Talk:David Eppstein


Autobiography

Written as an advertisement. The biography of a scientist shall be based on comprehensive and deep overview and evaluation of his/her work and research achievements - here in the computer science and mathematics. The only Wikipedia rule applicabe here shall be reject all Wikipedia rules. The evaluation of Eppstein's "greatness" shall be based on the achievements elevating him above mediocricity - if any. My advice to him is to move this article to the user personal page. IHMO, the existing article has no cognitive values. ~2025-40181-31 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in recent edits

@ErnestKrause::

Media Theory: Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics is listed under "Books as editor". It is an authored book, not an edited volume.

"Maintenance of a Minimum Spanning Forest in a Dynamic Planar Graph" is listed under "Books as author", with no other authors listed. It is not a book at all. It is a research paper, published both in conference and journal versions (and a corrigendum to the journal version), with six authors. Some versions used "Plane" rather than "Planar" in the title. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it with the record as it is being maintained at Princeton. These added titled were nice to see since I've previously known you mostly for your graph theory research. Do you still have any interest in dynamic non-planar graphs? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have interests in lots of things; I haven't done much recently on dynamic graphs, but that could change. My dynamic graph publications are listed at https://ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/graph-dyn.html (and my own choice of which publications to select are listed at https://ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/selected.html but self-selected lists can be self-serving; I'm not requesting that you follow this selection). I am requesting that if you describe any of my publications you do so accurately. Use DBLP if you want reasonably accurate metadata. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a remarkable list of publications; your one file seems to cover your contributions from 1990 to 2025. In applied graph theory there is the discussion of representing the working brain on the model of looking at neurons as verticies and synapses as edges, going to millions and millions of vertices. The dynamic aspect goes through three phases of (a) adolescent growth of the working brain (adding verticies and edges), to (b) the adulthood maintainence and enhancement of these connections (edges), and finally to (c) geriatrics where large numbers of neurons start to atrophy by the thousands during various diseases of old age. The assessment of connectivity and redundancy in these very large non-planar directed graphs has had many devoted scholars in medicine. Has any of the applied medical research using dynamic graph theory been of interest to you? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've done anything in neuroscience. My interest in areas of applied graph theory is mostly in the theoretical graph theory questions that they raise, not so much in directly building systems to solve applied problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Progress with improved 3D fMRI neuroimaging has led quite of few medical researchers to model sequences of these 3D neuroimages as dynamic graph theory models of the working brain. Basically, the neuroimages are collections of so-called 3D voxels which are associated with intensity levels of "brightness" to indicate voxels of increased activity levels in the working brain. One of the main interests has been for medical researchers to observe how the high "brightness" regions of the sequences of images of patients affect the brightness level of adjacent voxels over time. The math models of this translates the voxels into vertices of different intensity values which fluctuate dynamically over time. One significant problem is that the dynamic graph theoretical math models of these processes have a tendency to go either hyper-critical or sub-critical during simulations which no one has been able to figure out as to their unpredictability during modeling. It would be of use to find the types of restrictions upon the dynamic graph theory models being used which would keep the underlying dynamic graph theory models stable, without going either hyper-critical of sub-critical in the time sequence of modeled brain regions of activity. Might this type of applied dynamic graph theory problem be of any interest for you to possibly look at? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry 45's edits

Getting into a disagreement with someone and next editing the article about the person you have a disagreement with is not a good look.

That aside, I object to characterizing me as "British American". My parents were New Zealand citizens, not UK. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please revert John Barry 45's change calling me "British-American" in the lead. It is inaccurate. If you don't have the sourcing to get the birth nationality correct you should not try to state it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I take your word for it. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the article should not provide a nationality at all? MediaKyle (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to "American". I have lived and worked in the US since I was a small child, speak with a US accent, am a US citizen, and have only a US passport. The story could be told in a more complicated way because I was born elsewhere, but only with proper sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. I made some adjustments to the structure of the article while I'm here, I think it looks a bit better now. If you have any suggestions or there's something you think is missing from the article let me know, I think we can do better for our editors-in-arms. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.