User talk:Nbarth

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Nbarth}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Wikipedia:Babel

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr

Cet utilisateur a pour langue maternelle le français.

es-2

Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel intermedio de español.

ja-2

この利用者は中級の日本語ができます。

Search user languages

Archives

This user has written or expanded 2 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.

This editor is a
**Senior Editor**
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

This editor is a **Labutnum** and is entitled to display this **Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, and Sticky Note**.

Following a fortnight’s inactivity, pages are unwatched and threads here below are archived; please start a new thread below if you wish to resume.

Hello!

You are welcome to email me, add a new comment (by using the + tab above, or click here), or contribute to an existing discussion below.

If I don't reply for a while, I'm probably not logging in much — email me if you want to get in touch.

For reference: Guidelines on using talk pages.

Awards

		The Original Barnstar
		For your recent math improvements (symplectic/almost complex manifold, etc). In the flow of wrong and content free edits I've been seeing lately, yours is appreciated. Orthografer 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		For being bald. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynkin diagram folding

Hi Nils von Barth,

I noticed you worked on the article/section Dynkin_diagram#Folding. I added some chart examples of these folding, although I can't say I did the "directed graph" aspect correctly. Also I used Coxeter notation, line for 3, labels above 3, rather than double/triple lines. I just added an arrow above the higher order lines. If you know better, please help. I'm surprised there's like a number of C~k versions by arrows >>, <<, and <>, based on foldings of different simply-laced higher graphs! Similarly F~4 can project from E~6 or E~7 with reversed arrows!? I have no confirmation what this means, but for the undirected Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams, it looks correct! Thanks for a look if you can help. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. On the directed graphs, Humphreys shows clearly directed arrows on a table on p96. [1] So, either there's something that demands a direct direction, or when it was written (1990), folding wasn't firmly defined, and he didn't recognize alternate forms?! What do you think? Tom Ruen (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s. I see the main limitation, is the Hn Coxeter group families are excluded from the Dynkin graphs, so if the charts are correct and can stay, they should be replaced in multiline format, and Hn cases removed. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom – thanks for your fabulous diagrams!

I’m not expert in this, so I did some reading – your diagrams look mostly correct, but you’re right, some changes would be in order, specifically:

Dynkin-only (eliminate Hn)
Affine: change the naming of the affine graphs – the different directions have different names
Add 1 more affine graph, and separate out the two ones mapping to “G~2” – I think they go to different graphs.

I elaborate below; the tables at Kac pp. 53–55 are our key reference!

To rephrase, the question you have is

“which way to direct the edges?”

The issue is that, for the affine diagrams, you get different directions (and your reasoning seems correct to me), not all from the first series (see below).

Thoughts follow (unindent for legibility):

Firstly, there are several series of affine Dynkin diagrams; see affine Dynkin diagram, and tables on Kac pp. 53–55 (Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Victor Kac) – I only just learned this.
These diagrams need to be labeled with superscripts (1, 2, or 3), as in $A_{2l}^{(2)}$ – the tildes correspond to the first series ${\tilde {A}}_{l}=A_{l}^{(1)}$ (the “extended” Dynkin diagrams), but there are some from the second series here in folding.
Direction isn’t much of a problem for the regular diagrams, but the Hn are not directed, so what exactly these maps mean is a bit unclear.
Further, there is a correct direction for the extended Dynkin diagrams; Humphreys is listing the first series:

(for reference, C~n is >-...-<, F~4 is -->-, and G~2 is <-).

The changes we get are:

By this reasoning, the 4 foldings A~2k–2 → C~k, D~k+2 → B~k+1, E~6 → F~4, and D~2k+1 → C~k correspond to maps in the second series – the arrows are wrong for the first series; you didn’t comment on the two directions for B…
It’s also not clear to me which way the arrow should go on “G~2” in E~7 → G~2, because the vertices on both sides of the multiple side are branch points, but I think the arrow should point to the center (the other way from E~6 → G~2); this maps to the third series.
The → H~k maps of (regular) diagrams don’t correspond to Lie algebras, which is a bit confusing or misleading in this context…
Also, the I₂(8) diagram is an extended Dynkin diagram ( $A_{2}^{(2)}$ – Kac page 55), so you may want to include it. (The other I₂(p) are not affine Dynkin diagrams, though of course they are Coxeter ones.)

So, concretely, what I’d suggest is:

Use Dynkin diagrams, for consistency with the rest of the article/section and to avoid confusion (discussion and diagrams of Coxeter folding would be interesting, but separate) – I think you’re suggesting this above in regards to the Hn.
- It’s fine if you want to draw the arrows above the edges (instead of on the edge), but it would be clearer if you use double and triple edges rather than numbers.
- Also, as you suggest, we should eliminate the Hn from the Dynkin article.
Use Kac’s notation ( $A_{2l}^{(2)}$ etc.), since some are from the second series.
Add the $A_{3}^{(1)}\to A_{2}^{(2)}$ (that’s a square mapping to a quadruple line).
I think the “G~2” in E~7 → G~2 ( $G_{2}^{(1)}$ $G_{2}^{(1)}$ ) should instead be $D_{4}^{(3)},$ $D_{4}^{(3)},$ but this is only a guess – it’s the only remaining diagram we don’t otherwise hit, and note that the branch point (valence 3 vertex) in E~7 maps to the center point in the “G~2”, while the branch point in E~6 maps to an outside point.
- I’m not completely sure how this works, but I think this is right.

I think this fixes it – all the diagrams are valid, and we get all of Kac’s diagrams. Hope these help, and thanks so much – ガンバテ！ (Japanese “bon courage”)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you're a good careful thinker to can help sort this out. For me, its long past my sleep time. I'd be glad if you want to try your own graphics to replace mine, with corrected notations. Mine can still be helpful as "Coxeter foldings", even if also need some corrections possibly.

On E~7--> G~2, I'm convinced it is G~2. Vertically we have a side-ways W zig-zag, which is really a fully folded A5, order 6 symmetry. And the 3 parallel order-3 angles on the right are just 3, so it's [6,3]!

Goodnight. I'm very happy if we can get some sense here! I have emailed some others for advice too.

Tom Ruen (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. It seems like you could fold A7 into D~4 as a 3-4 zig-zag and merging the 3 nodes into one for a 1-4 branching. Does that make any sense? Can you fold a finite group and get an infinite one?! (Well at least that's similar to my relation of E~7 and E~6 in the G2 folding, seeing the left node column merged or not.) Tom Ruen (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "directed arrow" rule seems to mean to point to the side with less nodes. A perfect zig-zag folding is a folded simplex (An), and will have an odd number of nodes (in Weyl groups), so the arrow is clear. (Hk have 4 nodes, two on each side so no arrow!) The only other cases are like D4-->G2, 3:1, which really is 5 nodes of a 4-simplex foldest as 3:2, with the two nodes merged. So anyway, I think this is clear and my graphs are correct. If I have some time on Sunday evening, maybe I'll try making a chart of Dynkins style graphs (but I don't want to spend too much time on prettiness (like SVG) until its confirmed). Tom Ruen (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed at an incompleteness, so I took the time to update the W A5 --> G4 folding, and added A3 --> C2/B2 for good measure. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made some Dynkin versions. I kept arrows above the edges, more clear on small scales. So they are ugly, but compact. For me tweaking pixels in MSPaint is less frustrating than SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom – the newer versions (red vertical lines, Dynkin versions) are very nice!

I’ll leave graphic design choices up to you – I trust your MSPaint skills, and I well remember all the problems that SVG poses.

The other change is to fix the notation – several of the diagrams (the ones with the “wrong way arrows”) are not extended Dynkin diagrams, but rather other affine Dynkin diagrams. Using the notation on Kac p. 55, the maps should be changed as follows:

A~2k–2 → C~k: Firstly, the index on this is wrong – it should be $k-1$ (remember, extended adds one vertex above the index – this is right in the finite diagram).; Secondly, the target is notated by $D_{k+1}^{(2)}$ (arrows are opposite of C~).
D~k+2 → B~k+1: This maps to $A_{2k+1}^{(2)}$ – arrow is backwards for B~.
E~6 → F~4: This maps $E_{6}^{(2)}$ – arrow is backwards for F~4.
D~2k+1 → C~k: This maps to $A_{2k}^{(2)}$ – arrows are >>, not the >< you find in C~.

Two other issues:

It might also be clearer to replace the ~ by (1), for consistency with the (2)…
Also, the bottom right picture in the affine ones isn’t right – you’re taking the quotient of a non-simply laced diagram, which you can’t do (or at least is more delicate) – notice that you’re taking a quotient of a diagram with doubled edges (C~) and the doubled edges disappear in the quotient. Maybe this makes sense, but I’d be very careful.

Thanks again for your continuous improvements!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm seeing a bit more "Extended" means "~" format by adding one node to finite groups, and the superscripts (1)/(2) define wider directed-graph variations than the original extended definitions. I'm content to use the superscript notations, but FIRST, I think I need an enumeration of these forms before the folding section in the article, like Coxeter-Dynkin diagram summary tables I list all the groups by symbols. Secondly on indexing, extended or not, agreed there's some confusion, but I can't see exactly until things are properly defined. I just did one update, removed one of the lower-right graphs that didn't match in the folding. I have 2-3 extra busy work days this week, so unsure when I can do more. I'll try to more carely make an enumeration table of the groups and names. (Perhaps I should make some parallel Dynkin symbol codes elements like CD, so they can be more easily built up. Less combinations than CD, since no rings!) Tom Ruen (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found Affine Dynkin diagrams. Good! This superscript syntax is defined at least! I wish I had more time, but at negative time now! Tom Ruen (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up link formatting. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, actually listing the affine Dynkin diagrams first (before getting into folding!) makes a lot of sense. No rush – I’m busy myself, and it’s holidays. I won’t close this thread until we’ve finished this, so it shouldn’t slip through the cracks. I’ll see about writing a section on affine Dynkin diagrams (so there’s a good place for the diagrams to go, of course).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nils. I created element symbols for Dynkins, and added summary tables by dimension, but I'm sure there's some arrow problems. I tried to follow what was in the book chart. I see the superscript (2) implies a 2-order folding of a higher node family, but the A/D extensions still don't make sense to me, like the folded ~A family should have arrows pointing in opposite directions. Dynkin_diagram#Affine_Dynkin_graphs If you can sort them out and correct, I'd be glad. At least the graphs are all enumerated I think, even if the labels (or arrows) are wrongly connected. I'll try to look more at the book on google and see if I can see anything more clearly. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom – thanks for the fabulous tables!

Agreed, the naming/numbering and arrows for the higher families are really confusing to me too – I’ll see if I can figure out what’s going on.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow confusion

Hi Nils. I've been nervous about the arrow issues, and I found examples of reverse definitions:

[2] Notes on Coxeter transformations and the McKay correspondence, By Rafael Stekolshchik, 2008: Folding examples - Bn arrow directs inwards, Cn, arrow directs outward.
[3] Reflection groups and Coxeter groups, By James E. Humphreys, 1990 - B~n arrow directs outward
[4] Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Victor G. Kac, 1990 - Bn points outward
[5] Page 7 - finite foldings with arrows and letter names

All but the first seem consistent, and the last defines the arrow directions in relation to foldings, so if I assume that is the correct standard, all my folding arrows are reversed, and B/C relations reversed!

Corrected?	old

What do you think? Tom Ruen (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to update, corrections seem solid. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Below is a table from the first book above (by Stekolshchik), page 36 (this page not on googlebooks), showing two naming systems, first is in relation to Quiver_(mathematics) usage. I added these also to the test-new chart above left. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynkin diagrams

Hi Nils! At your convenience, I'm interested in your opinion of a table I added to the talk page: Tom Ruen (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dynkin_diagram#Meaning_of_branches

Nomination of Inflationism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inflationism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflationism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your edit of Language of flowers

Hi, Nbarth. I have a question on your edit of Language of flowers in this May. You added the "history" section, which closely resembles ja:花言葉 except the mention to Hamlet. I suspect your edit had some source, which may be the Japanese Wikipedia article, or something else. As you know, you have to respect copyrights in Wikipedia. If your source was ja:花言葉, you have to record a due attribution, and it'll be ok.

Anyway Wikipedia requires contributors to show the source (WP:BURDEN), so please clarify it at Language of flowers.

どうぞ、お気を悪くなさらないで下さい。これは、編集者の義務である事を、ご理解願います。(With due respect, I ask this. Please understand it is a duty of contributors.) If I lack politeness due to my inadequecy in English, sorry. Best regards. --Ahora (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about that!

Thanks for the note; I’ve fixed it in this edit to Talk:Language of flowers and left a note in the edit history at this edit.

As per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects, the correct way to do this is to:

leave a note in an edit summary (which I failed to do originally), and
a link left to the original at the article’s talk page, such as via {{Translated page}}.

I actually did this previously at Tōrin-in (see Talk:Tōrin-in) – I just forgot it this time. Thanks for the catch!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regarding your politeness/English skills, in case you’d like any feedback or pointers:

Your note is ok as it is, particularly due to your use of cushion words (and thanks for including links!), and your English is fine, but it does come across as a bit stiff and formal.

In particular, your citing policy pages (WP:C and WP:BURDEN) feels legalistic and aggressive, though I’m sure this was not your intention. (There are plenty of editors who do mean to be legalistic and aggressive.)

Further, I am a (very) experienced editor (25,000+ edits, contributing for 7 years – since 2005 – as reflected in Archive box and badges above) and even have a Citation Barnstar, so I clearly understand the importance of sourcing – lecturing me about it feels condescending. (Similarly, your edit count, currently a bit over 1,500 edits, suggests that you’re reasonably experienced.)

Again, I know you don’t mean to offend, but you might want to check a user’s edit count (or just glance at how long their talk page and its archive are) to figure out if they are experienced or a novice, and adjust your message accordingly.

You might try more casual and direct language such as:

Hi Nils,

Thank you for your edit of Language of flowers in May! It looks like a translation of ja:花言葉, but there’s no attribution – perhaps you forgot it? If this is correct, could please you add one? Thanks!

(Sorry if my English is rough – I’m Japanese.)

Best regards. (signature)

Everyone has their own voice, but this style should work ok.

…and the main way to convey politeness in English is frequent use of “please, thank you, could, would, might, may” (esp. English modal verbs).

To close, I’m sincerely grateful for your note – we’re all working to make Wikipedia better! Thanks again.

この先、どうぞよろしくお願い申し上げます。

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Nils. I really feel the warmth in your kind, elaborate reply. There's much to learn for me from your maturity. I'm now embarrased by my a little ridiculous attitude. Take good enough care, and thank you again for your efforts in Wikipedia. --Ahora (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]