User talk:Phys: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:39, 17 July 2005

Hi. I was wondering what all of these pages with F4 and G2 are for? They don't really add anything, and it seems they could all be covered in a single page called "F (math)" without using up potentially useful links. For instance Apple releases its processor with the names G3, G4 and G5, and these would be much more commonly asked for than a math page.

G2, F4, E6, E7 and E8 are very commonly used Lie groups in math and physics. Maybe I should rename them G2 (math) and F4 (math)? Phys

Yes please. You can use the Move this page function to do this. Still, wouldn't a single page with lie groups and various examples be more than enough? And if not, could you please state at the top of the articles that G4 is one of the common lie groups... so we know what it is. This isn't a math textbook!

Huh, there's no G4! Only a G2 and a F4! Phys

Hi there. Good work. Just one point. Avoid using Math. That is a word used only in American English. Otherwise people who don't use AE will end up changing them to the international word Maths and on such minor points as an s edit wars break out! :-( Use the full Mathematics instead which is universal. FearÉIREANN 03:10, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello! You are adding new articles very quickly. But could you slow down a bit please? How about adding your articles to List of mathematical topics? Or list your contributions in your user page? It is hard to improve your articles if nobody really knows those articles have been created. wshun 23:52, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I like your contributions to the Mathematical Physics side of Wikipedia a lot. Keep it up! -- Miguel

I'm not convinced that root system should be merged with Lie group. Root systems parametrize a lot of different things besides simple Lie groups and simple Lie algebras. Sometimes with omissions, sometimes with extra markings, they parametrize simple singularities in algebraic geometry, quivers with finitely many indecomposables, finite groups of Lie type, rigid Lagrangian singularities, regular polytopes, affine Kac-Moody Lie algebras, etc. They have an independent existence...-Michael Larsen

Was the move of Technicolor all that wise? Most people are aware of the term in association with film, not so physics. Given the large number of links to technicolor from film pages, it might have been better to leave it as it is, and add a link to the minor usage on the Technicolor page. Otherwise, you'll have to go through and edit all of the links from the films. GRAHAMUK 02:37, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've now done this - no need to change any links, or mess about withis any longer. PLEASE!! GRAHAMUK 02:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I didn't realize you reverted! I changed the links because you asked me to!Phys

Yeah, sorry about that!! I saw you making the change so I figured I'd fix it in case you hadn't read this in time - oh well, never mind. I think in general disambiguationpages should be avoided unless there really are a lot of terms that come under one title. In this case, as there are only two and one is (with respect) pretty esoteric, I think this approach is the better one. I'll help revert the film links if you want GRAHAMUK

I don't understand your comment on Cayley's theorem in the adjoint representation entry. Could you elaborate or remove it? Michael Larsen

Your comment on Cayley's theorem belongs in a different article, the not yet written one about regular representations. Perhaps you would like to write it? Michael Larsen

Considering that Dual (category theory) is a single line, is there any reason it's not a part of category theory? No one is going to look for an article with this name. User:Maury Markowitz

Well, it's on the request list and it's extendable... But if you still insist, I can merge that article. Phys 15:16, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for correcting my totally wrong definition on Dirac sea (but I'm quite sure that I have seen described as I wrote somewhere...). Anyway, the current version reads like a school textbook question/answer. I think a more "formal" style should be employed - no need for equations, just straightforward definitions. At18 20:01, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the talk page on Liouville's theorem (Hamiltonian) since the time when you created the talk page. Did you intend the differential equation in that article to be the statement of the theorem rather than a corollary of the theorem? If so, that is anything but clear from the way you wrote it. I would never have suspected it if not for your comment on the talk page, and it's still only a suspicion. Michael Hardy 03:22, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's the theorem, not the corollary!

The page is a mess, you know.

Charles Matthews 08:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello. In relatively complemented, what operation on members of a lattice are you denoting by $x\Rightarrow y$ ? I'd have interpreted it in such a way that if you're talking about the lattice of all subsets of a set, then it's the intersection of x with the complement of y. But that does not seem to be what you meant. Also, could you address the question I put on the Heyting algebra discussion page. Michael Hardy 03:34, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand your latest change to von Neumann algebra. AFAICS, "commutative" already was in every place it should be, and definitely shouldn't be where you put it. Connections between noncommutative von Neumann algebras and measure spaces exist, they just aren't as simple as going from a nice measure space to L^∞. So, since this is an aesthetic issue, and I really think we should mention a connection between (possibly non-commutative) von Neumann algebras and measure theory as an explanation for "noncommutative measure theory", I think I'd like to just revert your change.

Prumpf 19:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently fleshing out coalgebra and was wondering if you still have the source code for ? In the left diagram, the Nabla's should be Delta's, and the whole diagram is kind of hard to read since it is so small. Also, the diagonal arrow in the right one would look better if you used anti-aliasing when converting from postscript (I assume you used TeX?) to png. Could you upload a new version if you get the chance? Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Thanks for catching that. I'll see if I can still find the source code. Phys 18:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

quantum groups (Hopf algebras page)

Hi, I always considered quantum groups to be a particular class of Hopf algebras. Quantum groups are deformations of function algebras on groups, or their duals. For example, a group algebra of a finite group is a Hopf algebra, but is it a quantum group? Anya

Well, some people DEFINE a quantum group to be a Hopf algebra, but I guess that's not a universal convention. Phys 19:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've also seen the convention that only the deformations of certain Hopf algebras are termed quantum groups; there's a whole book about "Quantum groups" that doesn't have a single clean definition of a quantum group, it just goes over several examples (all Hopf algebras with a certain q in them...). AxelBoldt 12:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re Talk:Concrete category: would you have an example of a category that doesn't admit a faithful functor to Set? Thanks, AxelBoldt 12:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to comment on this. Redirecting jet bundle to representation of the diffeomorphism group is really quite an annoying thing to do. It is not as if that page made any attempt to explain what a jet bundle is. Charles Matthews 09:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Diag.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:26, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Assuming you created Image:Algebra.png, can you tag that as well? --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi there. Having nothing better to do, I am now leading a Crusade about style in math articles. Very often I encounter formulas which are at the end of a sentence. Then, I think one should put period at the end of formula, because the sentence ends threre. Anyway, you did not put period at the end of a formula when you contributed to Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. It was just several occurences, and it clearly was not a big deal, however, I would like to mention this to you, because it is easier to notify people about something than to always fix things long after. Happy editing! Oleg Alexandrov 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Please read the instructions for VFD (at the bottom of WP:VFD or at Template:VfDFooter) before nominating another page for deletion. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

WKB Approximation

On WKB approximation, I am not sure what you're trying to say in the paragraph that you added. In my opinion, a discussion of Feynman diagrams is unnecessary in an article on WKB, but I'd be happy if you proved me otherwise. It's just that right now the tie-in is rather incomprehensible to me and the latest addition makes it sound like you're arguing with yourself over it. I think it either needs to be more clearly explained or removed.Laura Scudder 18:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image sources

I saw your latex compiled picture in Lie algebra and I'm wondering whether you could attach sources to the respective talk pages when you add new pictures. That would make it easier for others to provide updates and would certainly inspire others when creating their own images. Rl 19:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation and annihilation operators

Just thought I'd drop by and say "hi"! I'm just wondering what other material you plan to add to the creation and annihilation operators page...I don't have much else to add, except maybe stuff on vibronic coupling. Other than that, it's mainly cleanup and rewording to make the concepts more accessible to a larger number of readers. What do you think? I'd also like to convert some of the equations to nicely formatted mathematical equations, but I don't know how to do that. Maybe you have an idea?

I read the comment you left on the discussion page. I assume it was for me, since it looks like we're the only two people actively changing the content on that page (judging by its history). If you feel the need to edit/delete some of my changes, please feel free to do so! :) My perspective is indeed primarily quantum chemistry, so most of my ideas will be centered around the ladder operators. I added those concepts in because I felt that they would help make the article progress towards the more powerful formalism that you've presented with the *-algebras and Hilbert spaces where quantum field theory resides.

If you have time, could you comment on the little section on "notational caveats" I added at the bottom of the page? I think it's relevent to point out the ambiguity in the notation here, as it can be very confusing. Thanks for your input! HappyCamper 23:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public domain image problems

Hi there! I noticed that you have placed some of your image contributions in the public domain. Unfortunately, it turns out that one can't place their work in the public domain, and so these image tags have been deprecated. I encourage you to replace the public domain tags on your images with free-use tags, which are similar in spirit, such as {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}. Please reply on my talk page or Wikipedia talk: You can't grant your work into the public domain if you have any questions. Thanks. Deco 23:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link in ADS

The folowing page has what appears to have been a link to an image. However, it is a link to upload an image. Is this correct?

The Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_de_Sitter_space

The link: "Image:AdS A.png"

Softcafesoftcafe