User:Bob K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Finding subpages 2 Moved images. 3 example 4 two articles for discrete fourier transform ? 5 original research 6 good old days 7 Exponentiation

[edit] Finding subpages

Is there any way to list all the subpages of a specific page?

To find all subpages of Manifold, for instance, go to Special:Allpages and type "manifold/" in the box labelled "Display all pages starting with:" (I learned this trick from R. Koot) -- Jitse Niesen

[edit] Moved images.

[1]

I also went there and changed PD to PD-self, but I didn't realize that I was not logged in, because I wasn't a member of commons. It seemed to work anyway. Is that true? And did I need to do that? If so, shouldn't someone have notified me?... like maybe the person who moved the image? Is is going to stay in one place now? Should I have uploaded it differently than I did? -- Bob K

Since the image contains English text not suitable to http://simple.wikipedia.org/ I think User:Tiaguito's move to commons was wrong, and your original upload was fine. It's not a problem since it still shows up fine in the articles. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-11t11:00z

[edit] example

[edit] two articles for discrete fourier transform ?

Hi Bob. Thanks for your suggestion to create two articles. Stevenj however immediately removed every use of the notation 1^{1 / N} for a primitive N-th root of unity, which is needed in order to avoid the trancendentals e and π and in order to simplify the notation.

StevenJ has no respect for WP:DR. So I cannot have a second article in peace.

The idea is to write an N-periodic sequence a_n as a linear combination of the N-periodic sequences of powers of the N-th roots of unity.

Bo Jacoby 07:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bob. I edited root of unity, but StevenJ opposes it. Please see the history page and the talk page. StevenJ has a know-all attitude, and insists that the articles be technical and confusing. I find it impossible to work under these conditions. I request your advice. Bo Jacoby 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bo. My best advice is to forget about it. But if you are determined to persevere, the advice you really need is how to invoke the "official" Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Or you can probably just go read all about it somewhere. But I advise you to keep in mind that the pay here really stinks. It's not worth the trouble, IMO. If someone wants to shout louder than me, I just let them have their way. My ego can stand it. So anyhow, I am not the one to advise you on dispute resolution. If you do go down that path, you of course have to be prepared to accept the outcome.

Regarding my suggestion to create a new article, it appears you haven't actually tried that. If you do, try not to appear redundant; i.e. don't call it something like Discrete Fourier Transform 2. Look for a new angle to justify a new article. And I guess it has to be non-original. That is where you historically run into trouble, as I recall. But, as always, there is no guarantee of success. That's just part of the deal at Wikipedia. If you can't work under those conditions, you won't be the first to feel that way.

--Bob K 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Thanks for your answer. Last year I did forget about it, until also somebody else called StevenJ's writing technical and confusing. My new short subsection of root of unity is basicly the new article that you suggested, but StevenJ deleted it, commenting that the information is already in the old (confusing) article. This violates the advice of WP:DR. Do you agree on that? The consequence is that the confusing article cannot be improved. This is not my problem alone, but also yours. However, as I read your answer, you do not intend to support me or to go into a dispute with StevenJ (?) and so I am alone, and so I will forget about it following your best advice. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

• Sorry, I didn't realize that WP:DR is the dispute resolution guidance. So that was unnecessary advice. Whether or not Steven violated the guidance... well I would have to read everything you guys wrote, and I would have to read the guidance, and frankly it's just not my thing. It's not what I visit here for. Enough of what I contribute seems to survive to keep me interested. When that is no longer the case, I expect I will simply lose interest, rather than engage in long arguments about rules.
• I should probably clarify that the non-original "rule" is not something that I care about. If I were the rule czar, I would say that original stuff is fine provided it is in a standalone article and clearly marked as original, so those who don't want to read it don't waste their time. Others will probably read it just because it is original. But I also think I understand the reasoning behind the rule. They feel they have to draw a line somewhere, and maybe they are wiser than I. They certainly care more than I do.
• I am not encouraging you to attempt dispute resolution, but I will say that I don't have my mind already made up. I simply have not looked at all the edits in question. root of unity is not a big interest of mine. Similarly, I got invited into a debate over zero-order hold awhile ago, and I kept wondering why I was doing that. I never even read the article before that.

I think you have made the wiser choice.

--Bob K 13:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research

Thanks a lot. I do not know in advance whether an article of mine is original research. When I finally understand something after reading and thinking and experimenting, I may have been the first person in the world to have grasped it, but usually I am not. For example I found methods for computing complex roots of polynomials, and for data modelling and database lookup. I had programmed these methods and tested and used them for years, and I found them competitively efficient and simple and fast. None of them seemed to be described in wikipedia or elsewhere, and so I wrote articles. Fellow editors observed that the method for computing roots is known in the litterature, and so the article changed title to Durand-Kerner method. Fellow editors also observed that the method for data modelling and database lookup did not seem to be known in the litterature, and so the article ordinal fraction was removed from wikipedia. To my fellow editors this is a win-win situation: either they have the triumph of removing my name, or the have the triumph of removing my article. To me it is also a win-win situation: either I have my contribution approved, or I have my claim of originality approved. So this is a win-win-win-win situation. The only drawback is that some editors get provoked and upset and hostile. My trivial observation that the pair of transforms,

x _j = n^−1/2·Σ _k X _k^*·z ^j·k

X _j = n^−1/2·Σ _k x _k^*·z ^j·k

(where z is a primitive nth root of unity, and j and k each take n consecutive integer values, and ^* indicate complex conjugate), is perfectly symmetric, now seem to be original research, much to my surprise. I programmed a fast fourier transform based on this, and I never again confused the fourier transform with the inverse fourier transform because they are the same. How nice! Anybody interested? Apparently not. My observation that the statistical formulas for mean and standard deviation of the induction likelihood distribution, I ≈ F(N,n,i), follows from the corresponding formulas, i ≈ f(N,n,I), for hypergeometric distribution by the transformation (N,n,I,i) → (−2−n,−2−N,−1−i,−1−I), (where N and n are the number of items and I and i are the number of defectives, in the population, N and I, and the sample, n and i), was removed from wikipedia as original research. It is an immensely useful formula, and all the statisticians of the world make computational mistakes when they use approximate methods for statistical inference, because they do not know it. Generally I like to cooperate with fellow wikipedia editors. StevenJ is an unpleasant exception. Bo Jacoby 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

I know exactly what you mean about "original research". I have been confronted with many little "problems" over the course of a 40-year career in applied engineering. Unlike others around me, my first instinct is to look inward, not outward, for the solution. A telling fact is that the literature survey section of my thesis was the weakest part. My advisor had to force me to strengthen it, after my own research was completed. I didn't enjoy publishing, and I don't enjoy reading tech journals.

I have undoubtedly re-invented a few wheels, but I don't care about that. It's satisfying to solve a problem myself, even if I am not the first. Admittedly, I haven't always come up with the best solution. But I always get insight that I wouldn't have gotten by "copying" someone else's answer. I think that justifies my approach in the long run. I have occasionally discovered things that I suspect are unique/original. But I never cared enough to try to find out. Besides, I have always worked in a competitive industry. If I discovered something that gives us an edge, why would I want to blab it to the whole world?

--Bob K 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I got my first job as a programmer in 1969, so I do not have quite the same amount of experience as you do. I must congratulate you of your discoveries that gave your company a competitional edge. In the mixture of cooperation and competition within and amongst companies I found it difficult to apply my discoveries in cooperation with others, so I worked out my solutions alone. I do have a few disciples, however. The number, n, of disciples makes the difference between a fool and a prophet. (n=0) <=> (it's a fool). Creativity and Planning are complementary qualities in a company; new ideas never fit into the plan, so planning kills creativity, although it was not planned that way. Creativity may lead to savings. Offer 5% savings and your client becomes happy. Offer 10% savings and your client gets suspicius. Offer 50% savings and you client gets offended. Offer 90% savings and your client gets furious. Some companies officially welcome creativity, but they are not sincere. So the value of creativity is simply that it is fun. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] good old days

Sounds like we're exactly the same age. I did indeed start programming in 1967. But it was just a summer job, as an undergrad. I graduated in 1969. The computer was a "7700", one of two prototypes discarded by IBM and donated to universities. It had neither a compiler nor an assembler. A couple of grad students were supposedly working on those projects, but I never saw them in my two summers there. And I wasn't even sure what those words meant. My actual introduction to FORTRAN didn't come until junior year, after the first summer. By that time I was proficiently writing programs for basic data analysis, in octal, on punched cards. Looking back, I realize that there must have been a way to single-step through programs, but nobody told me about that concept. I was effectively running in batch mode, although only a handful of people actually used that machine. Anyhow, I learned to be very very careful, because it was easier than trying to figure out what went wrong later. FORTRAN just made it even harder to goof up. So for a long time, I thought that programs should compile and run error-free the first time. And mine usually did, which amazed many people over the years. I still hear stories about it when the old-timers get together.

--Bob K 12:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh those good old days! I guess that I am a couple of years younger than you? (I was born in july 1946). My first computer was the GIER which I experienced at the university. That was fascinating. I joined Regnecentralen in 1969. As my first assignment I coded a procedure for computing the Euler Beta function in ALGOL 60 for the RC4000 computer. We used paper tape rather than punched cards and the ascii alphabet rather that the ebcdic, otherwise I share your experience regarding the benefits of careful and error-free programming, but I made many errors before I reached that level of skill. Programming was done by paper and pencil, and eraser!, and the program was punched using a flexowriter. Then the paper tapes were read by a paper tape reader into the computer, and the output printed on a line printer for further study. Later I learned to code in assembler for the RC4000 and for the NOVA1200 computers. But my invention of ordinal fractions was not until 1980 when I made general-purpose administrative software. It is better than present database management systems, but it is far too simple. Bo Jacoby 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

You are older by 10 months. I feel very fortunate to have been able to experience the good old days. Productivity was lower, but so were expectations. I skipped ALGOL, PASCAL, ADA, and probably a few others I can't remember. Did several assembly languages though, the most challenging being a pipelined array processor (MAP300). Finally discovered C, the perfect language for me. Have managed to avoid the OO bandwagon, C++, and JAVA. When I find something I like, it takes an act of Congress to take it away. Watermelon and grilled hambergers are still my favorite foods. Now it's getting hard to find an old fashioned watermelon (large, with seeds), so I am trying to grow my own.

--Bob K 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exponentiation

Hi Bob. Take a look at talk:exponentiation. The account of definition compatibility in Exponentiation#Powers_of_e has been vandalised. Your opinion is welcome. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC).