Elroch

I have changed "almost all physics since his time" to "all modern physics". I didn't want to imply that all post-Galilean physics had a mathemtical basis, but that is certainly true of modern physics. Incidentally, I see from your user categories that you live in Herts - we may be almost neighbours, as I live in Hertford ! Gandalf61 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are two different edit counters, one by kate [1], and one by me [2]. I copied the initial look of Kate's, which is why they may look confusingly similar, but they do have different features (mine is the one with more graphs, Kate's is more helpful if you misspell someone's username). --Interiot 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome! A remark. Per the math style manual, variables should be either italic, like this: x, or in math tags, like this: ${\displaystyle x}$ . I will now fix this at orientability. Thanks, and I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I replied on my talk page about the font issue. Thanks for your work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The semi-colon - colon setup is for making definition lists:

A

The first letter

B

The second letter

etc. When I made the changes it worked fine, but it seems the parser has changed since then. ed g2s • talk 12:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's possible that s/he was mixing this up with another statement (but I regard this as unlikely). It goes like this. Consider the statements

• (A) ${\displaystyle \pi (x+y)\leq \pi (x)+\pi (y)}$  for all ${\displaystyle x,y\geq 2}$  (pi is the prime counting function), and
• (B) there are infinitely many "prime k-tuples" for any "admissible" k-tuple.

What I mean in (B) is that e.g. there are infinitely many twin primes, there are infinitely primes p such that p+4, p+6 are both prime, and more generally for any k-tuple, there are infinitely many of that k-tuple which are all prime, unless the k-tuple is "inadmissible", which means there is some "obvious" congruence condition which rules out all the members being prime. (For example, p, p+2, p+4 is inadmissible, because at least one of them is divisible by 3). Both (A) and (B) sound like pretty reasonable conjectures.... but it turns out that (A) and (B) are incompatible. Unlike WAREL, I have a reference! ("On the incompatibility of two conjectures concerning primes", Hensley/Richards, 1972). I haven't actually read it though, but I remember one of my professors talking about it some time ago. My money is on (B). And I guess it's vaguely possible that (A) has something to do with RH, since both are concerned with large-scale distribution of primes. But probably not :-). Dmharvey 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is a very interesting result but, as you say, almost certainly completely unconnected with WAREL's mysterious proclamation. :-) Perhaps he misunderstood some non-notable publication on arxiv. Elroch 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please comment. John Reid 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. You raised a number of issues on the talk page and I broke them out here. I'd appreciate more suggestions from you, particularly about graphics. John Reid 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've replied. John Reid 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've filed an RfC against User:WAREL. I listed you as a person who had attempted resolution with him, but it was called to my attention that it would have been better to let you add your own name if you were interested. So I've removed you from the list. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elroch, thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. I am watching the Prime number article quite closely, because I think it is an important topic that should be brought to featured article status eventually, but it requires a lot of cleanup, reorganisation, etc. My contributions to the truncatable prmes was only a drop in the ocean... Cheers, Schutz 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Elroch! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Thanks for expanding the entry on pseudocompactness

Vipul

Vipul 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow futures trader...

Please vote on the name change of article Edward Seykota , please vote here Talk:Edward Seykota wether you Oppose or Approve.
Thank you.
Trade2tradewell 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elroch and thank you for your comment on my talk page. The main reason why I believe that there is no solid scientific evidence for trends in stock markets are the writings of Burton Malkiel. If such trends existed, they would also have to be impossible (or at least very difficult) to detect other than in retrospect, as traders would otherwise sell their stocks at the beginning of a "downtrend". I agree with you that the question is interesting, but not that "everyone with a common sense can see" that e.g. Nikkei 225 "was in downtrend for some time". If I generate a couple of hundred Wiener processes on my computer I would also see some which appear to be trending.

To show that I am wrong and that there really are trends in markets, it would be good to start by elucidating what a trend is, i.e. defining the concept. I would argue that knowledge of the direction of the market over some time T in the past should help you determine the direction of the market tomorrow. Once a definition is in place the criteria can be tested against the Nikkei 225 and compared to the probability of obtaining the same outcome from aptly chosen stochastic processes that do not exhibit trends. Finally, this probability has to be weighed against the fact that you choose the Nikkei 225 because you believe it exhibits trends; there are several hundred stock markets in the world and with so many realisations of stochastic processes some might exhibit trending by chance even if the underlying processes lack trends.

Once again, thanks for your interesting comment. If you can prove conclusively the existence of trends in financial markets I would indeed be most interested in hearing about it. Filur 12:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You originally claimed that the non-existence of trends had been proved. Do you still assert this? Above, you claim that trends could not exist because if they did exist, traders would get in at the start of them. This is a surprising claim relying on more than one incorrect assumption. Firstly, if this was true, it would not prevent trends occuring, it would just make them happen more quickly. Secondly, this is exactly what does occur in market crashes (highly directional fast falls in a market that are short term trends by any sensible definition). Thirdly, traders have a continuum of thresholds of response, which is why trends do not occur instantaneously. Traders do respond to price: some respond in a way which makes them consistently profitable, others respond in a way which loses them money. It is the aim of a trader to fall into the first class.

You are right to point out that trends occur in random data: I have produced many such data sets and have noticed some that most people would identify as having a strong trend. I don't view the existence of trends in the market as the key thing that makes it possible to make money. The question of whether markets trend, or more precisely whether they trend more than a random walk (which we would probably agree exhibits trends with a frequency determined by probability, but is not tradable), is not the most important one. The question is whether the market will sometimes reach identifiable situations where the probability of a particular trend is high enough to make it profitable to trade. All directional traders believe this, and those that are consistently successful provide strong evidence that it is true.

One thing that makes this true is that markets sometimes become overbought and oversold on some time scale. For example, the NASDAQ was overbought according to fundamentals at the start of 2000, due to a huge preceding bull market, where traders showed little concern for conventional value metrics. The resulting correction produced a series of shocks throughout a bear market (this is why I selected this example). The NIKKEI is similar, but looking at the chart, there were two downtrends in the move down from 40,000 to less than 8,000 with a lengthy consolidation between them. The first one is the one I would choose as a key example, resulting from an overbought market (the second phase could be viewed as due to coupling to the US markets which went into a bear market from 2000). The move up in the US markets and many others from lows in 2003 could be viewed as the opposite situation, on the grounds that stocks had become attractively cheap. This ensuing uptrend was very strong for some time.

Of course practical short term traders seek small trends within such huge trends, but I think I have rambled enough for now. Elroch 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

A while back, I devised what I think is an interesting way to express interests without Userboxes, templated or not. They are User Interest Lists. They allow for freedom of speech on User pages, while eliminating the social networking that creates dangerous currents of conflict on WP. They are slowly catching on as you will see from the short but growing list of users using them. (There's also no rule saying you can't use both boxes and the list!) Go have a look and give me your feedback. Thanks! - Nhprman 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for drawing my attention to something new, although to be honest the main reason I have any interest in userboxes is as a way to share nice graphics. It's great to meet someone here from such an interesting corner of the world! Elroch 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Before i saw the talk on Jimbo's Page i have been subst the template using WP:AWB. Only 55 more pages to go. Sorry if i'm doing Irreversable Damage but as we say

If you cant Keep it Subst it

--E-Bod 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What you are doing is a far more sensible way to implement the policy against userboxes of certain types than deleting them. I am pleased to have made use of (my derivative of) your replacement for the userbox. Elroch 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This user supports the use of green energy.

Hi ElRoch,

I thought I would consult someone before editing it in. I picked you at random. I would like to know if you would agree. I intend to add to Line 2 of article Plane the following:

"Intuitively it may be visualized as a flat infinite sheet of paper" of zero thickness (add italicized text)Subhash 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Read Plane (mathematics) instead of Plane

Subhash 16:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think your suggested wording is an improvement. Elroch 00:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is an improvement drive for the Ed Seykota article; you have contributed before. I am requesting your help!
Trade2tradewell 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

About a month ago you removed some population figures because you said they were unreferenced. I was slightly confused by this as both numbers are referenced in the footnotes (272,000 in 2000 - http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/cites.html and 400,000-660,000 in 2003 - http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2001_2005/press/afele.pdf) Makgraf 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your useful observation. Looking back at the version I edited, I failed to notice that footnote 2 contained 3 separate references. However, there is a more fundamental problem with these figures. While they can be referenced as estimates of elephant populations, it is completely implausible that the 2000 and 2003 estimates are correct. It is clearly not credible that the world population of elephants increased by between 50% and 100% in three years. Elroch 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Elroch 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, sorry I didn't see you'd written here. The difference between the 2000 and 2004 figures is because there have been increases in Botswana, Tanzania and Zimbabwe; more elephants are entering protected areas where surveys and conducted and a larger area was covered in the 2004 survey. Makgraf 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas -  uriel8  (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Elroch, 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. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elroch how're you?

I will probably end up removing your entry to anti-carcinogen for several reasons. One the article is about anti-carcinogens not carcinogens. Secondly you haven't stated what chemicals cause cancer. What do you mean by 'some chemicals must'? Carbon monoxide is a known carcinogen, smoking will always have a cancer risk attached to it. However there is a lot of evidence out there that smoking cannabis does not lead to cancer. http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071226004546.htm

Dr. Donald Tashkin study proves how marijuana doesn't increase chances of lung cancer at all. A whole interview with the doctor is on youtube, just type "marijuana lung cancer study" or you can find the article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000

I could put all that crap on the article but what's the point? The article is about known anti-carcinogens, there is little point in talking about the carcinogenic activity of carbon monoxide and placing the blame on that carcinogenic effect on smoking cannabis. Are you aware you can vapourise or eat cannabis and cut out smoking altogether. Cannabinoids are not carcinogens.

Also some links you may be interested in.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n0... On this video filmed in 2006, Dr. Robert Melamede, Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado, explains how the body's Endo-Cannabinoid system (and plant based Cannabinoids as suppliment) kills cancer cells and inhibits tumor growth. Refering to 1974 U.S.government-sponsored study when THC was found to slow growth of cancer cells http://projectcensored.org/publicatio... and to recent research in Spain finding that THC stopped brain tumors in rats and protected surrounding nerve tissue, demonstrating neuroprotectant aspect of Cannabinoids. PDF of Dr. Guzman's research: http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-C... Refering to "Homeostatic Regulation" of several body systems by Cannabinoids, Dr. Melamede concludes that Cannabis is indeed a "Miracle Drug", also recommending hemp oil as excellent source of EFAs the body needs to fight disease. View Dr. Robert Melamede at 2004 Cannabis Therapeutics Conference: "Holistic Biochemistry of Cannabinoids" http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... Dr. Guzman will be at the 2008 Cannabis Therapeutics Conference this April. More info: http://www.medicalcannabis.com

And a short video by Robert Melamede of the university of Colorado. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg Supposed (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your views, Supposed. It is true that there is published work that disputes that smoking cannabis causes cancer. However, an unbiased review of the literature finds considerable support for the view that it probably does, which is not surprising, given the cocktail of active chemicals it sends straight to the lungs. Of course this is quite separate from the evidence that use is associated with other respiratory diseases, and the very solid evidence that it causes mental disorders (which is likely to be due to the main constituents). As a result there is is little point in my opinion discussing the medical benefits of smoking cannabis, as the side effects alone are too serious. The chemicals in cannabis are a different matter, but it seemed important to not allow readers to be given the impression that there is evidence of overall benefits to health from smoking cannabis, which appears to be wishful thinking by some partakers. However, your statements refer only to the individual chemicals, so this is not really necessary.

Perhaps more significantly, the article is about "anticarcinogens", not about anti-cancer drugs, which is the application proposed in a reference you proposed. The term "anticarcinogen" is not very widely used, but it more commonly (and correctly) used about agents that prevent the causing of cancer, rather than about chemicals that act against cancers and precancerous cells. I take the blame for having expanded the introductory definitions rather too broadly. Elroch (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok Elroch no problem. I would like you to find evidence though that the actual chemicals in cannabis cause cancer. Lastly "the very solid evidence that it causes mental disorders (which is likely to be due to the main constituents)." This is not true. There is certainly not solid evidence that consuming cannabis causes mental disorders, the jury is still very much out on this. However just as with cancer, the media tend to exagerate the research which links the two together whilst ignoring the evidence which says it does not. A good starting point, is to consider how the international rates of schizophrenia and related mental illness have barely changed since records began. If cannabis caused schizophrenia we would be seeing an epidemic of schizophrenia because cannabis use has increased over the last 50 years. I believe these rates are also lower in Holland where cannabis has been dercrimilinised. Note also that CBD is an anti-psychotic and second only to THC in the composition of cannabis. *Cannabidiol One of the main psychoactive components of cannabis. A recent study has shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating schizophrenia. [3]Supposed (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Searches on pubmed.org make it very difficult to believe that chronic smoking of cannabis does not cause a wide range of health problems [4], unless one is predisposed to believe otherwise, due to some motivation to favour cannabis. I consider myself neutral, as I have no particular bias. Some of the components of marihuana may well have therapeutic value in carefully chosen doses, but regularly breathing in the cocktail of chemicals as smoke causes several well-documented health problems. General respiratory problems arise from regular breathing in of any kind of smoke (even cooking fires in primitive societies), and the unlikely idea that marihuana has magic components that avoid any such problems are wishful thinking [5] (Dr. Tashkin points out the dangers other than lung cancer) [6]. There is solid evidence of increased risk of certain cancers associated with smoking cannabis. Theories that those predisposed to such cancers are inclined to smoke more marihuana instinctively (but it it does not succeed in reducing their risk) are far-fetched to say the least. [7][8][9] [10]

And you probably noticed that the scientific American article that you referenced, which carefully selected Tashkin's one negative finding, referenced another article showing a fourfold increase in depression among cannabis smokers, in line with findings for the use of other drugs that stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain directly. [11]

Perhaps slightly more relevant to the article on anticarcinogens is the point made in [12] that there is as yet no evidence cannabinoids having anticancer effects in humans, (only in vitro and in mice), and points out some effects of cannabinoids that are detrimental to cancer sufferers.

Please can you check this edit [13] to "Entropy (arrow of time)"? You've got Skype installed, and it has a browser add-on that causes problems. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Philip. I noticed that the skype add-on could cause problems and de-activated it before submitting any edits. Unfortunately, the provisional edit I had made before noticing the problem was cached, and I submitted this afterwards. The error has now been corrected, and with the skype plugin deactivated should not occur again. Elroch (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Elroch, I see you have been on Wikipedia as an editor much longer than I have. I appreciated your comments on the William Sidis talk page about high IQ estimates. There are actually quite a few articles about IQ testing or IQ scores on Wikipedia that need a perspective like that. I have been compiling a bibliography on IQ testing and related subjects in my user space, and I see that until just now I forgot to make the William Sidis talk pages one of the pages that link there so that editors can find out more about the subject of IQ testing before editing articles. I'd love to hear from you if you have any suggestions for that bibliography. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Elroch, this is to let you know that your edit conflicts with BLP owing to the quality of the source. It is a gossip blog, nothing to use professionally to comment on returns. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". It would be setting a precedent. In addition using that post without Taleb's published response to it would be severely unbalanced. However there can be a lot of sources of criticism about the subject of the bio & I am sure you can find real news sources for that. Happy new year.

This is what Taleb said about these blog (never press) articles and it needs to be adjoined to every criticism (by bio standards):

"Most of the smear campaign I mentioned earlier revolves around misrepresentation of the insurance-style properties and performance of the hedging strategies for the barbell and “portfolio robustification” associated with Black Swan ideas, a misrepresentation perhaps made credible by the fact that when one observes returns on a short-term basis, one sees nothing relevant except shallow frequent vari- ations (mainly losses). People just forget to cumulate properly and remember frequency rather than total. The real returns, according to the press, were around 60 percent in 2000 and more than 100 percent in 2008, with relatively shallow losses and profits otherwise, so it would be child’s play to infer that returns would be in the triple digits over the past decade (all you need is one good jump). The Standard and Poor’s 500 was down 23 percent over the same ten-year period. The Black Swan 2nd Ed., p 371"IbnAmioun (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

IbnAmioun, you are attempting to subvert the balanced presentation of views on Taleb and his works, with a fervour that is most consistent with you having misrepresented your identity to Wikipedia. Claims that the article concerned is a "tabloid" article (an outdated and inaccurate term) or a "blog" (misleading, as it is an article in a periodical) is a distortion. What matters is that Business Insider is a widely read web periodical, and that the views have been expressed in an article in this periodical. Your argument that the source is invalid and appears to be motivated entirely by an admitted positive bias concerning the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not required to pander to the vanity of its subjects.

Your quote from the Black Swan contains an example of sloppy thinking very similar to that found in the discussion of the article about Empirica. It is unscientific to wave one's hands and guess numbers, and is not good enough for Wikipedia. Some of us have higher standards, and you should attempt to join us. Elroch (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you feel that the views expressed in the Business Insider article are inaccurate, you need to add a viewpoint from another verifiable source that contradicts the views and contains more than cherry picked, rounded statistics. Elroch (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please note that wikipedia is not a vanity place, but not a platform for a smear campaign and that the subject of the bio has commented on this article and has the rights to have his counter posted. Thank you. IbnAmioun (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The viewpoints of the subject of the biography are very welcome in the talk page, where they would surely be treated very seriously by all contributors. Wikipedia discourages the subjects of biographies from contributing material to biographical articles, as it is difficult to be NPOV. The quote you gave from the Black Swan is no more than a guess that may or may not be correct, and does not carry the weight of a proper calculation. If you feel that the views expressed in the Business Insider article are inaccurate, WP:V suggests you add a viewpoint from another verifiable source that contradicts the views, and preferably contains more than cherry picked, rounded statistics. Surely you can find such a source, from your privileged position? Otherwise your objective appears to be to ensure the data in the article to be more flattering than complete data would be. Elroch (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A few points: You should sign edits to Talk pages using ~~~~. Also, the best way to link to a template is to use the wikilink in the Template namespace [[Template:citation needed]] rather than the external link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed|'''''citation needed''''' template]. Finally, book citations should generally contain page numbers.

"If you believe a statement to be false or completely out of place in the article, it should be moved to the discussion for the article with an explanation. It is only vandalism or other genuinely worthless contributions to Wikipedia that should be simply reverted." Perhaps. I don't think that a statement has to be "completely out of place" in order to not improve an article. My standards are higher when the article is of high quality than if it is middling or poor. First-move advantage in chess is a good article, so the standard for edits to it is higher. I'll discuss the specific details at Talk:First-move advantage in chess#The modern view. Quale (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Root group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This and the closely related abelian root group are unsourced and appear to be original research. Google scholar and google books finds zero relevant hits for "p-root group". The definitions I can source are either a group associated with a root datum, or a group in which for every n, every group element has at most one nth root. Neither has much connection to what is written here.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have made a critical comment about your edit at Talk:First-move advantage in chess#Problems with the recent NCO edit on Nimzovitch-Larsena and Owens. Quale (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2015 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply