User talk:67.198.37.16

exoThis editor is an exopedian.

but only because the metapedians seem to be rather unfriendly. Oh well.

Interesting edits

See also Special:Contributions/67.198.37.17 and Special:Contributions/162.204.250.21.

past

• Probabilistic logic

current

I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to the following (more than 80) articles in math and physics topics:

1:

Multiplication theorem - Valuation (logic) - Quantum finite automata - Quantum Turing machine - Affine Lie algebra - Dedekind eta function - Current algebra - Vertex operator algebra - Charge (physics) - Operator product expansion - Product (mathematics) - Blancmange curve - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - Ladder operator - Huygens–Fresnel principle - Baire space (set theory) - Static spacetime - Mass - Vertical and horizontal bundles - Exterior covariant derivative - Gauge covariant derivative - Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state - Wigner's friend

25:

Kaluza–Klein theory - Bundle metric - Contorsion tensor - Christoffel symbols - Lense–Thirring precession - Quasi-quotation - String group - Pullback - Classifying space - Witt vector - Sum - T₁ space - Currying - Mapping cone (topology) - Puppe sequence - Fibration - Cofibration - Hopf algebra - Structure constants - Tensor algebra - Exterior algebra - Universal enveloping algebra - Poisson algebra - Casimir element

49:

Bol loop - Grassman number - Poincaré group - Super-Poincaré algebra - Supermanifold - Superspace - Spin group - List of rules of inference - Connection form - Metric connection - Moving frame - Connection (vector bundle) - Quantum pseudo-telepathy - Skyrmion - Jacobi operator - Hessenberg matrix - Composition operator - Diagonal functor - Necklace polynomial - Yoneda lemma - Circle bundle - Eilenberg–MacLane space - Mutual information - Tensor product

73:

• Turnstile (symbol)
• Natural deduction
• Nome (mathematics)
• Integrable system
• Tautological one-form
• Configuration space (physics)
• Linear fractional transformation
• Stable manifold
• Roman pot
• Spherically symmetric spacetime
• Frame fields in general relativity
• Kerr–Newman metric
• Vacuum solution (general relativity)
• Boyer–Lindquist coordinates
• Spin connection
• Fubini–Study metric
• Gravitational instanton
• Spinor
• Weyl equation
• Ginzburg–Landau theory
• Spin glass

major rewrites

Of the above, I'm particularly proud the ones that were major rewrites or even complete rewrites, either doubling or tripling the size of the article - anyway changes where more than about 5K or 10K bytes were added. These are listed above but repeated here:

• Vertical and horizontal bundles
• Gauge covariant derivative
• Bundle metric
• Christoffel symbols
• Lense–Thirring precession
• Currying
• Puppe sequence
• Cofibration
• Tensor algebra
• Universal enveloping algebra
• Metric connection, although, in hind-sight, almost all of that content should be merged to connection (vector bundle).

major rewrites that are hack jobs

Some major rewrites are just-plain-old hack jobs, without any particular elegance. Notable only because they are large re-writes. Like the above, these are changes were more than about 5K or 10K bytes, sometimes doubling the size of the article.

• Boyer–Lindquist coordinates
• Fubini–Study metric
• Ginzburg–Landau theory

non-math

Edits of 500 bytes or more were made to these non-math articles:

• Chloe McCardel
• Structure (disambiguation)
• Link grammar
• Internal model (motor control)
• Good regulator
• Entity–attribute–value model
• Neoliberalism
• Symbol table
• Debug symbol
• Volt-ampere reactive
• Standard solar model
• Delegative democracy
• Singularitarianism
• Control theory

TODO

Things that an anonymous IP address cannot do:

• Create redirect exterior connection to Connection form#Exterior connections
• Create redirect contorsion form to contorsion tensor
• Create redirect finite transducer to finite state transducer
• Create redirect fibered sum to pushout (category theory)
• Create redirect Künneth spectral sequence to Künneth theorem
• Create redirect mapping fibre to homotopy fiber
• Create redirect mapping fiber to homotopy fiber
• Create redirect locally finite refinement to locally finite collection
• Create redirect weak fibration to Serre fibration
• Create redirect relative homotopy sequence of pairs to Puppe sequence
• Create redirect homotopy sequence of a fibration to Puppe sequence
• Create redirect homotopy sequence of a weak fibration to Puppe sequence
• Create redirect adjoint relation to adjoint functor
• Create redirect structure coefficients to structure constants
• Create redirect quantum deformation to quantum group
• Create redirect quantum universal enveloping algebra to quantum group
• Create redirect prequantization to geometric quantization
• Create redirect universal coefficients theorem to universal coefficient theorem (actually, a move request?)
• Create redirect left alternative algebra to alternative algebra
• Create redirect Berezin formula to universal enveloping algebra
• Create redirect algebra of symbols to universal enveloping algebra
• Create redirect Bol algebra to Bol loop
• Create redirect Jordan associator to triple system or maybe to associator
• Create redirect Cartan-Weyl basis to Chevalley basis
• Create redirect Supernumber to Grassmann number
• Create redirect Grassmann direction to Grassmann number
• Create redirect orthonormal polynomial to orthogonal polynomial
• Create redirect complete integrability to Frobenius theorem (differential topology)
• Create redirect orthonormal tetrad formalism to Frame fields in general relativity
• Create redirect null dust to null dust solution
• Create redirect oblate spheroidal coordinate system to oblate spheroidal coordinates
• Create redirect Penose-Newman formalism to Newman–Penrose formalism
• Create redirect Spin-coefficient formalism to Newman–Penrose formalism

Hmm

Banned users: User:Hillman - User:Likebox - User:Silly rabbit

A big list (but not all are banned users??): Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- Template:Remember the lost

Harassed users: User:Michael Hardy

Conformal boostrap

See Talk:Conformal_bootstrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Link grammar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Can you give me a chance to finish editing? There are hundreds of papers published on link-grammar, many of them provide the basics. I will add references shortly.67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Link grammar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

• Sources are required, per WP:CHALLENGE Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I can't add them if you keep reverting! Can you give me a chance to finish editing first? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mass, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hokay. Which change? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Frame-dragging

Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility? Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to reply, so I'll reply briefly here, and in the other article. From what I can tell, the dispute is about self-promotion, not credibility, right? I can try to google up some review article, but I don't see how credibility would be an issue: some simple search terms typed into google suggests he has hundreds of papers published in refereed journals, with dozens of co-authors. Its impossible to "pull the wool" over that many people, so my general impression is that he is "academically credible". Regarding "views (that) are not universally held", well, that is an issue as old as science itself. Modern-day examples can be found by looking at exit polls taken at academic conferences: typically, some handful of controversial questions are asked, and the replies are inevitably 1/3 to 2/3rds one way or another, and when asked again 5 or 10 years later, the replies invariably flip-flop. Is there some specific attack that you are aware of?

I thought I'd dig around, I just now skimmed the a sequence of papers on the Mars Global Surveyor data, where there's work by Iorio and a rebuttal by Krogh, and a rebut to that by Iorio, again. If you read through these, they read like standard scientific controversies: neither is claiming that the other is not credible: they're wrangling over details: apparently, Iorio said "5 years" when he should have said "5 years and 2 months". Apparently he is "misinterpreting data": over the course of the mission, better gravitational modelling of the mountains on Mars has resulted in better estimates of the trajectory of the satellite, decreasing the errors of orbital estimates ... by the time people are arguing over stuff like that, you have to assume they're both credible, and its a standard controversy, and possibly one or both sides are making mistakes. When I search for Evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars google tells me that its "Cited by 60" and clicking on that link indeed shows all sorts of citations. Its hard to get that many citations, period, under any circumstances. To get that many if you're not credible is nearly impossible (but I suppose it happens.)

So again, I assume that the issue is excessive self-promotion, rather than technical merit. I don't really know how to deal with self-promotion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Its also clear that he's a bit of a hot-head. Most experts are. Which surely violates the WP "civility" rules. ... so let me take a pot-shot ... In case you haven't noticed, hot-head editors are routinely banned from Wikipedia. I believe that this explains why the Wikipedia science articles are in such disasterously bad condition: they keep getting written by undergraduates who kind-of don't have a clue of what they're writing about. Meanwhile, all of their profs have been banned for violating civility and what-not polcies. This is a major weak-spot in the current Wikipedia administration: you can't keep banning authorities and still expect to get high-quality articles. (For example, Lense-Thirring was a complete train-wreck of failure before I cleaned it up; its only marginally better now, I tried to bring it up to not being "obviously false", but that's it. More or less *every* article I review in WP is failed and flawed in some deep, fundamental way.) WP has to find some way of accommodating hot-head behavior, controversy, etc. without routinely banning everyone who is an expert. I dunno how to solve this problem, it appears to be very deeply rooted. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is not easy to get a proper discussion going at Frame-dragging if one party appears to be stuffing their own material in, even if, by coincidence, they could be one of the major figures in the field. 15-30 mentions of Iorio is likely to be too many. If any controversies involving Iorio could be summarized in one or two sentences with a link to further reading that might be sufficient. Administrators are well-prepared to deal with self-promotion, but producing a well-written article is a harder task. We would still like to take advantage of User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.'s knowledge if there is any way of engaging him diplomatically. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As I independently wrote to Spinningspark on its Talk page before the most recent, quite interesting and important evolutions here and in the article's Talk page, I am absolutely ready to be engaged diplomatically and to cooperate. I agree with the idea of reducing the amount of citations to my works and, if required, to rewrite some sentences in a more impartial tone, if it is the case. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear 67.198.37.16, thank you for your mature, wise and significative approach. I think I've learned a lot on this specific issue and on several others. Best regard. PS I would suggest to go to SAO/NASA-ADS: it is more complete and trustable than Google Scholar. It allows also to cope with the self-citations issue through the tori and the riq indexes. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you, please, edit the page? Another utter jerk just came in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please create an account. If you do that I can give the account permission to edit the locked article. It is not technically possible to do that for an unregistered IP address. SpinningSpark 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

On self-promotion, the position is quite simple. We expect the person with a conflict of interest to leave it to neutral editors to decide whether to use the material, modify it, or leave it out altogether. If they do not, and continue to fight in-article, they risk being hounded off the project. As someone not connected with Iorio and scientifically knowledgeable you are in an ideal position to make that call. SpinningSpark 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that L. Iorio deserves an article in Wikipedia, but I see that only admins can recreate it. Redwheel (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Structure constant factoid

Hello, I'm Andrea Insinga. I write you to ask your help about one of your contributions to the page Structure constants. In order to continue my research I really need a good reference for the following statement:

• The structure constants are completely anti-symmetric in all indices if and only if the Lie algebra is a direct sum of simple compact Lie algebras.

Can you suggest me a book or scientific paper where I can find a more detailed explanation about this statement? That would really help me a lot!

Best regards, Andrea Insinga 17 August 2017

I assume that pretty much any book on Lie algebras will state this, and it will probably do this in the first 2 or 3 chapters. They typically describe all the different kind of Lie algebras, and then state what the semi-simple ones are, then they state why they will work only with semi-simple and ignore the others. You should try to get access to a university math library, and just go into the stacks, and search there. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For example, the book "Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups" by Jurgen Fuchs is probably too advanced for you, but in the first few chapters, he does a fast/quick review Lie algebra basics. The affine algebras are not compact and so provide an example where the structure constants do not have a simple form. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will try looking in the book you suggested. Best, Andrea —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Symmetric group

About your comment on the talk page - I think you might like to read WP:NOT. You will see that WP is aimed to be clear and concise about facts of relevance, not a collection of all possible knowledge. Of course, each particular case is different. In the future, if you think something relevant is missing, find it first perhaps on the web and link to your comment on the talk page. If it's really hard to find, it is more likely than not that this info is not all that notable and best be omitted in the article. Happy editing! Mhym (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, can you be more precise? Is there some particular comment, edit or change that you refer to? I think I made over 100 edits yesterday, to maybe a dozen articles, so stating that some of these edits might not be notable is really not sufficient for me to figure out which ones, in particular, that you are refering to. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This one: [1]

OK, Interesting. What, exactly, makes you think that this is is too obscure to be notable? I'm fairly certain that it shows up on lecture black-boards on a regular basis, and so would be in some textbooks somewhere or another. I don't believe that particular bit of knowledge is either obscure or non-notable. I was just plotzing along, from article to article, tripped over this, and thought I'd add a note. There's a meta-issue, at play here: pretty much all math and physics articles on wikipedia kind-of totally suck, and are missing pretty much most information that, for example, students might get during classroom lectures. So, if you are a student, learning something for the first time, or an adult, trying to remember something you once heard, Wikipedia is kind-of wholly inadequate for providing those details (at least, for math/physics). So your complaint that something is too obscure to be noted rings hollow, to me -- the articles, in general, contain far too little information. The symmetric group, in particular, is hugely important: Its sort of the entry point into Lie algebras, see for example, the book "Representation Theory - A First Course" - William Fulton - Springer for all the stuff one could say about the symmetric group, but that this article does not say. And that's just the "first course". What about the second and third course? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Judgment (mathematical logic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain why exactly the content you were removing is "junk" please. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Umm, how much more of an adequate explanation can you possibly want? Did you look at the edit summary? The content that was added was clearly insane and the talk page goes into details about it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Judgment (mathematical logic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop! If you are an expert in mathematical logic, then please engage in a conversation on the talk page of the article. Otherwise, please stop interfering! I am trying to remove content that is simply insanely incorrect! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@67.198.37.16:, I apologize for reverting your edits, the tools that editors use to manage vandalism tagged your edits as blanking. I see that I'm not the only editor to revert your edits due to the same issue. I'm not an expert in mathematics so I cannot confirm your position concering the state of the article. Next time you have an issue, please wait for others to discuss it on the talk page. Reverting edits after they have been reverted three times is against WP:RRR. Please refrain from this practice. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. But please don't wikilawyer -- I'm not the one reverting, you are; don't even try to somehow turn this around and blame it on me!!! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Spin group

Hello.
Are you the same person who screw up the product notation some three years ago? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (although the question wasn’t answered explicitly). Now also here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)