User talk:Alexey Muranov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Cokaban)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Cokaban, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! VanTucky Talk 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Initial context setting[edit]

The following is a really bad way to start an article:

Consider two structures M and N, possibly of different signatures.

You haven't told the lay reader who finds this article whether this is supposed to be about, e.g. the building of houses ("structures"), organizations (a church council or a commercial firm is a "structure"), etc. That this is supposed to be about mathematical logic needs to be said in a way that the non-mathematician will understand immediately. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, can you do it for me, please? :) The only thing i can say in my defence is that i did link the word structure, so the reader had a chance... --Cokaban (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I am very glad to see that we have a new active model theory editor. I am sorry that you have run into Gregbard with your first mathematical article – but then, this kind of encounter adds the MMORPG dimension to Wikipedia that makes it so addictive. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm terrible! Can it. I tell you what Hans, I think you are all right in general, but I don't like your style. Furthermore, you and the other mathematicians seem determined to close your minds to covering even the most basic philosophical background for these concepts. That's what philosophers call being anti-intellectual and unreflective. If you don't understand something intellectually, you don't understand it AT ALL. At least I am capable of deferring to experts in their own areas. I've been patient with you guys up to now. Step off. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Pontiff Greg Bard, thanks for visiting my User Page. (Thanks to Hans Adler too.) I will respond here to one of the questions/assertions you made elsewhere, and hope that you will be able to answer the others yourself. Here we go: I did not try to beat you up --- my main (and maybe even only?) goal was to get trough to you. --Cokaban (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lets take it easy on each other. My goal in creating that article was to cover the concept of "one person has a different interpretation of things than another" Here I am thinking that people of all kinds might be able to benefit from it. Maybe two regular people having a disagreement could be able to map it out and have some understanding. The goal of these editors seems to be that it will only be useful and understandable to mathematicians. So can you see why I would be very upset over all of this. I think you need to think about the needs of the whole community over the very limited interests of the math department. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation (logic)[edit]

Please look at new lede of interpretation (logic) and make any comments at new section at end of 50 pages of discussion. Bless,--Philogo 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give a short disclaimer first. I cannot really judge if the lede or Interpretation (logic) is good, because i do not know neither what Logic is, nor what Philosophy is. I am only somewhat familiar with common layman usage of these words. I only know what Mathematical Logic is, and i am familiar with some basics of it. I can think of a few non-mathematical interpretations of Mathematical Logic (yet another meaning of interpretation :) ), and it seems that this is the kind of logic the article/lede is currently about. I also understand the phrase "common-sense logic". The phrase "philosophical logic" evokes some associations, but nothing clear. I will try to be useful however. --Cokaban (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article and other under the logic banner will be sucessful for the intended audience, therefore, if you for instance come to understand the terms you mentione and any other used in the article(s). If you do not unerstand the terms used then we might just as well write the articles in double-dutch for all the purpose they would serve. (Do we have a little template thingy that says "Definition needed" like the "citation needed" one?) I have been banging on for some time about the need to be both precise and clear and suitable for the intended audience, the latter not being professional mathematicians, logicans, or philosophers. You then are the best judge of that. If you look at my discussion page, I have a message from a reader who said how clear and helful were the logic articles she had read. That is praise indeed, and more liek that are sought.--Philogo 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monoidal category[edit]

Hi, I have undone a change you have made to that article. Please comment if you disagree. Also, what do you mean by “usual monoids are exactly the monoids in the monoidal category of sets with Cartesian product”? What are “the monoids” in a monoidal category? Best regards —Quilbert (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quilbert, I am following "Categories for Working Mathematician" by Saunders Mac Lane. Let M be a monoidal category with multiplication * (for Set category it would be the cartesian product). To simplify the definition of a monoid in M, let me assume here that M is a strict monoidal category, that is the natural isomorphisms in the definition are identities. Then a monoid in M is an object m together with a two arrows to m: a multiplication m*m -> m and an identity 1 -> m, which satisfy the usual laws for the usual monoids, but expressed purely in terms of arrows. What do you think about this as a reason to call the category monoidal? I do not know the true historical explanation of the name --Cokaban (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I was assuming that they are called monoidal categories because, well, the objects of a strict monoidal category actually form a monoid … —Quilbert (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The condition is stronger than that, because the "multiplication" also acts on arrows, and is a bifunctor. Mac Lane writes that they are called monoidal because the bifunctor is associative. It is not clear to me if this reason it the official one, but there seem to be a good reason. For example, with the "general" definition of a monoid (in a monoidal category), the strict monoidal categories are monoids in the monoidal category of categories (with respect to the product of categories) :). So i do not think that a simple or one-sided relation between usual monoids and monoidal categories (like "objects in a strict monoidal category form a monoid") would be a complete justification of the name, despite what Mac Lane writes. I think that notions of a monoid and a monoidal category are complementary: monoidal categories allow to generalize the notion of a usual monoid, and with this more general definition they become monoids themselves in the monoidal category of categories and functors. (Of course one needs to be careful and talk about the category of "small" categories, etc.). --Cokaban (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
For me, that all amounts to roughly the same reason. It seems obvious that monoid objects are called so just because in the monoidal category of sets they are the usual monoids. And monoidal categories are a generalisation of strict monoidal categories. Saying that the latter are the monoid objects in the monoidal category of categories is, when taking the motivation for the term “monoid object” into account, about the same as saying that their objects form a monoid, with morphism filled in in a natural way. But that statement is a bit vague, of course, so I take your phrasing for the best explanation. —Quilbert (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the change, i think i was trying to explain what a "natural isomorphism" is, but this is a bit off topic. --Cokaban (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation?[edit]

Hi Cokaban.

I just saw your post to the "accused or alleged" section.

I recently contributed a carefully worded reference to the this issue that was immediately reverted by admin. I reverted it back, not knowing that move would earn me the honor of starting "engaging in a revert war", which clearly was not my intention.

A declassified memo exists that informed LBJ on the Monday following the assassination that he had to "convince the people LHO did it and did it alone" and that he was to form a "commission" to appear official avoid prying eyes from Congress or other gov bodies who'd want serious answers and fact. I will search the reference and try to get a direct link to it.

I totally agree with what you've written. The facts are truly there, but they are "inconvenient" facts and stray from the urban myth which is the parroting of gov provided untruths. What can we do?

Thanks for reading this, and thanks in advance for a reply. 4eyes (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes

Hi, thanks for the message. I do not have time or desire to follow this issue too closely, maybe i will be just looking to the talk page from time to time. I am trying to use common sense and logic to prevent publishing beliefs worded as facts in Wikipedia. The best thing i've come up with is to make a reference request at least. It is not possible to argue with anything when the person you talk to cites good, solid, reliable sources and the link directs not to the sources, but to WP:RS. I am not even interested in fighting for the truth (which we may never know) as long as beliefs are not stated as facts in Wikipedia. --Cokaban (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand. I found the official memo and source and have inserted the info which is not "belief", but rather fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4eyes (talkcontribs) 16:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)