment at

739: 734: 2025: 2016: 1952: 1805: 1011: 639: 634: 572: 538: 137: 2045: 2029: 1124: 1123:

may be added to a mathematical notion to indicate a related stronger notion; for example, a

974: 952: 938: 752: 744: 654: 155: 92: 2044:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2001: 1908: 1742: 1732:), and also that the remainder must be zero; do division, observe that the quotient is in 1268: 1219: 1208: 1175: 1146: 1037: 1016: 992: 963: 922: 902: 832: 762: 598: 584: 554: 497: 487: 454: 424: 361: 336: 303: 268: 234: 225: 219:

Just wanted to commend you for your recent work on this article. It looks a lot better.

169: 1888:- I've initiated a question that I feel needs asking and which you may be interested in 335:

across the term in a book, couldn't trace it to the NBG page, and asked for an article.

2041: 2033: 1974: 1889: 1778: 1253: 821: 351: 325: 123: 52: 1110:

is exactly the same as what is said in the final sentences of the existing definition:

2037: 1249: 1136: 1054: 770: 649: 508: 472: 437: 414: 293: 188: 104: 1948: 1857: 1801: 1164: 1082: 1058: 1027: 569: 179: 159: 1886:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(policy)#Needs_resolution:_Are_places_inherently_notable.3F

1856:

By the way, I don't want to make a pointless discussion out of this but I suspect

1375:

the example that shows how naive substitution leads to genuinely false identities

1240: 874: 699: 694: 679: 659: 533: 89: 1636:

idea, but that to have the discussion in full requires a more scholarly medium.

1204: 798: 482: 248: 220: 1927: 1128: 629: 453:

No problem. I write so many words eventually they'll say something stupid.

320:

a redirect to NBG is not what I was looking for. I want a discussion of the

23: 1834:

argued for 1 page about it). Anyway, my response to one of your comments:

1565:

itself, as it appears in that expression, is a matrix with scalar entries;

852:

On July, 30th I leave for Paris on Conference IPMU-2006, where I have the

1105:, while being divisible by 3 is neither stronger or weaker than either.: 721: 469: 2065: 2009: 1982: 1956: 1916: 1875: 1809: 1786: 1750: 1404: 1304: 1276: 1261: 1227: 1212: 1183: 1168: 1154: 1086: 1040: 1019: 995: 977: 966: 955: 941: 925: 915: 905: 895: 877: 835: 601:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

587: 576: 557: 546: 511: 500: 489: 475: 457: 440: 427: 423:

Obviously I didn't realize that. If it comes off badly I'll change it.

417: 397: 364: 354: 339: 328: 306: 296: 271: 251: 237: 227: 207: 182: 172: 162: 144: 126: 112: 1248:. I think we could certainly use your guidance, as I'm pretty certain 1160: 1078: 521: 377:

to accept something like my reformulation of his insights, placed as a

853: 1989: 1527:), with a scalar, det(0); a sub-point of this is that even replacing 793: 1625:

ones, they could be easily expressed more briefly in the context of

827:

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on

1997: 1198:

Hi Ryan. Given your recent comments, I just thought you mind find

775: 2032:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

809:

Your contributions make Knowledge better -- thanks for helping.

1774:

Also let's continue this discussion in the article's Talk page.

1102: 1053:

It's OK to have your pet articles, just remember that you don't

1386:(with coefficients taken from the characteristic polynomial of 507:

thanks to you for spending so much thought on the AfD. Cheers,

373:

The AfD debate was inconclusive, but I am still trying to get

324:

concept, not a formal theory that arguably incorporates it. --

1378:

the (before last) expression that shows that the adjugate of

868:

User:Helgus/Theory of random events (mathematical eventology)

520: 1736:, and then show that the evaluation map is a homomorphism). 103:

Thanks, I never noticed the warning box in infinity symbol.

1860:

at some point in the discussion (see the contributions of

1131:

satisfying certain additional conditions, and likewise a

481:

Too bad...it really would have been a good insult. :-)

1218:

This really is absurd. At least the article was moved.

1290:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists

831:. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- 982:

P.S. Help out with the Math collaboration of the week

1675:

is literally the matrix-with-matrix-entries which is

1535:

on the right requires one to reconcile three things:

1455: 1880: 816:

on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on

196:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics#By inspection

530:

Common misconceptions in probability and statistics

194:Hi Ryan. I started a discussion on this article at 1503: 2024:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1471: 594:Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 937:Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- 1907:See my comment on the Grothendieck talk page. 288:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants 1320:have any matrix of the same size as adjugate. 8: 1771:but this doesn't really give you much help. 29:Here are some tips to help you get started: 1922:TUSC token 586f1edd864d37b8a89eae0a31d5f150 921:Well, I put it up and structured it a bit. 26:! Hope you like it here, and stick around. 1366:I regret the disappearence of some points 1484: 1454: 1447:; and, direct evaluation of the equation 198:. I wonder if you could comment. Thanks. 1881:I've been avoiding this for too long.... 1800:, perhaps you could offer an opinion. 1499: 1356:) needs more thought than is suggested. 1252:won't become a guideline any time soon 1097:"A property or condition is said to be 61:Eventually, you might want to read the 1241:the only presently available guideline 1073:Hi, I noticed your undo of my edit to 286:Dude surely you must add your name to 1504:{\displaystyle p(t)=\det(tI_{n}-A)\,} 1145:Did you have something else in mind? 528:Many thanks for your stellar work on 346:Three forms of mathematical induction 44:, and feel free to experiment in the 7: 1292:. Please offer your thoughts thanks 1234:Inherent notability and FritzpollBot 406:not sure you realize how that sounds 267:your comment in a very old section. 1940:an alternative to flagged revisions 1558:gives a matrix with matrix entries; 136:You realise you have to create the 1410:Thanks for replying! My response: 1092:It looks to me like what you said: 82:, and, most importantly, have fun! 14: 2050:review the candidates' statements 1554:on the diagonal, so substituting 1239:sources to verify notability per 615:Independence (mathematical logic) 603: 389:. (I've been talking to Hardy at 1962:QED dab (quantum electrodynamcs) 393:, so please check there, too.) 74:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 2056:. For the Election committee, 2026:Arbitration Committee election 2017:ArbCom elections are now open! 1810:14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 1496: 1474: 1465: 1459: 1: 2066:12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1994:Gromov's compactness theorems 1970:(that's a very short topic). 1934:Flagged revisions alternative 1917:04:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC) 1898:08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 1876:08:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1246:User:John_Carter/GEOBOT_group 340:07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 329:23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 307:23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 297:22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 238:04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 228:01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 208:02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 127:19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1957:04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1519:leads to equating a matrix, 1327:before I edited the article 1184:03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1169:20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1155:21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1087:07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1041:17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 1020:16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 183:18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 173:18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 163:18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 2052:and submit your choices on 1769:Integration by substitution 1382:is in fact a polynomial in 829:the SuggestBot request page 387:Talk:Mathematical induction 272:19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 252:19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 145:20:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2081: 2058:MediaWiki message delivery 1926:I am now proud owner of a 1550:is a diagonal matrix with 1439:(in my notation), because 926:16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 916:15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 906:04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 896:04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 854:session E22 on eventology. 824:, SuggestBot's caretaker. 727:Conway's orbifold notation 606: 398:19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 154:Thanks for the rewrite at 95:23:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) 1973:It's a hard one to call. 1787:13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1757:Change of Variables (PDE) 1716:As for the fact that Adj( 1584:multiplied by the matrix 1305:14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1277:21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1262:12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 889:Glossary of scheme theory 878:04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 873:Thank you in advance:) - 836:04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 717:Implicit function theorem 710: 685:Whitney immersion theorem 645:Restricted representation 512:01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 501:01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 490:01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 476:01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 458:01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 441:01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 428:01:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 418:01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 365:17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 355:16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 158:. It's much improved. -- 55:, post a question at the 2010:17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2005: 1983:16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 1751:17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 1746: 1443:is not in the center of 1405:20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1272: 1228:22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1223: 1213:22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1179: 1150: 1115:"Finally, the adjective 996:02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 978:01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 967:00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 956:00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 942:00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 588:21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 577:16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 558:02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 547:02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 113:19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 80:be bold in editing pages 789:Differentiable manifold 391:User talk:Michael Hardy 282:wikiproject mathematics 67:Policies and Guidelines 33:To sign your posts (on 1605:multiplication into a 1505: 1142: 1133:strongly regular graph 1107: 1003:Image:tinfoillinux.jpg 863:User:Helgus/Eventology 818:SuggestBot's talk page 525: 383:Mathematical induction 2030:Arbitration Committee 1815:Algebra stub template 1798:talk:manifold destiny 1720:) is a polynomial in 1568:That if we interpret 1506: 1113: 1095: 705:Poincaré–Hopf theorem 690:Cartan–Kähler theorem 670:Stiefel–Whitney class 524: 118:Iowa class battleship 1659:) is to be the zero 1453: 1298:♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 984:Mathematical physics 758:Free Boolean algebra 665:General linear group 620:Elementary embedding 2034:arbitration process 1194:Inherent notability 1075:Mathematical jargon 1069:Mathematical jargon 781:Operation Ivy Bells 214:Mathematical jargon 2046:arbitration policy 1903:Agent provocateur? 1593:, substitution of 1580:as the "quantity" 1501: 1500: 1283:Creating geo lists 986:if you have time! 675:Partition of unity 625:Nash-Moser theorem 526: 313:limitation of size 140:page now, I hope. 1945:flagged revisions 1012:Tinfoil Hat Linux 806: 805: 640:Robert M. Solovay 635:Artin reciprocity 574: 564:Did I offend you? 138:Phillip Griffiths 99:24 hours in a day 2072: 1792:manifold destiny 1510: 1508: 1507: 1502: 1489: 1488: 1397:Marc van Leeuwen 1302: 1301: 1125:strong antichain 1005:copy to Commons? 932:Mathematics CotW 841:Helgus’s request 753:Erlangen program 745:Kernel (algebra) 740:Ramsey's theorem 735:Fubini's theorem 604: 573: 485: 223: 156:Zariski topology 150:Zariski topology 142:Charles Matthews 2080: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2054:the voting page 2020: 1964: 1936: 1924: 1905: 1883: 1868:Topology Expert 1817: 1794: 1759: 1695:, and with the 1691:, evaluated at 1686: 1609:multiplication. 1592: 1579: 1549: 1480: 1451: 1450: 1312: 1310:Cayley–Hamilton 1295: 1294: 1285: 1236: 1196: 1071: 1007: 949: 934: 913:Jakob.scholbach 893:Jakob.scholbach 885: 843: 820:. Thanks from 763:Squeeze theorem 655:Takens' theorem 596: 566: 519: 483: 408: 348: 315: 284: 221: 217: 200:Oleg Alexandrov 192: 152: 134: 120: 101: 63:Manual of Style 12: 11: 5: 2078: 2076: 2023: 2019: 2014: 2013: 2012: 1963: 1960: 1938:I came across 1935: 1932: 1923: 1920: 1904: 1901: 1882: 1879: 1854: 1853: 1846: 1845: 1816: 1813: 1793: 1790: 1758: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1738: 1737: 1713: 1712: 1682: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1621: 1620: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1588: 1575: 1566: 1559: 1545: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1428: 1427: 1418: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1341: 1324: 1321: 1311: 1308: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1235: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1119:or the adverb 1112: 1111: 1094: 1093: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1031: 1030: 1006: 1000: 999: 998: 970: 969: 948: 945: 933: 930: 929: 928: 909: 908: 884: 881: 871: 870: 865: 842: 839: 804: 803: 802: 801: 796: 791: 786: 783: 778: 773: 768: 765: 760: 755: 750: 747: 742: 737: 732: 729: 724: 719: 714: 709: 708: 707: 702: 697: 692: 687: 682: 677: 672: 667: 662: 657: 652: 647: 642: 637: 632: 627: 622: 617: 612: 610: 595: 592: 591: 590: 565: 562: 561: 560: 518: 515: 504: 503: 493: 492: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 446: 445: 444: 443: 431: 430: 407: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 368: 367: 347: 344: 343: 342: 314: 311: 310: 309: 283: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 265:</math: --> 257: 256: 255: 254: 241: 240: 216: 211: 191: 186: 176: 175: 151: 148: 133: 130: 119: 116: 100: 97: 84: 83: 76: 70: 59: 49: 38: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2077: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1961: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1933: 1931: 1929: 1921: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1902: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1863: 1859: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1814: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1765: 1762: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1608: 1604: 1601:transforms a 1600: 1596: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1493: 1490: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1468: 1462: 1456: 1449: 1448: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1309: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1291: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1242: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1193: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1141: 1138: 1137:regular graph 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1109: 1108: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1068: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1013: 1004: 1001: 997: 994: 989: 988: 987: 985: 980: 979: 976: 968: 965: 960: 959: 958: 957: 954: 946: 944: 943: 940: 931: 927: 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 907: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 894: 890: 882: 880: 879: 876: 869: 866: 864: 861: 860: 859: 856: 855: 850: 846: 840: 838: 837: 834: 830: 825: 823: 819: 815: 810: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 787: 784: 782: 779: 777: 774: 772: 771:Stephen Macht 769: 766: 764: 761: 759: 756: 754: 751: 748: 746: 743: 741: 738: 736: 733: 730: 728: 725: 723: 720: 718: 715: 712: 711: 706: 703: 701: 698: 696: 693: 691: 688: 686: 683: 681: 678: 676: 673: 671: 668: 666: 663: 661: 658: 656: 653: 651: 650:Spinor bundle 648: 646: 643: 641: 638: 636: 633: 631: 628: 626: 623: 621: 618: 616: 613: 611: 608: 607: 605: 602: 600: 593: 589: 586: 581: 580: 579: 578: 575: 571: 563: 559: 556: 551: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 535: 531: 523: 516: 514: 513: 510: 502: 499: 495: 494: 491: 488: 486: 480: 479: 478: 477: 474: 471: 459: 456: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 442: 439: 435: 434: 433: 432: 429: 426: 422: 421: 420: 419: 416: 411: 405: 399: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 375:Michael Hardy 372: 371: 370: 369: 366: 363: 359: 358: 357: 356: 353: 345: 341: 338: 333: 332: 331: 330: 327: 323: 322:philosophical 318: 312: 308: 305: 301: 300: 299: 298: 295: 291: 289: 281: 273: 270: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 253: 250: 245: 244: 243: 242: 239: 236: 232: 231: 230: 229: 226: 224: 215: 212: 210: 209: 205: 201: 197: 190: 189:By inspection 187: 185: 184: 181: 174: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 161: 157: 149: 147: 146: 143: 139: 131: 129: 128: 125: 117: 115: 114: 110: 106: 98: 96: 94: 91: 87: 81: 77: 75: 71: 68: 64: 60: 58: 54: 50: 47: 43: 39: 36: 32: 31: 30: 27: 25: 21: 20: 2021: 1972: 1968: 1965: 1944: 1937: 1925: 1906: 1884: 1866: 1858:sockpuppetry 1855: 1849: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1795: 1776: 1773: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1647: 1642: 1626: 1615: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1576: 1572: 1569: 1562: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1539: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1422: 1395: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1313: 1297: 1296: 1286: 1237: 1197: 1120: 1116: 1114: 1098: 1096: 1072: 1008: 981: 971: 950: 935: 910: 886: 883:Rational map 872: 857: 851: 847: 845:Dear Ryan, 844: 826: 813: 812:If you have 811: 807: 597: 567: 539:Jitse Niesen 527: 505: 466: 412: 409: 395:Joshuardavis 378: 349: 321: 319: 316: 292: 285: 218: 193: 177: 153: 135: 121: 102: 88: 85: 51:If you need 28: 17: 15: 1862:User:Brwian 1819:Dear Ryan, 975:Cronholm144 953:Cronholm144 947:Abel Rating 939:Cronholm144 749:Add Sources 700:Erich Hecke 695:Moore space 680:Kyoto Prize 660:G-structure 534:User:Helgus 86:Good luck! 2042:topic bans 2002:Ryan Reich 1909:Feketekave 1743:Ryan Reich 1269:Ryan Reich 1220:Ryan Reich 1176:Ryan Reich 1147:Ryan Reich 1038:Ryan Reich 1017:Ryan Reich 993:Ryan Reich 964:Ryan Reich 923:Ryan Reich 903:Ryan Reich 833:SuggestBot 799:Fock state 599:SuggestBot 585:Ryan Reich 555:Ryan Reich 498:Ryan Reich 455:Ryan Reich 425:Ryan Reich 362:Ryan Reich 337:Ryan Reich 304:Ryan Reich 269:Ryan Reich 235:Ryan Reich 170:Ryan Reich 35:talk pages 16:Hello and 2038:site bans 1975:SimonTrew 1930:account! 1890:Fritzpoll 1779:Erxnmedia 1761:Hi Ryan, 1254:Fritzpoll 1129:antichain 1057:them. // 822:ForteTuba 630:Short map 410:Hi Ryan, 352:Slowmover 326:Trovatore 317:Hi Ryan, 132:Griffiths 124:TestPilot 78:Explore, 72:Remember 57:Help Desk 46:test area 24:Knowledge 1777:Thanks, 1121:strongly 1099:stronger 1015:belong. 814:feedback 722:Pullback 509:Melchoir 294:Dmharvey 105:Firedrop 42:Tutorial 40:Try the 1949:Jchthys 1802:Katzmik 1627:correct 1059:Liftarn 1028:Liftarn 713:Cleanup 570:Lambiam 379:section 180:Fropuff 160:Fropuff 19:welcome 2028:. The 1990:Q.E.D. 1850:One of 1844:math). 1661:matrix 1607:matrix 1603:scalar 1250:WP:NPT 1127:is an 1117:strong 875:Helgus 794:NGC 56 785:Expand 767:Wikify 517:Thanks 473:(Talk) 93:(talk) 90:Meelar 1998:Q.E.D 1561:That 1538:That 1340:this. 1205:Jakew 1135:is a 776:Habib 731:Merge 609:Stubs 484:dbtfz 438:Allen 415:Allen 249:Pliny 222:dbtfz 2062:talk 2006:talk 1979:talk 1953:talk 1928:TUSC 1913:talk 1894:talk 1872:talk 1806:talk 1783:talk 1747:talk 1703:) = 1597:for 1416:one. 1401:talk 1335:for 1273:talk 1258:talk 1224:talk 1209:talk 1200:this 1180:talk 1165:talk 1151:talk 1103:even 1083:talk 543:talk 204:talk 109:talk 65:and 53:help 2022:Hi, 1616:did 1531:by 1515:at 1472:det 1435:to 1348:is 1329:all 1055:own 470:C S 381:of 22:to 2064:) 2040:, 2008:) 1981:) 1955:) 1915:) 1896:) 1874:) 1808:) 1785:) 1749:) 1687:- 1648:is 1491:− 1423:is 1403:) 1275:) 1260:) 1226:) 1211:) 1182:) 1167:) 1161:Rp 1153:) 1085:) 1079:Rp 891:. 545:) 468:-- 290:. 206:) 111:) 2060:( 2004:( 1977:( 1951:( 1911:( 1892:( 1870:( 1804:( 1781:( 1745:( 1734:k 1730:A 1728:( 1726:p 1722:A 1718:A 1709:A 1707:( 1705:p 1701:B 1697:A 1693:A 1689:A 1684:n 1680:I 1677:t 1673:B 1669:A 1667:( 1665:p 1657:A 1655:( 1653:p 1643:Z 1599:t 1595:A 1590:n 1586:I 1582:t 1577:n 1573:I 1570:t 1563:A 1556:A 1552:t 1547:n 1543:I 1540:t 1533:A 1529:t 1525:A 1523:( 1521:p 1517:A 1497:) 1494:A 1486:n 1482:I 1478:t 1475:( 1469:= 1466:) 1463:t 1460:( 1457:p 1445:M 1441:A 1437:M 1433:M 1399:( 1388:A 1384:A 1380:A 1354:A 1352:( 1350:p 1346:B 1337:t 1333:A 1271:( 1256:( 1222:( 1207:( 1178:( 1163:( 1149:( 1081:( 541:( 202:( 107:( 69:. 48:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index