User talk:Deimos 28

Welcome!

Hello, Deimos 28, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

context-setting[edit]

Hello. Please note that Wikipedia deals with a large number of subjects. One should not begin an article by saying "Let X be a parametrized family of probability spaces that ..." etc., before informing the reader that the article is about mathematics or statistics rather than poetry, 18th-century chemistry, theology, music, politics, chess, etc. E.g.,: "In statistics, a robust estimator is a ....". Also note that one should set the title word or title phrase in bold at its first appearance. Michael Hardy 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Setting the context[edit]

Hi there,

First of all, the capitals in the titles were put in on purpose: it is not uncommon practise and was required of me when I wrote my thesis. Anyway, I don't think it's a major issue and I don't really care either way. However, I will abide to putting words in bold at their first occurence and specify what the context is in future articles, as I consider it to be good advice.

Then, as far as introductory passages are concerned, I sometimes write them and sometimes not - it depends how much courage I have on a given day... Of course, I think there *should* be an introductory passage of some sort and I'm quite happy for other people (such as yourself for example) to write it if I haven't. I don't think the author of an article should be responsible for a complete coverage of the subject, nor for a perfect article: if you think something needs rewriting, feel free to do it. If I disagree, I'll tell you as I've put a watch on all the articles to which I have contributed.

In the former version of the estimator article, you didn't define what $\theta$ was (or ${\hat {\theta }}$ for that matter...): I consider that setting the context isn't merely to put a few hand-wavy explanations at the beginning of an article, but also to define precisely the mathematical beings you're using so that the reader knows what you're talking about (which is the only thing I like about maths actually).

Wow[edit]

You are really doing great over on Regression analysis. Thanks again. James S. 12:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As I more or less messed it up in the first place, I'm trying to do things cleanly now... At least, it showed me I really didn't have a clue what regression was about... ;)

Least-squares article[edit]

You're welcome, though I did little more than close the AfD according to consensus. Hopefully the AfD comments actually helped you improve the article, and no hard feelings came about :-) --D e ath phoenix 22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier Series[edit]

Hi, your edits at fourier series are of course welcome. But keep in mind that conventionally, these pages should be constructed from least complicated to most complicated concepts. Some of your edits make the content that was simple, into content that may conform to the norms of formal mathematical definition, but are much more difficult to interpret. Please keep in mind the audiance that will be viewing these pages. Fresheneesz 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced figures[edit]

Image:Data plot women weight vs height.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Data plot women weight vs height.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. +mwtoews 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) +mwtoews 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plot regression women.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Plot regression women.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. +mwtoews 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizations of the exponential function[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added a fifth characterization to the above article, the fact that the exponential function is the only continuous morphism from addition to multiplication. I've seen this proved in a couple of places (e.g. it is a homework problem in Rudin for the reals), but I haven't seen any proof (or even a claim) that continuity is a necessary condition.

Do you have a reference that shows that continuity is necessary, as I suspect it is? Thanks!

(The Wikipedia article is silent regarding whether continuity is necessary, so I'm not challenging the correctness of your edit. It just seems incomplete.)

—Steven G. Johnson 05:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you've proved that the exponential function is the only continuous function satisfying

f(x + y) = f(x)f(y). (*)

and

f(1) = e. (**)

What do you mean by saying continuity is "necessary"---i.e. necesary for what? Necessary for it to be an isomorphism from the reals with addition to the positive reals with multiplication? It's not necessary for that, if you allow the axiom of choice. You can use the seemingly weaker hypothesis of monotonicity. That might superficially appear to mean you don't need continuity, but since it's enough to narrow it down to just one function, and since that function can be shown to be continuous, in that sense continuity is necessary. Now you could ask: How do you show that the unique monotonic function satisfying the identities (*) and (**) is in fact continuous? That could be what is meant by "How do you show continuity is necessary?" But that can't be what you meant since you were assuming continuity. Since Lebesgue measurability and the identities (*) and (**) are also sufficient to narrow it down to just one function. Generally, Lebesgue measurability is a weaker condition than continuity, so you could say in that sense continuity is not necessary, but on the other hand, Lebesgue measurability and the two identities (*) and (**) are enough to entail continuity (since the unique function satisfying those conditions can be shown to be continuous), so in that sense, continuity is necessary. Michael Hardy 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Dragon Norbert in Harry Potter Movie (Goblet of Fire).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dragon Norbert in Harry Potter Movie (Goblet of Fire).jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Periodic identity.jpg[edit]

The file File:Periodic identity.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low-res, no obvious use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]