User talk:EmilJ

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Hi Emil, Thanks for your recent reverts of my incorrect edits! I was being hasty and made a dumb mistake, which is even mentioned in the reference I found when I looked into it correctly (namely, can’t use a semi, have to use a block). I’ve fixed this at Dangling else and Pascal, this time with a reference – hope it looks good! As ever, feel free to contact me directly if you’d like me to fix anything, though of course that’s not necessary. Happy edits!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, no problem.—Emil J. 12:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will gladly state my point of view on that matter. But you must first start an NPOV-debate on the talk-page of the article. Sapphorain (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EmilJ, I'm contacting you because we need some Czech translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on cs.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Czech Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Cite error math.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 14:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Myrtle. I'm very sorry to have mucked up this article (hopefully very temporarily). I'd like to invite you to take a look at the revision that is up presently. I meant to go back immediately when I saved the revision yesterday and do more work on it but I became distracted. I think the origin and occupation of the cosignatories are related to the agreement in that they are key as to why these particular people were present in Pittsburgh. Do you have more suggestions for improvement? Is there anything that is inaccurate or unclear? Let's make this a great article on a very important topic. Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ML-plakat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've written something in the talk page of the article Czech phonology. I'd be really delighted if you would be so kind as to answer me. Thank you very much indeed, and greetings from Italy. Pio d'Ausonia (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the end of the section Pronunciation of ř. Pio d'Ausonia (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you contributed to Function problem in 2015, and I remember you are some expert in complexity theory. So, maybe you can help me to resolve the {{clarify span}} requests that I just have added. Thanks in advance! Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated part of that section. I Hope it is now more understandable.—Emil J. 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe to almost understand it now. Many thanks!

Your argument about NP generalizes to all classes starting with "N", doesn't it? But then, it isn't obvious to me how an arbitrary decision problem from P can be transformed into a function problem from FP. Unlike for the "N..." classes, there may be no kind of "solution" involved for P. For example, I don't see an FP analogue the P problem "given a number in decimal notation, is it divisible by 3 ?" - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim that decision problems from P can be transformed to function problems from FP. (Well, they can, but not in a useful way.) The class FP is mentioned just to see how it differs from FNP.—Emil J. 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see; thanks again. I was mislead by the earlier version which seemed to claim a general transformation "F(.)", applicable to arbitrary complexity classes. This notation is still used ("F(NP)" in Function problem#Reductions and complete problems, and "F(NP cap coNP)" in Function problem#Total function problems), but now I see that the argument always is an "N..." class or a subset thereof. Maybe it would be helpful if that applicability restriction of "F(.)" was explicitly mentioned (e.g. by appending after the first paragraph of Function problem#Relationship to other complexity classes a sentence like: "Similarly, for every nondeterministic decision problem class Nxxx, there is a corresponding function problem class FNxxx, sometimes written as F(Nxxx)"). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notation F(...) is nonstandard. I haven’t seen it outside Wikipedia, and I frankly have no idea what is ${\displaystyle \mathbf {F(NP\cap coNP)} }$ supposed to mean. Under any reading that I can come up with, it is not equal to TFNP, hence that claim seems to be simply bogus.

The bigger problem with this article is that while “function problem” has some currency, the more common and more precise name of the concept is “search problem”. Now I see that there is a different article of that name, which is even more confusing than this one. They should be merged.—Emil J. 12:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual mess in Wikipedia outside the area of rock stars and sports events! "Search problem" seems to be a mixture of function problem (lead) and search algorithm (rest). I'll start a split/delete/merge discussion at Search problem; we should continue the discussion there. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the page was deleted, then undeleted, and now some discussion is going on at Talk:Search problem#Undone deletion. You might be interested in that. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a proof of quadratic reciprocity on the grounds of copyright violation? That is so weird! Reproduction of a mathematical result does not violate copyright! Then no book can reprint a proof of a previously proven theorem published in an article or mention a previously introduced concept if it was published in an article?! (cf. also preprints in arXiv)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously misunderstand the concepts involved. Copying a large body of text verbatim is most certainly a copyright violation. Of course you can publish a proof of a previously proved theorem, but you have to write it in your own words. Just copying it is both illegal, and a violation of Wikipedia policies.—Emil J. 21:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in your own words" mean if referring to math equations (or a text consisting of 90% math equations)? [Especially if we're talking about a mathematical proof, which by definition you have to do in one certain very specific way only! What in the world would "in your own words" be here?! Your statement "Of course you can publish a proof of a previously proved theorem, but you have to write it in your own words." is flat out self-contradictory and incoherent!! Then it's not that proof (nor can you just "slightly alter" a math proof with it still being a proof, in the first place!), so you just cannot!] And how is it illegal but openly publishing on arXiv isn't? "Copying a large body of text verbatim is most certainly a copyright violation." - I understand in fiction/novels, but this would be really off in math - so one cannot present a formerly existing proof published somewhere ever again?!

Also, looking back at the revision history of this bit, it appears that it has existed for more than a year, with nobody objecting?

It's literally a string of math formulas, not some Warner Bros. copyrighted material, what in the..?! - How can that possibly be illegal to reproduce? - Never have I ever in my 7 years of editing Wikipedia seen anything as ridiculous; if you undo it again, I will undo it back, unless I hear a second opinion from someone more authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EmilJ: Thanks a lot for your beautiful diagrams at Post's lattice, which I've referenced many times.

I'd like to include a version of the lattice with just the clones containing all constant functions, i.e. UM, Λ, V, U, A, M, and ⊤, under Post's lattice#Variants. But I'd like it to be consistent with the other diagrams in the article. Do you have the source for the SVG files that you could direct me how to edit, or would you be interested in creating a diagram for that? Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I created my own file, and added it here: File:Post-lattice-constants.svg. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m busy in real life at the moment, and didn’t have time to respond yet. If you are still interested to make the diagram visually consistent with my original diagram, it shouldn’t be too difficult, but it would have to wait for a few more days. —Emil J. 13:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and not a high priority! I'm fine with keeping it as is (not visually consistent), or if you or anyone else wants to update it that's fine too. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: File:Post lattice with constants.svg. —Emil J. 15:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]