User talk:TimothyRias

Home

Talk

Works

Sandboxes

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 not successful and confusing. Best wishes, --amiruchka

Lisi

There is a dispute at the page "an exceptionally simple ...". In my opinion there is scientryst and another editor who are trying to make the article state that the theory is much better than it is. I saw you wrote on that page once, so if you are interested go look at the talk page. The page is currently protected by the too many reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.28 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see Talk:Black hole#Replacement image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Costella" Reference Not A Reliable Source?

Thank You For Your Recent Edit In The Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds Article re The "Costella" Reference As "not a WP:RS" - No Problem Whatsoever - FWIW - Seems This Particular Reference Also Appeared In Neutrino#Speed (added by "User:DrJohnPCostella") - I've Edited This Out With The Edit Summary -> "not a WP:RS" - Hope This Applies Here Also - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. (The edit by User:DrJohnPCostella seems to be a clear case of WP:COI.)TR 13:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I Agree re A Seemingly Clear Case Of WP:COI - Thanks Again For Your Help With This - It's *Greatly* Appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. --Meno25 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard - speed of light

There is a section here[[1]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)