Misplaced Pages

User talk:Linas

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linas (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 12 August 2006 (→orthomolecular medicine: stop behacing like children!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:06, 12 August 2006 by Linas (talk | contribs) (→orthomolecular medicine: stop behacing like children!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive
Archives


"Was this reviewed?"

On Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) you wrote:

... much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Do you know whether there is some ongoing discussion on such things? (Feel free to reply here; I'm watching this page.) — Nowhither 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect there is, but I know not where. I have noticed that the wikimedia software made an attempt at implementing something like this, but it was either a hack or mis-designed or incomplete. You can see this on newer wikimedia sites, for example . If you look at edit histories, you'll see red exclamation marks denoting unreviewed pages. But you'll also notice that any sockpuppet can reset them, ... so it really doesn't work correctly. So it seems someone thought about it, but I don't know what the status is, or where its going, or who is doing it. You'll have to look up the wikimedia folks.
Anyway, what I really want is actually fancier than what I wrote at the village pump, but I thought I'd keep it simple. I'd happily engage in a conversation with the wikimedia developers if you can locate them. linas 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
To clarify: This site runs the latest version of the wikimedia software, but the review system is turned off because it hurts performance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, it could be written as a fancy SQL query, and that would make the lights dim. Is this MySQL or Postgres? I'm guessing there are ways to make this more efficient, by using status bits of various kinds, requiring table redesigns. No matter, I didn't like the way the red exclamation marks worked anyway; they weren't really useful. linas 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The WikiMedia sites are using MySQL. I was wrong by the way: the feature that you described is called "RC patrol", it's described on m:Help:Patrolled edit, and it seems that it was turned off because anybody could mark an edit as patrolled (as you already noticed, see also this mail and replies). I was confusing it with the m:Article validation feature, which is a more elaborate scheme that is disabled for performance reasons. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. linas 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Original documents for Principle of Least Action

Hi Linas, it's Willow again. I added three of the original documents (along with their translations) in the development of the principle of least action to their respective Wikisources; see my userpage for more details (under "Inter-Wiki stuff"). They still need proofreading by others, but I think they're more-or-less OK for reading, and thought that you might enjoy them. It's strange and interesting how vehemently Euler defends Maupertuis' priority in 1752, when it is clear that Maupertuis asserts his principle in 1744 only for light (not matter) and does so with little justification. Maupertuis' one interesting argument is that space and time should be equivalent but, in the refraction of light, time is minimized (Fermat's principle) but not distance. On that basis alone, Maupertuis asserts that the principle of least action is more fundamental than Fermat's principle. Euler, on the other hand, is the first to assert the principle for material particles, and the first to note its requirement that speed be a function of position alone (i.e., that the particle's total energy be conserved). Euler's later misrepresentation of Maupertuis' achievements is really odd, and almost makes one wonder whether Euler was being blackmailed or trying to gain some professional benefit. But perhaps we're still missing some documents that might shed more light on the story. Willow 11:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to digest this slowly. At Accord des diferntes... you indicate "trouvé à Gallica", but there's no URL ... did you go to the library? Similar remarks apply to the other texts. Lovely picture of the knitter, by the way. linas 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, linas, I like the Bouguereau painting, too; there aren't so many flattering pictures of us knitters!

I translated the part of Maupertuis' 1746 article that concerns mechanics (the first two parts concern proofs of God's existence) and was dismayed to find several things. Maupertuis takes credit for having invented the principle of least action as a general principle, although it's clear that he proposed it only for light in 1744. He cites Euler's 1744 book and thanks him for his "beautiful application of my principle to planetary motion". Even worse, when Maupertuis tries to apply "his" principle to elastic and inelastic collisions, and to the equilibrium of a lever, he seems to mis-apply it. When you get a chance, could you please look over the latest article and see whether you agree? Perhaps I'm being unfair to Maupertuis. I confess, I'm even beginning to suspect that he didn't know any calculus (e.g., what an integral is); if so, it would be a strange quirk of history to credit him with a principle that relies so much on an integral. ;) Willow 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you want to start thinking about writing an essay on this topic. I'm not sure where to put it: on some blog somewhere, where you can try to generate interest? At a minimum, you may want to post to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of Science, and stir it up there. If you find your essay starts gaining length and heft, then publication is some journal of history starts becoming an option. Anyway, I shall try looking at the translations -- but again, I ask, will I be able to find the Latin originals online? linas 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I copied this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject History of Science. Oh, and so the pressing question seems to become "why did Euler go ballistic in Maupertius defense?" Was he really that forceful? linas 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You might also try "google scholar" to see if anyone has written about Maupertius or lest action recently, and then contacting them for an opinion. I'm trying it now:
Seem like http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Maupertuis+Least+action+history yeilds some good hits.linas 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tim Smith 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Linas, that DrL deleted most of the comment you wrote on the AfD...and moved your opinion to the talk page. Apparently stating one's opinion of what Misplaced Pages should be doing is "libel" now. Funny how none of the abuse poured upon me (about which I complained to no-one) was removed by these kind, concerned, people who are "not personally involved" in the saga, isn't it? Byrgenwulf 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to call someone crazy when they are actually crazy. It is called "telling the truth". Which, by the way, some people seem to find difficult. The political pressure of "being polite", "nice", "avoiding personal attack", etc. is trumped by the need to be truthful and honest, which is more important for the healthy function of a society. linas 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Photovoltaics article

Great edits, much appreciated.Itsmejudith 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you twice remove the engineering stub from Gasification ?

Linas, this isn't a big deal but I would like to know why you removed the engineering stub from Gasification. The first time you removed it, your edit summary called it "link spam". It is neither a link nor spam, so I reverted it. Now, you removed it again and this time your edit summary called it an "inappropriate cat". It is not a category, it is an engineering stub which asks for people to help expand the article. Are you unfamiliar with the use of stubs? Would you please explain why you have now removed the stub twice? Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I recated several hundred articles yesterday, some of them multiple times. The "link spam" comment pertained to the removal on an ergregiously horrid link farm. The "inappropriate cat" referred to Category:Energy and/or Category:Electric power which contained all manner of uncategorized/miscategorized stuff. In this particular case, Gasification does not in any way even remotely resemble a "stub", so I am not sure why you ask about that. Stubs are articles which have only a few sentences to them; any article that is longer than a few paragraphs is not a stub. Now, pick any article on WP, and someone has probably written a book about the topic -- and so, for any article on WP, one could expand it to book length. That does not mean the article is a "stub". linas 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. At least now I understand your reasoning. I would only say that the length of an article is really no indicator of whether or not the article still needs work or expansion. As one who has helped to design gasification plants, the gasification article still needs quite a bit of work in my opinion. If tagging it with an engineering stub is inappropriate, what other tag should one use to ask people to continue work on the article? - mbeychok 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. You might ask over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Engineering. My personal opinion is that of the 15 thousand math and physics articles on WP, 99.9% of them are inadequate, damaged, stilted and incomplete, and need a whole lot of work to whip into shape. I assume similar percentages apply to the engineering articles. But tagging all of them achieves no particular purpose: the only editors who could expand Gasification are those who are both knowledgable, and who are interested, and these editors are presumably rare birds. But if one of them happens upon the article, and chooses to work on it, it won't be because the article was tagged. In WP, one assumes that if its not a Featured article, then of course it needs work and improvement. linas 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Gadzooks, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Engineering is a red link !!! You may want to start this beast, and model it on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics, which have hundreds of participants, and have very lively talk pages debating such issues. See also Category:Science WikiProjects and Category:Technology WikiProjects and Category:WikiProjects. Its high time there was one for engineering. Or perhaps you are just intersted in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Energy development linas 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the great majority of technical articles on Misplaced Pages are incomplete or inaccurate and written by people with no experience in the subject matter that they contribute. I am a retired chemical engineer (visit my User:Mbeychok page). In the 6 months that I've been in Misplaced Pages, I have created 20 new technical articles, completely revised and expanded 17 technical articles and significantly revised and/or expanded 28 other technical articles. I am completely amazed at how few engineers with real world experience contribute to Misplaced Pages. I can only assume that they are too busy earning a living and raising a family to become involved. - mbeychok 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Its the "chicken and the egg" problem: no one contributes until there is something to contribute to. So at first, growth is slow. WP math has more than 10K articles, originally written by lay writers and grad students. Its gained recognition and critical mass, and now there's a number of full professors who are (semi-anonymously) active on WP. I say semi-anonymously, since they still want to make sure they don't look foolish in front of their colleagues, and thus avoid the limelight of having "famous person so-n-so is working on WP". However, the number of WP authors is growing at something like 10% a month, so you may well start finding your colleagues active here in a few years. linas 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilkinson's polynomial

Hi Linas, I replied to your comment on the talk page, you might be interested in reading it. I think we can remove the tag now. What do you think? Julien Tuerlinckx 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I slapped a delete tag on that page. Based on a quick look at the reference that you gave, this article appears to be "not even wrong". I'm hoping you won't contest the deletetion. This sort of stuff is an embarrasment to WP.linas 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I am puzzled by your comment and I am most certainly contesting the deletion. I'm looking forward to hearing some details. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Linas, IIRC Tim Smith (talk · contribs) also threatened you with blocking, so you might be interested in this. ---CH 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere (slashdot?) of a study that purported to show that communities with a good police force and policing policies tend to have a greater number of freedoms, a greater excercise of those freedoms, and a larger range of acceptable and accepted set of behaviours, than communities which are poorly policed. I found this idea fascinating. (A simple, naive example is the ghetto: due to a lack of policing, the residents are fearful of going out, fearful of overt expression in public spaces). Thanks for the note. linas 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see...

RFC: Talk:Hamilton-Jacobi equations (unsigned note from User:Maury Markowitz)

Sorry, can't help. That stuff makes my eyes water and my head spin. I have a different manner of understanding this stuff, whereas User:WillowW, who wrote most of the current version, followed a distinctly 19th-century presentation which I find painful to digest and understand. I am not sure of what the correct textbook definition would be, as the few textbooks I still have on mechanics that weren't lost in a flood present this material in a radically different way. linas 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

orthomolecular medicine

Why do you think that orthomolecular medicine is not pseudoscience? What's the evidence that large doses of vitamins cure cancer and schizophrenia like its proponents claim? -- Cri du canard 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. I am not sure why you are on this crusade, but this whole style of argumentation is inapporpriate. A casual review of the literature will indicate that real doctors and scientists have been carrying on real research on this topic, and publishing on this topic in real peer-reviewed journals, for the last 50 years. Just because you seem to dislike this topic does not mean that it is pseudoscience. Its OK to be dubious or disbeleiving: this is the nature of science. If you don't beleive it, go perform a study, get it published in a journal. But don't just walk into wikipedia and randomly label orthomolecular medicine as pseudoscience. I don't see any evidence that it is, and it seems highly unlkely that such evidence can be produced. linas 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, except I did produce such evidence that mainstream medical organizations have criticized OM as pseudoscience. You deleted it from the article. Nowhere on the talk page do you identify a single incorrect thing stated by my sources. -- Cri du canard 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The ref I deleted is already listed on the orthomolecular medicine page. It does not claim that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. It takes a critical view -- which is very differnt than calling something pseudoscience. FWIW, it also sounded distinctly cranky to me, and not at all unbiased. This guy has it in for orthomolecular medicine. I also note that it is posted on an anti-quackery webste -- in case you haven't noticed, the anti-quacks and debunkers are often as nutty and twisted as the things they are trying to debunk. linas 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that my sources are cranky. They include the American Cancer Society, NIMH, the AAP, the Canadian Pediatric Society, ACSH, etc. Quackwatch is a highly recommended site for this sort of information. I fail to see why these sources are inferior to "orthomed.org", a cheerleader site. -- Cri du canard 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your recent contributions re:orthomed. The "new" editor above, who manuevers through admin pages better than I do, is crying foul & filing complaints while screaming certain epithets. I am not sure of your interest level in this situation or orthomed subjects generally, but I would appreciate any informal mediation or pointers that you would offer. Thank you.--TheNautilus 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)(previously 69.178...)
Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this, and it seemed particularly egregious. The WP process for dealing with such abuse is very slow, and mostly consists of waiting for the controversy to die out on its own. User:Hillman is interested in the general topic of how to curtail the non-science and irrational pseudoscience/quackery edits, but has little in the way of concrete proposals. Its hard to see what to do except on a case by case basis. linas 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I am not "POV-pushing," as you repeatedly accuse me of. I have no objection to Nautilus et al. including their pro-OM claims on the OM page; I recognize that WP:NPOV requires this. I merely request that, as WP:NPOV requires, that the mainstream view of OM as pseudoscience be included with the prominence it deserves as the majority viewpoint. I think the majority viewpoint is correct, but I recognize that this is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, since the standard is WP:V, rather than truth, but everything I've added has been verifiable from an established and legitimate source. Please assume good faith.-- Cri du canard 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything that implies that there is a majority viewpoint that OM is pseudoscience. Not even the few critiques of OM that I've read go so far as to call it pseudoscience. Furthermore, please stop quoting wiki policies at me. Its rude and insulting. linas 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I find your attacks on me to be rude and insulting. How about the Canadian government? Are they neutral enough for you? I didn't pull the idea that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience out of thin air. -- Cri du canard 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't sound neutral at all. The opening sentence is blatently false: "vitamins don't cure any disease"? Oh please, they cure deficiency diseases, such as scurvy, etc. That is inane non-sense and discredits the rest of the page, however weighty the rest of the page may sound. It's like opening a physics tract with the sentence "Einstein was wrong...". All I get from that URL is that a total nutball has access to a Canadian webserver. linas 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the page doesn't say ""vitamins don't cure any disease," you're clearly not interested in a good-faith discussion about this, and I can now assume your edits reflect a bias against mainstream medicine. -- Cri du canard 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As of this point in time, that page states: "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease". Don't state a bald lie, and then accuse me of bad faith. I will support the actions needed to block you from further editing on WP. linas 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like yours above are looked down upon as incivility Linas. Treat others with respect, or it is you who may face a block. Jefffire 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I was not being incivil. Follow the link to the canadian URL. Read the first sentence. It really does state "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) This means that Cri du Canard is a bald liar. If you believe that telling the truth is "incivil", then go ahead and block me.
Furthermore, I have had it with this dispute. I never heard of the topic until a week ago. I tried as best I could to mediate, and now I am accused of incivility. Stop this nonsense now! linas 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a material difference between "vitamins" and "orthomolecular therapy." The OM supporters would surely be upset if their page was merged into vitamins. So I'm not lying. -- Cri du canard 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not. Please don't do that. I have made no proposal to merge the OM article into "vitamins", and I do not deny that there is a material difference between "vitamins" and OM. What I am claiming is that the sentence "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease" is false. That it is false is easily demonstrated. The "orthomolecular therapy" of administering vitamin C for the treatment of the disease scurvy is a scientifically accepted fact. Thus, scienctific research has found a benefit from orthomolecular therapy, and, if you read the page about scurvy, you will see that science accomplished this feat 200 years before Linus Pauling coined the term "orthomolecular medicine". linas 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Orthomolecular medicine holds itself as opposed to conventional medicine. Therefore, a conventional medical cure that happens to involve vitamins is not "orthomolecular medicine," any more than astrology is validated because the moon affects tides. If all orthomolecular medicine was "nutrition" there wouldn't need to be a separate discipline for it. -- Cri du canard 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cri du Canard, I am unable to find any statement in that reference that says that OM is opposed to conventional medicine. Is there a specific sentenence in there that states that? linas 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This discussion is incredible. Linas, you admit that "Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this...." Why then are you so adamant? You're dealing with other editors who may know far more about this than you do. You risk making the same mistake that Pauling did - he claimed expertise in another field than his own. The point has been made several times above that OM is not just the use of vitamins. In your reasoning, you seem to often equate them. You even misquoted Cassileth, and then personally attack a fellow editor, thus failing to assume good faith, calling him a liar, when it was you who misquoted and twisted the meaning of a noted researcher. Here's what you wrote:
"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease".
Your interpretation of Cassileth's quote is very simplistic. (1) "Orthomolecular medicine" is far more than (2) "vitamin supplementation for documented deficiency diseases," something that modern medicine recognizes. The two are treated very differently by the scientific, nutrional, and medical world. They treat OM with suspicion, and classify it as "unconventional." . The BC Cancer Agency page is a summary of the medical literature, and the summary doesn't deal with approved and well-documented vitamin supplemenation for deficiency diseases at all, but expresses complete doubt for OM and megavitamin therapy:
"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth)
That is the modern medical view of OM, and is not at all contradictory with modern medicine's own viewpoint on the need for effective vitamin supplementation in proven cases of vitamin deficiency.
I don't know if I have just wasted my time, but I hope you'll stop accusing other editors of lying and of twisting what you say, like you stated here:
"You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not."
Your accusations above ring pretty hollow, since this discussion reveals that you are the one doing the twisting and that you actually did misunderstand and misrepresent the quote by Cassileth. Calling other editors "total nutball," and liars is unbecoming conduct. An apology is in order (or have I just wasted my time?). -- Fyslee 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, all I can say is that you appear to intentionally misunderstand the nature and the content of the conversation. You, also, appear to twist what I say, as I believe the record of the conversation above is pretty clear. I assume you are trying to muddy and spin-doctor the issue. I am assuming bad faith based on your part, as evidenced by your posting immediately above. Good grief, folks, stop behaving like immature children! linas 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for this...(diff) (hist) . . List of pseudoscientific theories‎; 19:04 . . Linas (Talk | contribs) (→Physics - rm steady-state theory from the physics list. This was once an accepted and even popular theory; it is now a disfavoured/obsolete theory, and not pseudoscience)

I was going to do that, but since I'd been disputing it with another editor, I thought it best not to. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. linas 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool!!!

cool, KKK was funded by the democratic party http://en.wikipedia.org/Ku_Klux_Klan 70.48.251.229 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And why, exactly, is that cool? linas 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals?

Not directly related to Misplaced Pages, but instead concerning your ideas at http://linas.org/theory/seti.html (A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals). I just wonder: Does it spoil your scheme, if the pseudo-random noise bit sequence associated with the PSK-modulation is palindromic (e.g. like 1011001001001101) or "complementarily palindromic" (e.g. like 1011001010110010) in one of its rotations? If not, then the quadratic residues (or non-residues) of a prime (padded with an extra zero or one), might provide a very natural pseudo-random binary sequence associated with each prime. (Maybe not so random as various LFSR-sequences, but probably random enough.) Please contact me at my-firstname.my-surname@gmail.com and I will explain more. Yours, Antti Karttunen.

I see no reason why anything palindromic would spoil things. The only requirement is that the polynomial be prime. I have not thought at all about what polynomials might be considered "interesting"; I suppose palindromic codes could be interesting. Also notable might be anything that has importance to math or relevance to physics. For example, binary Golay codes are particularly notable, because of their relation to the Leech lattice, the monster group and monstrous moonshine. They're a bit short for this purpose, but maybe something longer can be cooked up. Of course, in the end, every possibility must be tried, and that's what makes this hard. Anyway, this is exciting ... I'll try to write tommorrow, or you may reach me at work at my WP user name at austin ibm dot-com. Although I now get too much mail there too :-(. linas 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

your modular groups artwork permission request

Hi Linas,

i discovered your wonderful modular group artwork.

May i have permission to use one of your image, this one: http://www.linas.org/art-gallery/numberetic/disc_re.png for my article on Algorithmic Mathematical Art here: http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t1/20040113_cmaci_larcu.html

Thanks. 

  Xah
  xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/


Xah Lee 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just give me credit (put my name next to it). The particular one that you picked is also already on WP, used to illustrate a few articles, its at Image:Discriminant real part.jpeg, and has a detailed explanation of what it is there. linas 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added your work with credit. Thanks for the explanation on wikip too. Xah Lee 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)