User:Double sharp

Babel following definitions of Wikipedia:Babel/Levels. They reflect my ability for reading/listening rather than writing/speaking, because I learnt most of them through reading texts. When it comes to writing, it is only accurate if you allow me a dictionary. :) Additionally, they vary more or less by one level depending on how long it has been since I've last used them. But still, I mostly edit English WP, because it is the most spoken language after all (even Chinese is only second). The 0 for Korean is up there mostly because in hindsight it's fairly odd that I've never learned any of it considering what else I learned. Hopefully I'll correct that as time permits.

I have edited significantly on inorganic chemistry, Solar System astronomy, geometry, classical music, and chess (including variants; among regional variants, mostly the historical shogi variants). In no particular order.

My favourite star is Spica. (Present company excepted, naturally.) With the analogous caveat, my favourite planets are Mercury and Venus. We have so few rocky planetary bodies to study, and I'd like to know more about Earth's siblings! At least for Luna and Mars we've had many more missions. (I mostly think of "planet" geophysically, so Luna, Io, and Europa are another three rocky planets.) Also, I feel like they are now often unfairly overlooked in the popular imagination in favour of the planets further out, though of course I'd like to know more about those as well. Since I think of "planet" geophysically, for me the lower limit is collapse of most porosity to form a solid, round body, and the upper limit is the onset of hydrogen burning and becoming a red dwarf: for me, brown dwarfs are just high-mass planets (most of them would've stopped fusing deuterium by now, anyway). Of course this has some issues with the lower end, but I'm inclined to think "planetoid" is a good enough fuzzy word for things like Pallas, Vesta, or Hygiea. Maybe also very low-density Tethys and some TNOs like (55637) 2002 UX25. And maybe also Psyche (probably differentiated, but too small to be round).

Rather sympathetic to V=L, in the sense that the constructible universe is the (abstract, set-theoretic) universe that I think of as a default, similarly to the usual status of AC among mathematicians. This does not mean I reject universes where V=L is false, or universes where AC is false; they just do not conform to my "intuitive" picture of sets. But they are still really interesting!

Actually, my opinion about infinity is similar to Stefan H. Reiterer's response to Doron Zeilberger's opinion 160. I don't think that there's really any proof that infinity has any existence in the real Universe, and the same might even be said for large finite numbers, but they sure are useful abstractions. Long may they live as such.

Also a believer in P=NP. See this Don Knuth interview for why (it's question 17).

1.e4 is best by test, Fischer was right about that. And probably the objective best response is 1...e5, and from then on, the Spanish (though the Italian is close), and the Marshall and Berlin in response to it. That said, 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 are almost as good, and 1...e6, 1...c5, and 1...c6 are also top-tier answers to 1.e4. (I'm partial to the French.) And if you're not a GM, just about anything sensible will be fine. (I probably play the Alekhine too often for my own good! 1.g4 is too much, though. I suspect it loses by force against perfect play.) The fact that computers play much better chess than we do does not stop us from having fun. We wouldn't have victories and defeats without mistakes. Antichess survives as a game despite being solved, and let's face it: practically chess is already weakly solved by Stockfish NNUE. Though, if normal chess is not exciting enough for you, why not try the Capablanca-family variants? :)

The correct version of the periodic table, insofar as there is one for a model (so let's say: the consistent version), has helium in group 2. You can have it as Charles Janet's form (below), or keep the s-block at the left end just like usual (because quantum effects lower s orbital energies and so the big energy gap happens before them), but either way 1s² overrides chemical properties. :) As Eric Scerri has pointed out, the periodic table classifies abstract elements (atoms with their electronic structure) that are preserved across chemical conditions, not elements as simple substances that are not: salt contains sodium and chlorine the atoms, and their overlapping orbitals, but it doesn't contain sodium the reactive metal and chlorine the toxic gas. Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand why nitrogen and bismuth are in the same group. Actually this reassignment is starting to get more and more serious consideration these days, but it goes without saying that I do not support changing our default periodic table format on Wikipedia just yet. For me, an element is philosophically a type of atom (as distinguished by Z); you place an element on the PT by considering its characteristic set of valence electrons and orbitals when engaging in bonding interactions with other kinds of atom. Yes, the classification into blocks ignores relativity, but it doesn't matter too much. It will probably matter for period 8, but that is still theoretical and more calculations in that area would be helpful. That said, the destruction of the Madelung rule in period 8 (because of intruder levels) is important, as does the fact that it is really one end on a continuum ranging from neutral atoms to hydrogen-like atoms. (Once you remove two electrons, (n-1)d and (n-2)f fall below ns, e.g. Ca [Ar]4s² vs Ti²⁺ [Ar]3d².) It is what makes me sceptical of group-theoretic approaches to justifying Madelung: what, are they going to happily continue past 118 and "prove" that probably tin-like element 168 is a noble gas? What about the "wrong" position of 9s? The Madelung rule is rather something that we need to study experimentally, with justifications like Demkov-Ostrovsky being a better way to look at it from QM principles, choosing the potential that seems to approximate things best just like the nuclear shell model. No one complains about that there; indeed, a Nobel Prize got awarded for it. :)

With analogous caveats about what's actually necessary for life, I vote for mercury as a favourite metal, and fluorine as a favourite nonmetal. Periodicity makes polonium, astatine, and radon fairly interesting (it'd be cool to see metallic character start appearing that far to the right), but I hesitate to call them "favourites" because they are not known well and are unhealthier to be around than mercury. Antimony is also a good runner-up for "favourite metal", largely because it is the one metal that is often not recognised as the metal it actually is. ;) (It is often called a "metalloid", but in fact its failings as a metal are of the same order as those of tin, lead, or bismuth. Historically, it was often confused with those. So if you want to keep the seven ancient metals intact while being consistent, Sb really ought to be grouped as a metal.) I think the superheavies exist, but not quite in the same way that tungsten or even plutonium exists. Their existence is mostly potential rather than actual, with the exception that we can turn it into reality briefly in the relevant facilities. As far as existence of Og vs existence of 119 goes, it's really a matter of human knowledge as far as I'm concerned: we're sure the former can be made, and so it exists in that sense, whereas we are not yet sure about the latter (though of course everyone expects that it will exist). Of course there is a continuum as half-lives decrease, not to mention other factors: I think francium exists more than dubnium does. Once we get far enough, and reach Z values where every possible nuclide would not survive long enough to get an electron cloud, then I'll agree that the element does not exist in this world. I suspect the continent of stability is likely: just as covalent bonding gives way to metallic bonding, so should individual baryons give way to quark matter.

There are no singularities in the real world, only gaps in our current picture of physics. :)

I have a lot of favourite composers in classical music, but if you ask what period I love the best: the Classical period and the first Romantic generation. (Well, Franz Schubert will forever stand between them, and his music has a special place in my heart.) I'd also mention Charles-Valentin Alkan as a perhaps not-too-well-known name who is also on my list of favourites. Also, considering all the chemistry edits I do, it would be odd not to mention Alexander Borodin explicitly, though he's later than what I'm most keen on. :) I wish the standard range of the piano was F0-F8. And also that the standard piano was 7/8-sized. Seriously, for me ninths hurt and tenths are impossible except in slow passages on the edge (e.g. the end of Schumann's Fantaisie, 1st movement). It is truly aggravating to find the chromatic scales in thirds in the Don Juan Fantasy easier than the leaping tenths in the left hand in the ensuing variations. That's not how it's supposed to work! :( But octaves are okay; I can play the Erlkönig accompaniment without strain.

My favourite Bach cantata is BWV 179.

Fixed do is pointless in English (and German, and other languages that use letter names). We already have an absolute system for note names: they're just letters. "Do" should always be the local tonic, whether major, minor, or whatever other mode. So the minor scale is do-re-me-fa-so-le-ti-do. The major scale is fundamental, and the parallel minor scale comes as an alteration of it. Also, the really "natural" minor scale is the harmonic minor. (The tonic must be minor; the dominant must be major to be functional; so we need a minor subdominant to keep the minor chords in the majority in the most important three.) The variable degrees (6th, 7th, Neapolitan 2nd) arise as chromatic alterations to avoid awkwardness in the circle of fifths, because here the diminished fifth is so much closer to the tonic. Well, in major or minor the circle of fifths is I-IV-VII-III-VI-II-V-I; but in major the d5 is IV-VII, whereas in minor it is either VI-II or N-V (N meaning Neapolitan ♭II). For this reason, movable do with la-based minor is the one thing I would admit is worse than fixed do, because it doesn't make sense: it is not consistent about making "do" the tonic, which was the entire point of movable do. And I say this while having perfect pitch (albeit with the ability to switch to thinking in functions, read transposed scores, and reset A to 415 Hz if needed; nonetheless, A = 392 Hz is too much for me to accept).

For languages that already use the sol-fa note names as the absolute names of the notes, I guess scale degree numbers are the best option I can think of, though syllable count might be an issue. For atonal music, singing the German note names isn't a bad option: as long as you stay in single-sharp or single-flat territory (which atonal music really should anyway), they are all monosyllabic.

I wish my heroes George Gamow and Lev Landau had gotten elements, like Einstein and Fermi did. Okay, actually I have many other heroes as well across fields, e.g. Li Shanlan, Yuen-ren Chao, David Bronstein, E. T. A. Hoffmann, ... But Gamow and Landau are my physicist heroes. :)

This user is one of the 900 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 14 years, 8 months and 11 days.

f¹

f²

f³

f⁴

f⁵

f⁶

f⁷

f⁸

f⁹

f¹⁰

f¹¹

f¹²

f¹³

f¹⁴

d¹

d²

d³

d⁴

d⁵

d⁶

d⁷

d⁸

d⁹

d¹⁰

p¹

p²

p³

p⁴

p⁵

p⁶

s¹

s²

1s

H

He

2s

Li

Be

2p 3s

B

C

N

O

F

Ne

Na

Mg

3p 4s

Al

Si

P

S

Cl

Ar

K

Ca

3d 4p 5s

Sc

Ti

V

Cr

Mn

Fe

Co

Ni

Cu

Zn

Ga

Ge

As

Se

Br

Kr

Rb

Sr

4d 5p 6s

Y

Zr

Nb

Mo

Tc

Ru

Rh

Pd

Ag

Cd

In

Sn

Sb

Te

I

Xe

Cs

Ba

4f 5d 6p 7s

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

Pm

Sm

Eu

Gd

Tb

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Hf

Ta

W

Re

Os

Ir

Pt

Au

Hg

Tl

Pb

Bi

Po

At

Rn

Fr

Ra

5f 6d 7p 8s

Ac

Th

Pa

U

Np

Pu

Am

Cm

Bk

Cf

Es

Fm

Md

No

Lr

Rf

Db

Sg

Bh

Hs

Mt

Ds

Rg

Cn

Nh

Fl

Mc

Lv

Ts

Og

Uue

Ubn

This form of periodic table is congruent with the order in which electron shells are ideally filled according to the Madelung rule, as shown in the accompanying sequence in the left margin (read from top to bottom, left to right). The experimentally determined ground-state electron configurations of the elements differ from the configurations predicted by the Madelung rule in twenty instances, but the Madelung-predicted configurations are always at least close to the ground state. The last two elements shown, elements 119 and 120, have not yet been synthesized.