| Revision as of 10:30, 5 November 2012 editKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Inner radius: update and ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:14, 5 November 2012 edit undoKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Inner radius: '''Comment''' A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Illustration_taskforce&diff=454540741&oldid=454389114 All I can say about its illusNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Comment''': I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. <span style="color:#3A3A3A;background-color:#FFFFFF">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray;background-color:#FFFFFF">(], ], ]) </span> 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. <span style="color:#3A3A3A;background-color:#FFFFFF">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray;background-color:#FFFFFF">(], ], ]) </span> 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *:'''Reply''' The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | *:'''Reply''' The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "", in response for a request for an evaluation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- additional votes go above this line --> | <!-- additional votes go above this line --> | ||
Revision as of 11:14, 5 November 2012
Inner radius
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:51:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Best illustration and perhaps the only illustration in the literature, which simply uses the definitions (without illustration). The distinction between inner radius and circumradius explains why the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem is an improvement over the Shapley–Folkman theorem.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Shapley–Folkman lemma
- FP category for this image
- Mathematics
- Creator
- David Eppstein
- Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)