Talk:Nested sampling algorithm - Revision history

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-02-02T00:38:23Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:38, 2 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
	{{~~WPStatistics\|class=start~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Statistics\|importance=low}}
			}}

	==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==		==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

PrimeBOT: /* top */Task 24: template substitution following a TFD

2022-01-17T05:07:56Z

top: Task 24: template substitution following a TFD

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:07, 17 January 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=low}}		{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=low}}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Brigham_Young_University/Physics_416_(Winter_2020) \| assignments = [[User:Hami027\|Hami027]] \| start_date = 2020-03-10 \| end_date = 2020-04-30 }}

			==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
			[[File:Sciences humaines.svg\|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-03-10">10 March 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-04-30">30 April 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Brigham_Young_University/Physics_416_(Winter_2020)\|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Hami027\|Hami027]].

			{{small\|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT\|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT\|talk]]) 05:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==		== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==
	I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.		I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.

Hami027: Update Physics 416 assignment details

2020-03-20T05:19:31Z

Update Physics 416 assignment details

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:19, 20 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=low}}		{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=low}}
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Brigham_Young_University/Physics_416_(Winter_2020) \| assignments = [[User:Hami027\|Hami027]] \| start_date = 2020-03-10 \| end_date = 2020-04-30 }}

	== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==		== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==

134.76.38.64 at 15:45, 4 October 2018

2018-10-04T15:45:27Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:45, 4 October 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:

	If anyone knows Jon Skilling's website please update the link [[Special:Contributions/169.232.151.227\|169.232.151.227]] ([[User talk:169.232.151.227\|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)		If anyone knows Jon Skilling's website please update the link [[Special:Contributions/169.232.151.227\|169.232.151.227]] ([[User talk:169.232.151.227\|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

	== X_i in pseudo-code ==

	hi there,
	is it really correct that X_i=exp(-i/N)? Shouldn't it be X_i=exp(-\theta_i/N)?

	Kind regards --[[Special:Contributions/134.76.38.64\|134.76.38.64]] ([[User talk:134.76.38.64\|talk]]) 15:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

134.76.38.64: /* X_i in pseudo-code */ new section

2018-10-04T15:42:20Z

X_i in pseudo-code: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:42, 4 October 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:

	If anyone knows Jon Skilling's website please update the link [[Special:Contributions/169.232.151.227\|169.232.151.227]] ([[User talk:169.232.151.227\|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)		If anyone knows Jon Skilling's website please update the link [[Special:Contributions/169.232.151.227\|169.232.151.227]] ([[User talk:169.232.151.227\|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

			== X_i in pseudo-code ==

			hi there,
			is it really correct that X_i=exp(-i/N)? Shouldn't it be X_i=exp(-\theta_i/N)?

			Kind regards --[[Special:Contributions/134.76.38.64\|134.76.38.64]] ([[User talk:134.76.38.64\|talk]]) 15:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

169.232.151.227: /* Reference 5 is a dead link */ new section

2017-06-02T22:33:18Z

Reference 5 is a dead link: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:33, 2 June 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==		== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==
	I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.		I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.

			== Reference 5 is a dead link ==

			If anyone knows Jon Skilling's website please update the link [[Special:Contributions/169.232.151.227\|169.232.151.227]] ([[User talk:169.232.151.227\|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bryanrutherford0: Adding importance to statistics rating template

2016-02-14T21:35:14Z

Adding importance to statistics rating template

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:35, 14 February 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=}}		{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=low}}

	== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==		== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==

Bryanrutherford0: Adding class to statistics rating template

2014-03-16T14:04:46Z

Adding class to statistics rating template

← Previous revision		Revision as of 14:04, 16 March 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics}}		{{WPStatistics\|class=start\|importance=}}

	= "Controversy Over Soundness"		== "Controversy Over Soundness" ==
	I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.		I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.

149.97.32.36 at 22:21, 23 May 2011

2011-05-23T22:21:48Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:21, 23 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics}}		{{WPStatistics}}
	== "Controversy Over Soundness"		= "Controversy Over Soundness"
	I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.		I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.

149.97.32.36 at 22:21, 23 May 2011

2011-05-23T22:21:38Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:21, 23 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WPStatistics}}		{{WPStatistics}}
			== "Controversy Over Soundness"
			I'm removing the comment about controversy surrounding the soundness of this sampling algorithm. If you can't go into details or explain why the method is controversial and possibly not sound, then cite a credible reference. Since the method has been peer-reviewed, published, and used successfully in applications, I think a comment like this requires a credible citation per standard Wiki terms/rules.