216.80.119.92 (talk) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
BTW, regarding the sentence (in the current version of the article), "In the apparently periodic phases the behaviour is not quite, but only nearly periodic", the appropriate technical term is [[Quasiperiodic motion|quasiperiodic]] (or more precisely, ''almost periodic''). See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation]] for some suggested reading which should be very helpful to anyone trying to improve dynamical systems stubs! HTH ---[[User:Hillman|CH]] ([[User talk:Hillman|talk]]) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
BTW, regarding the sentence (in the current version of the article), "In the apparently periodic phases the behaviour is not quite, but only nearly periodic", the appropriate technical term is [[Quasiperiodic motion|quasiperiodic]] (or more precisely, ''almost periodic''). See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation]] for some suggested reading which should be very helpful to anyone trying to improve dynamical systems stubs! HTH ---[[User:Hillman|CH]] ([[User talk:Hillman|talk]]) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Hillman|CH]] ([[User_talk:Hillman|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Hillman|contributions]]), [http://www.genealogy.ams.org/id.php?id=28250 this is him], may have some personality issues, as he seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites [http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-06/msg02409.html][http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-06/msg02408.html][http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-06/msg02407.html]. This is quite a zealous behavior I have not encountered before. Maybe his above comments can be explained by [[paranoia]], I am not sure -- I am just an engineer and what do I know? |
|||
:Also, visitors should note that [[User:Hillman]] violated one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia -- one that prohibits [[WP:OUTING|harassment]], which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents. |
|||
:First cited article above, 'Bios theory', was deleted after he started spamming user pages and telling other editors there is a ' '''grave concern''' ' in regards to the article. |
|||
:Second cited article above, 'Process equation', was deleted after another user, [[User:ScienceApologist]] ([[User_talk:ScienceApologist|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/ScienceApologist|contributions]]), who is also known to chase 'pseudo scientists' around Wikipedia, was [[WP:STALK|stalking]] [[User:Lakinekaki]]'s edits after disagreements on [[Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories|Fringe theories]] guideline page. |
|||
:Finally, at the time of creation of above articles, they did pass [[WP:N|Notability]] criteria which was still being developed and disputed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=96105192]. However, [[Wikipedia]] is an ever changing encyclopedia where [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines|Policies and guidelines]] also change, and current criteria is more strict. However, these scientific [[pseudoskeptics]] don't go around deleting articles they like and that do not meet new [[WP:N]] criteria. They just go and delete information they dislike. That's the nature of the information 'guardians'. |
|||
:And to add a nice quote from the public mailing list response to CH: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
''I notice that Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics, but that'' |
|||
''Uncle Al seems to regard his role as somewhat similarly "purifying" the'' |
|||
''field.'' |
|||
''None of the Creative Geniuses in mathematics, physics, literature, or'' |
|||
''music that I know of were interested in "purifying the field" to any'' |
|||
''degree comparable to Chris Hillman and Uncle Al. Apparently Einstein,'' |
|||
''for example, whose year we celebrate currently, found it more useful to'' |
|||
''actually Create than to destroy. Ditto for Shakespeare, Socrates,'' |
|||
''Plato, Leonardo Da Vinci, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin,'' |
|||
''the Strausses, etc. '' |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
:Hmm, ... ''Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics'' ... sounds so familiar. Not only did he become former Wikipedian by not surviving ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsymmetry&diff=228476821&oldid=171649160 natural selection]'', but it seems, he is also a 'former' on ''sci.physics''. |
Revision as of 10:48, 1 August 2008
![]() | Systems Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
Hard
Very hard to understand.
Importance
Please do not delete this article. It is a very important concept for example in the physics of turbulence. It should be revised however a better explanation is neccesary.
The basic idea is that things are not always self-similar (repeating if you zoom in, like a broccoli or a christmas tree) but only in certain (intermittent) points. A good example is the devil's staircase which is self-similar if you take a stair but not in the region between the stairs (there you just see a flat line if you zoom in). http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cdm/pics/Devils-staircase.jpg
--Jaapkroe (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A potential WP:COI issue
Intermittency is indeed a widely discussed phenomenon in chaotic dynamics.
However, Wikipedians may need to be aware that the creator of this article, User:Lakinekaki, IRL Lazar Kovacevic, has been involved in several AfDs:
These involve a fringe theory, bios theory, according to which natural selection is dominated by a murkily defined phenomenon the authors call "bios", a kind of neo-Lamarckian/Chardinian "creative influence", allegedly founded in the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. Note that User:Hector Sabelli, IRL Hector C. Sabelli, and Kovacevich have collaborated on several papers on this topic. (You sort of have to read the AfDs to understand the nature of my WP:COI/WP:FRINGE concerns.) ---CH (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, regarding the sentence (in the current version of the article), "In the apparently periodic phases the behaviour is not quite, but only nearly periodic", the appropriate technical term is quasiperiodic (or more precisely, almost periodic). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation for some suggested reading which should be very helpful to anyone trying to improve dynamical systems stubs! HTH ---CH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- CH (talk - contributions), this is him, may have some personality issues, as he seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites [1][2][3]. This is quite a zealous behavior I have not encountered before. Maybe his above comments can be explained by paranoia, I am not sure -- I am just an engineer and what do I know?
- Also, visitors should note that User:Hillman violated one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia -- one that prohibits harassment, which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents.
- First cited article above, 'Bios theory', was deleted after he started spamming user pages and telling other editors there is a ' grave concern ' in regards to the article.
- Second cited article above, 'Process equation', was deleted after another user, User:ScienceApologist (talk - contributions), who is also known to chase 'pseudo scientists' around Wikipedia, was stalking User:Lakinekaki's edits after disagreements on Fringe theories guideline page.
- Finally, at the time of creation of above articles, they did pass Notability criteria which was still being developed and disputed[4]. However, Wikipedia is an ever changing encyclopedia where Policies and guidelines also change, and current criteria is more strict. However, these scientific pseudoskeptics don't go around deleting articles they like and that do not meet new WP:N criteria. They just go and delete information they dislike. That's the nature of the information 'guardians'.
- And to add a nice quote from the public mailing list response to CH:
I notice that Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics, but that Uncle Al seems to regard his role as somewhat similarly "purifying" the field.
None of the Creative Geniuses in mathematics, physics, literature, or music that I know of were interested in "purifying the field" to any degree comparable to Chris Hillman and Uncle Al. Apparently Einstein, for example, whose year we celebrate currently, found it more useful to actually Create than to destroy. Ditto for Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Leonardo Da Vinci, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, the Strausses, etc.
- Hmm, ... Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics ... sounds so familiar. Not only did he become former Wikipedian by not surviving natural selection, but it seems, he is also a 'former' on sci.physics.