Content deleted Content added
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computer science}}
{{WikiProject Mathematics}}
}}
Line 39 ⟶ 40:
:Also, there is no personal site in Wikipedia. See [[WP:OWN]] that begins with {{tqq|All [[Wikipedia]] pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the [[Wikipedians|Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors]]. '''No one''', no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the ''owner'' of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, '''does not''' own the article, '''nor has any right to dictate''' what the article may or may ''not'' say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content.}}
:I never insinuate anything. The truth is that I asked the community of Wikipedia editors whether the page about you should be deleted. So far, all intervening editors (except you) agree that this page must be deleted. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 13:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::> "So, there is no reason for giving an undue weight to Pan algorithm by not mentioning Strassen's one in this sentence."
::I definitely agree. The science development is step by step, at first must be Strassen with 2.807, only later comes Pan with better exponent, around 2.77, but still not "galactic". Also importantly, there are no better results than Pan's which are feasible.
::> "On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969 and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are slightly above and below 2.78, << have constant coefficients that make them feasible.>>"
::The second part <<...>> of the sentence is still:
::- not readable to a typical wiki reader at all
::- contains hidden context, clear only for specialists. (off-topic: My book is intended just for non-specialists, and even non-mathematicians, e.g. engineers in my opinion will be able to understand it if they will want so. Used math tool are as complex as necessary, but no more.)
::Thus Mr Lazar Your sentence still does not comply with certain wiki guideline.
::----Deletion of personal page-------------------------------------------------------------
::> "The truth is that I asked the community of Wikipedia editors whether the page about you should be deleted. So far, all intervening editors (except you) agree that this page must be deleted."
::They got a superficial impression, so for such a case is just a discussion. Look at the holes I filled in a few articles on elementary topics. The area of confluent Vandermonde matrix is too less known up to now. I shall give only one example: it is usable even is such an elementary methods like solving recursive equations by matrix tools. My arXiv work (waiting for review now) enumerates above a dozen (revision will have even more) of elementary applications. But what we have now, in wiki (But already I corrected two articles) and not only in wiki ? Authors are pretending that the case of multiple nodes in Vandermonde does not exists... But the theory on that was mature enough in 1932. Moreover, working on my arXiv I spent months to analyse a few dozens of algorithms to invert them - no one gives quadratic efficiency. Even if published in SIAM (in general N^3), or developed by authors which have monographs on special matrices (saying that it is possible to do in quadratic time, but surprisingly do not write how to do that, write only N^3 algorithm). The article on confluent Vandermonde matrix in wiki is still very poor. Even the definition was without source, I corrected it. But is was devised in 1901..
::The <feasible> algorithms on FMM deserve to be promoted, if We want that the FMM topic will be ever applicable, not only the Strassen's.
::Look deeper into my public activity, there are links to participation in science-policy parliamentary commission(*), advisory board at the government level, press agency news and opening plenary talks at reputable word conferences in Comp Sci/math. It is not typical, when scientists working in math and computer sci participates in public life, especially shaping EU science politics.
::In close years also a few another english-written press agency news will appear.
::I am planning to rework my wiki page since a few years, but I wait for apperance of my book, to include it as milestone in the popularization (do not confuse with science-popular texts) of FMM topic.
::I am also in contact and consulation of my national reputable wiki editor, which advises me how to make my personal page professional, obeying wiki rules.
::Besides, even if deleted I am sure that after another ~5 years my sole scientific results will justify the rebirth. However, I will not reveal my cards.
::(*) British would name it "House of Representatives". [[User:Jerzy.Respondek|Jerzy.Respondek]] ([[User talk:Jerzy.Respondek|talk]]) 19:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The personal page issue should be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerzy Respondek]], not here. Note that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion (see e.g. [[WP:PROMOTION]]). And imo, a scientist should strive to advance science in the first place; in contrast, to become famous, the easiest way is to become a Hollywood actor. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 13:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Sentence ==
I don't understand this sentence: " For n=2 optimal seven multiplications and 15 additions are minimal, compared to only four additions for eight multiplications". [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 00:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||