User talk:TimothyRias

Home

Talk

Works

Sandboxes

WP Physics in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your wise edits and comments on matrix. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Metric System

Hi Tim,

Thank you for grading the article "Metric System". I woudl obviously like to improve it, but I do not knwo which areas need attenetion. I would very much appreciate it if you would leave some comments on its /Talk page.

Groete Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you compute the properties of something you're defining?

As far as I can see, all that needs to be done to fix the definition is to remove the sentence, "Computing the array requires selecting a basis for the tensor." ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a statement doesn't make any sense, when you are defining a tensor as an array equipped with a transformation law. "Computing the array" only makes sense if you first define a tensor in a different way, such as a multilinear map.TR 10:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. But that's the only reference to computation I can see. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But the whole thing you wrote presupposes that tensors were already defined in some other way. You've repeatedly expressed the misconception the the "as multidimenional arrays" section is describing "properties of tensor". It is not, it is detailing how tensors are defined "as multidimenional arrays" equipped with a transformation law. I have tweaked the start of the second paragraph to make that fact more explicit.TR 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is supposed to be a section on the properties of tensors, I'm attempting to describe the difference between an array with and without a transformation law by describing what a transformation law is. The "computing" sentence was only to recall the numerical nature of a plain array. I understand that saying those numbers do not indicate their origins through the application of a basis is problematic because it implies that the tensor already existed. I was trying to follow from the existing statement that the array is defined in terms of a basis by saying that without knowing that basis the reaction to it can't be distinguished. This can be rephrased so that an a priori tensor doesn't enter the language. The point is just to be able to understand the difference before the details are worked out (including what kind of reaction is meant). I'm having these problems because it's a tricky thing to say. I need someone to understand what I'm trying to say and to think about how to say it correctly. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NOFI, but I think you are having trouble trying to say what you want to say, because what you want to say is fundamentally confused.TR 13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the quote from Talk:Tensor#Basis and type lost describes the difference between a tensor and an array, but it depends on a tensor already being defined. I'm trying to derive a converse statement, but I've only found the connections to make, not how to make them without already having a tensor. Let me try a different outline: It starts with an array and describes what the object becomes (a tensor) if you let parts of it react differently (covary or contravary) to a basis. Then it says how to assign those reactions to the parts of the array, which is given in the form of a transformation law. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dimension

Hi Timothy, are you interested in working together on dimension? It is a topic both appealing to the larger public, but also holds the promise of an appealing topic for advanced readers. Finally, it is a meeting point of various domains, maths, physics, philosophy(?), and beyond. We might aim for GA level to begin with. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be having much time for the coming half year. But, looks like a great article to work on, and I encourage you to work on it. I'll add it to my watchlist, and try to help out where and when I can.TR 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrete Green's Theorem

Dear Tim, Thank you for reading and commenting on the article discrete Green's theorem. I saw that you added there "Dubious" in the line: "In spite of the theorem's simplicity and elegancy, it was first introduced to the mathematical society only by the early $21^{st}$ century". Please refer to the discussion regarding this theorem. Although some argue about the significance of the theorem, all agree that it was formulated by the early $21^{st}$ century. Please correct me if I am mistaken. In case you were convinced, please consider removing your "dubious" remark. Best wishes, --amiruchka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

I can find references to a discrete Green's theorem dating back to the 1980s at least. The relevant original publication appears to be .TR 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was familiar with Tang's work; Note that the article mentions that there exist many discretizations of Green's theorem. However, the discretization in the article became somehow very popular within just 4 years (37 citations and growing), hence I decided to write an article about it. Perhaps the choice of the name ("discrete Green's theorem") was no successful. Best wishes, --amiruchka