User talk:Lost-n-translation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a talk page

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Smooth structure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transition function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

3R[edit]

Your 4 consecutive reverts are not consistent with wiki policy and have been reported here]. Tkuvho (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference in Unbounded operator addition[edit]

Your addition to Unbounded operator included: ''T'' is ''self-adjoint''.<ref name="Kato-5.3.3" />, but not the full reference. What is the book or article referred to? Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The red message at the bottom of the page is automatically generated when the reference name in <ref name="Kato-5.3.3" /> doesn't have a complete reference somewhere else in the article. I've replaced it with <ref>{{ harvnb |Kato|1995| loc=5.3.3 }}</ref> following usage in the article. It would be enough to use <ref>Kato 1995, 5.3.3</ref>.
I also replaced
  • Kato, Tosio (1995), Perturbation theory for linear operators, Classics in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag. ISBN 3-540-58661-X
with
  • {{ citation| last=Kato | first=Tosio | title=Perturbation theory for linear operators | year=1995 | series=Classics in Mathematics |chapter=Chapter 5. Operators in Hilbert Space |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=3-540-58661-X}}
to match the references used in the article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Using template Harvnb. I enjoyed figuring this out. It always gives me a bit of trouble. But the references get internal links this way. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Manifold, again[edit]

Your edit on 1 June 2012 again removed part of the definition of Manifold that I believe to be both true and beautiful. Moreover, the edit is overly restrictive, applying to only certain types of Manifolds, not all Manifolds generally. If you read this bit about Euclidean Spaces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space) you will see that there are manifolds that go beyond mere Euclidean space (be they pseudo-Euclidean or non-Euclidean). Thus, to restrict the definition of manifolds as pertaining only to Euclidean spaces is misleading.

I propose the following correction, which is to replace this text

The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics because it allows more complicated structures to be described and understood in terms of the relatively well-understood properties of Euclidean space.

with this text

The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics because it allows more complicated structures to be described and understood in terms of the relatively well-understood properties of simpler spaces (often Euclidean space).

Michael Tiemann (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael, it is not the geometry of Euclidean space that is being used to model a manifold. Rather it is the topology. The topological space underlying Non-Euclidean geometry or pseudo-Euclidean geometry is the Cartesian product of copies of the real line. That is each is (locally) homeomorphic to Euclidean space and hence any of them serve equally well, and thus Euclidean space suffices to describe all of them topologically.2001:18E8:2:105E:29A9:78B2:F410:6791 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)