Talk:Jim Propp

[Untitled]

user:Dream Guy has TWICE removed the part about the "self-referential aptitude test. I don't think that's non-notable trivia. The fact that Albert Einstein wrote frivolous rhyming couplets may be non-notable trivia, but if a person is notable for being a poet writes frivolous rhyming couplets in addition to more substantial poetry for which he is notable, that's not necessarily non-notable trivia. Similarly the logic of self-reference is within a mathematician's professional competence. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing could be more ludicrous than suggesting the subject of this article is in any relevant way like Albert Einstein.Daqu (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Well then please provide a reliable source that says it's notable part of this guy's life instead of just ridiculous personal trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some people just don't get Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website or fan listing for some guy. You can't just toss random details about someone's life here and expect anyone to care. On top of that, we now have someone repeatedly trying to use NPL membership lists and newsletters as if they were reliable sources for personal anecdotes and wild trivia. This site is for notable information about important people to the real world, not to people in a club where paying $18 or whatever a year makes you think you are special. If you want to create a NPLpedia, by all means create your own site and do so, but that stuff doesn't belong here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming he's notable because of his membership in that club. Rather the claim is that his membership in that club is a notable fact about an otherwise notable person. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What Dream Guy said: As it currently reads, this article belies unbelievable egotism and lack of comprehension of what Wikipedia is.Daqu (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim Propp here, weighing in on this entry. I believe it must have been created by a well-meaning former student of mine at the University of Wisconsin (not sure which). I don't think it's my place to make changes on anything other than factual matters, but I will say that if I were writing a blurb about myself and trying to objectively assess which of my efforts have had the greatest impact on the field of mathematics, it would look very different. I encourage the guardians of Wikipedia's reputation to remove anything that (based on quasi-objective measurements like citation-counts) seems to be unimportant. As for the reference to the SRAT, I suspect it should stay, since no matter what I achieve in mathematics research, the SRAT is likely to be the thing I am most widely known for in the world at large. Everymonkey —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I consider the NPL newsletter to be a reliable source about routine, noncontroversial matters about its membership. I believe this is similar to the policy about considering personal web sites of notable individuals to be reliable sources for similar information. I am not weighing in on the question of whether the information is encyclopedic, only that it is well-sourced. Ma^t_chups 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to improve balance and sourcing

Disclosure: I am the subject of this article. I am suggesting changes with the goal of improving accuracy, balance, and alignment with independent secondary sources.

At present, the article appears to give disproportionate emphasis to exploratory or peripheral lines of inquiry (for example, work involving surcomplex numbers in game theory and investigations related to Euler characteristic) that do not seem to have generated sustained follow-up or discussion in independent secondary sources. Their prominence may therefore exceed their encyclopedic weight relative to other contributions (see, e.g., coverage patterns in MathSciNet).

Similarly, the paragraph describing my joint paper with David Bressoud on alternating-sign matrices appears to treat this work as a research breakthrough, whereas it was an expository account. A reframing or trimming of this paragraph may better reflect the nature of that contribution.

By contrast, independent bibliographic databases and citation patterns indicate that my most widely cited and widely reused contributions concern domino tilings (including work on Aztec diamonds and alternating-sign matrices) and exact sampling methods in probability theory. For example, Alternating-Sign Matrices and Domino Tilings (with Elkies, Kuperberg, and Larsen) has been repeatedly cited and discussed in later literature on combinatorial enumeration and statistical mechanics, and my survey The Many Faces of Alternating-Sign Matrices has served as a secondary reference point for subsequent work in the area. In addition, work with David Wilson on exact sampling (“coupling from the past”) is regularly cited in the literature on Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (all readily verifiable via MathSciNet).

With respect to non-research activities, the article currently includes brief mentions of recreational or creative material (e.g., National Puzzlers’ League membership, a particular puzzle, and a children’s book). While such items may be of incidental interest, their inclusion without contextual framing may give them disproportionate prominence relative to more enduring scholarly and expository contributions.

One item not currently included that may merit consideration is my blog Mathematical Enchantments. While the blog itself is a primary source and therefore not, on its own, sufficient for encyclopedic coverage, a number of essays originating there have subsequently appeared in independent venues, including Math Horizons. In addition, two essays originally published on the blog were later selected for inclusion in Best Writing on Mathematics (published by Princeton University Press), and one essay received the Trevor Evans Award for mathematical exposition from the Mathematical Association of America. These independent reprints and recognitions suggest that the blog functions as a serious platform for mathematical exposition that has been vetted and disseminated by third parties. Editors may therefore wish to consider whether a brief, clearly labeled mention (for example, in an “Expository writing and outreach” section) would be appropriate, subject to the availability of reliable secondary sources documenting these selections and awards.

In summary, I suggest: 1 Removing or substantially trimming material on surcomplex numbers and Euler-characteristic-related explorations unless supported by independent secondary sources. 2 Reframing the discussion of the alternating-sign matrix paper with David Bressoud to reflect its expository character. 3 Rebalancing the article to emphasize widely cited work on domino tilings and exact sampling. 4 If included at all, grouping expositional and outreach activities into a clearly labeled section, with emphasis placed only on items that have received independent recognition.

I am happy to help locate additional independent sources or clarify factual points if that would be useful. Everymonkey (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)