User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 8

Proposal to move page on "Distribution"
Charles,

Just wanted to point you to the talk page for distributions where Michael Hardy has proposed to turn it into a disambig page. This seems like a good idea to me. What say you? -Gauge 01:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ludwig Plutonium
(Have I gone bonkers?) Actually, I think it's a useful article and I'm trying to document the claims made. Is there a policy on linking to "Google groups" for instance, this exchange involving Wiles, Plutonium and even John Baez in December 1993 has to be one of the greatest exchanges in USENET history. This should be documented. CSTAR 15:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shape optimization
Dear Charles, thank you for editing the Shape optimization page. To be honest, I started it yesterday and then I realized I had to run for the bus. So there were things to be finished there. Thank you! I will work more on that page these days. Now, could you tell me your secret, how do you find new math pages so fast? Is there a way? --Olegalexandrov 16:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The answer isn't interesting: I look through Special:Newpages. Only about 600-700 every day. Charles Matthews 16:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Got it! I thought there was some way to filter out the math pages, or some other specific categories. I mean, there are tons and tons of pages, and for a given person, most of them are not at all interesting. Thanks. --Olegalexandrov 17:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion
The deletion log says you deleted Fuzzles the Snugly Little Puppy and Grumpy the Cat, and within several hours an entry in that space has appeared. Is it the same as what you deleted, or something brand-new? --Calton 01:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a much fuller article; and the external link actually is to something (though not to an actual page). Charles Matthews 05:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Absolutely no reason"
I think you can check your ego at the door, sir. If anything, the article on the Apple could include a section on #Cooking Apples. Unless you are going to start writing this article now, I think you can go ahead and revert it back. Overlinking is annoying and does not increase the quality of the encyclopedia. --Alterego 16:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hang on there. I think you're quite out of order. It is not 'overlinking' to include a link to cooking apple in an article about apple pie. You may not be so interested, but why do you think that applies to others? Putting it another way, I would say that a red link for cooking apple is now in just about the most appropriate place it could be. Unless you are some sort of apple expert, I suggest you just back off. Overlinking is more of an appropriate term for putting in excess links to existing, commonplace pages.

Charles Matthews 16:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see User:Theresa Knott has made a cooking apple article just recently, so I think this is a redundant exchange, and hardly a constructive one on your side. Charles Matthews 16:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dedekind cuts
Charles, could you please look at my comments on Talk:Dedekind cut. I believe we have the wrong definition. At least, I found a definition in a standard order theory book which disagrees, and it gave a good explanation why ours should be wrong, which I convey. Revolver 16:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We are probably stuck with a historical-type definition. If the order theory people want to speak in terms of Dedekind-MacNeille completion (if that is the correct thing I mean), then the usual way to handle it is to have that as a separate article, and linked in. My impression always was thet Dedekind cuts were cool if you wanted to define reals, but a bit of a kludge if you wanted to develop the theory from scratch. Charles Matthews 17:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree about the "bit of a kludge" part. My point is that, no matter what is eventually decided, we should at least have a definition in the case of the rationals which makes addition closed. And this isn't the case at the moment...the "note" at the article on the construction of the reals is absolutely right. It seems to me that either we should change our definition of Dedekind cut in the case of the rationals so that addition is closed (my suggestion would be to require that the "lower-half" not have a maximum; this is essentially the definition taken by baby Rudin, e.g.) Beyond this, I know there are a number of different completion procedures for posets, but I'm not familiar with them. So far, in my admittedly limited experience, I've run across two: (1) the cuts are ideals, which are (incorrectly?) characterised here as simply "downward-closed" (they must also be directed), and (2) the cuts are Galois sets in the connection I described, which was named Dedekind-MacNeille completion where I read it. In neither of these cases, are cuts characterised as "partitions which are downward-closed and upward-closed", and so my concern is that this particular definition is a mish-mash of others but not really recognised itself. Certainly, in the Dedekind cut article, any kind of notion of "Dedekind cut" or "Dedekind cut completion" in general order theory should be mentioned, but the way it stands now, nothing in the Dedekind cut article corresponds in a precise sense to the article on construction of the reals, and so someone will go from one to the other and then justifiably wonder why none of the field operations make any sense. Revolver 00:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Cantos
Hi, and seasons greatings, however you mark the turn of the year. Sorry to see you did not make the ArbCom, though this failure may add some years to your life expectancy. Anyway, I'd appreciate your comments on the intro to the Pisan Cantos section, which I just added. Filiocht 10:53, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not too unhappy about the ArbCom election, in fact. 125 votes seems quite a good vote of confidence. Only 172 and I were really running on a 'scholarly' platform (he had a similar level of support). Charles Matthews 21:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes; nice to see it's an FA now. Filiocht 09:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's good. Of course it would be better to have a heavyweight section on the critical literature - but it surely speaks quite well for itself. I hope to see it on the main page, any day now. Charles Matthews 11:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope to expand on the critical reception over the next few weeks. Filiocht 11:56, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

St Louis Blues disambiguation - necessary?
Because the St Louis Blues remains a thoroughly W.C. Handy origination, and any combination of its words, whether in reference to a sports team, motion picture, play or song denotes and connotes him and his specific work, and is done therefore in honor to him, would it not be more appropriate to mention such on the music page? K. L. Bardon 18:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't feel particularly strongly about this one; but it is normal good practice here to split off, say, a sports team about which someone might write a great deal of history or statistics, from a song. Charles Matthews 19:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix
Mr. Prosector, I answered your silly questions on my talk page. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:ExplorerCDT
Oh dear, that ended interestingly. I don't really feel like starting an RFC on christmas eve, but on the bright side it won't be christmas eve for a few hours yet. --fvw *  16:07, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

The guy appears to be User:66.171.124.70, who was removing himself from Vandalism in progress back in September. An existing RfC. Quite a track record.

16:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I wonder about pursuing arbitration in hopes of banning User:ExplorerCDT. One hoax and you are (or should be) out the door. Arbitration is time-consuming, and a mass of apparently-nonhoaxing edits will probably cause some arbitrators to look favorably on the defendent. Is it worth the trouble to put the wheels in motion? Wile E. Heresiarch 19:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would favour doing something like that, yes. One is supposed to exhaust other approaches first. Charles Matthews 20:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Bryleigh's Theorem is connected? I can't see it, as it was vfd'd as a hoax and I'm not an admin. But the 3rd anon editor of CNOM seems to be connected to it.  There are hints of a web of connections between various vandals connected to this page. Michael Ward 04:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree - there whole business is suggestive of some small clique amusing themselves. Charles Matthews 09:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on this: Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2 --Carnildo 23:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories and newlines
Dear Charles, you are doing a great job at categorizing math articles, thanks! I have a small remark though. Usually you put the category at the top, then you leave an empty line after it. Wikipedia also puts an empty line by default, which adds up to two empty lines at the top of the article, like here Double integral. I think that is somehow unesthetically pleasing, what do you think? (It is surely not the style of most Wikipedia pages). Maybe you should put the category at the bottom, the way it will ultimately show on the page, or otherwise not leave an empty space. I wonder what you think. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 18:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think en: manual of style/writing guide/whatever suggests putting categories at the bottom (while on fr: it say put cats at the top, this came up on the mailing list this week). All in all, I do think categories at the bottom are the best choice. --fvw *  18:19, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Well, I now put categories routinely at the bottom; so I suppose Oleg has found some I did a few months ago. Charles Matthews 19:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right, I noticed some categories you put at the top, but I did not follow through to see if this is how you still do things. Nice to know all we agree where the categories belong. Oleg Alexandrov 20:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Areas of mathematics article
I was in the middle of doing major changes to the Areas of mathematics article when you made some edits to it. I think I included them all, but I'm not sure, so it may be advisable to check. Tompw 22:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infinite-dimensional holomorphy
Dear Charles, thank you for your additions on the Infinite-dimensional holomorphy page. By the way, yesterday I sent an e-mail to a professor specializing in this area asking him to contribute an article to Wikipedia on this topic. He agreed! He says he will look into this when he is back from out of town. Maybe we should adopt this strategy more often for missing articles or articles poorly written. Oleg Alexandrov 16:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK. But often academics don't realise that their contributions will then be freely editable, by anybody! 'Wiki' and 'academia' are orthogonal, in a sense. Of course wiki has big advantages, but they do not come for free. Charles Matthews 16:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the e-mail to the professor in question I mentioned that anybody can edit Wikipedia and also pointed to the article (Forbes) about Wikipedia. I think he will be aware of the editing thing. You have a good point. Oleg Alexandrov 17:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical journals vs Category:Mathematical publications
I noticed you created both categories. I am confused. What is the difference between them ? MathMartin 20:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose logically 'journals' should be a subcategory of 'publications'. The American Mathematical Monthly is, I guess, not what most people would call a learned journal. It is not perhaps the biggest deal to maintain this distinction. Anyway that is probably what I had in mind. Charles Matthews 20:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breeches role
Hi, Charles, do you remember editing Breeches role a couple of weeks ago? I just realized that you state that the term b.r. only applies to male characters acted by women, not to roles where female characters pretend to be male&#8212;the opposite of what I say lower down about Restoration plays. I'm sure you're right about how the term is used for operas, but the more I think about it, the more I don't think it's true about legit drama altogether. I've put in a couple of paragraphs about the distinction, but I'm not sure I've balanced it right, or done justice to the point you made. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it. (If you can ever get anything to load, good luck with that.) Best wishes,--Bishonen | Talk 11:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Automata
Hi, someone listed this (Category:Automata) on WP:CfD, at WP:CfD. I notice that you added an article (Network automaton) to this category. If you think it's a useful category, you might want to comment. Noel (talk) 05:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fermat's last theorem
Please take a look at my comments about your change to the Fermat's last theorem page and comment. I have placed them on the discussion page. Thanks. Michael L. Kaufman 21:32, Jan 14, 2005 (

Modular arithmetic
Hi there. I am looking forward to your promised cleanup of this page. I agree with you this page is getting a bit too abstract. Also, could you take a look at modulo, all the stuff going from there, and let me know what you think (note that modulo is still on Pages needing attention/Mathematics). Oleg Alexandrov 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

idiographic/ideographic
Okay, I did more research. You are correct that in the Windelband article it should be spelled idiographic. And that the word ideographic is related to ideograms. I will fix it, Slrubenstein 16:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantos
Thanks for the fixes and the Zuk clarifications. Just wondering if you have any information on J.P. Angold, Joseph Bard, Elkin Matthews, A.R. Orage, Walter Rummel, Arnold Dolmetsch? All these are red links on List of cultural references in The Cantos that I'd like to turn blue. I have some info on some (almost nothing on Angold) but not a lot. Filiocht 12:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

A. R. Orage is there, and I have been working through a number of the New Age people. Elkin Mathews (ie one t - I'd notice) was a publisher, initially in with the Bodley Head crowd in the 1890s. Bard is vaguely familiar.

Charles Matthews 12:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've fixed the Orage link and the Mathews spelling. I'll chase up the Bodley Head conection. I know he was still publishing into the 30s and did Yeats as well as Pound and one or two Irish people. I'va laso found a couple of decent online Dolmetsch sources: He started the early music movement in England and was admired by Pound and Eliot, amongst others. Angold is difficult, an English poet who died in WWII, he's named in the Pisan Cantos a couple of times. Filiocht 13:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Bard (1882-1975) was Hungarian and a writer (mostly as Josef Bard, throwing me), married Dorothy Thompson and Eileen Agar.

Rummel seems quite well known - I see there's a recent book Prince of Virtuosos: A Life of Walter Rummel, American Pianistby Charles Timbrell, and he knew Debussy, etc. Charles Matthews 13:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeterminate
Hi Charles. I noticed you were the one who initiated that page. Now, I incorporated some material from PlanetMath at indeterminate (variable) (there is link to it from indeterminate). But I am not sure if that was the best way to incorporate it. Could you take a look at these two articles and see if better organization can be done. Also, Cryptoderk and me wonder if it is worth putting any information about indeterminates on polynomial. What do you think? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have edited it. It is still a little strange, though. 'Indeterminate' is really an abstract algebra idea, and the explanation is in terms of elementary algebra. One could explain the connection, by means of transcendental numbers - an indeterminate is a kind of abstract transcendental. Perhaps that would be confusing. Charles Matthews 07:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, one could also treat an indeterminate as some X in a polynomial ring R[X]. But a polynomial ring is not an easy thing to understand either. I think that article gives a good idea of what the heart of the matter is. And making things more precise, or more rigurous, might, as you mentioned, just obscure the fact. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 08:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The real question is what = means. But that is sophisticated; perhaps one can say that this business is part of the discussion of the mathematical idea of an identity, versus an equation. Anyway, that is the correct context. Charles Matthews 08:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

System of imprimitivity
I will get around to expanding this very soon once the Bell's theorem fiasco is fixed. Notice that the system of imprimitivity as you use it (and is for example used in Van der Waerden's modern algebra is somewhat different than Mackey's use. Mackey's use is for a pairs consisting of a G-space X and a projection-valued measure on X which is G covariant (in an obvious sense). We may have to reconcile the two concepts, but the representation theoretic one is the one I intended to expand.CSTAR 18:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I started expanding the article. Please have a look; I don't think there is any conflict with what you wrote. BTW I plan to add more, including much of the induced representation machinery.  Eventually I hope to relate this to QM. CSTAR 03:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine - I always assumed Mackey's formulation was just the appropriate generalisation. As you say, this all joins up eventually; and I look forward to seeing it when you have the chance to post more. Charles Matthews 09:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manifolds
Hello - I just added a paragraph in Euclidean space about linear manifolds, which I need to point to for an article I am writing. I'm not sure if its strictly correct. As a "manifold" contributor, could you check it out? Also, is this the proper place for it, or should it be in the manifold article? Thanks, Paul Reiser 14:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More CT
I guess it's now moved over to my talk page. CSTAR 15:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You could reasonably request mediation at this point. There is a current shortage of mediators; but this kind of situation is what the process is for. Charles Matthews 15:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * but this kind of situation is what the process is for.


 * I wonder. She has a notorious agenda which he has made public here on WP and is posted on her webpage. Is she really any better than a vandal? What exactly would the mediation be for? CSTAR 16:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean, it would require both parties to clarify their aims. You could explain why you feel CT is pushing a POV; she could explain her objections to your edits. It is a natural step if you feel, as you seem to, that there will not be consensus at Bell's theorem.

Anyway, it is up to you.

Charles Matthews 16:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that CT will not let the disputed neutrality sticker be removed from the article short of mediation. I sympathise with the "I've got better things to do with my time than put together a mediation case", but it might save time in the long run  Charles Stewart 16:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of quantum mechanics
could you please have a look at interpretation of quantum mechanics? This is not currently CT related, fortunately. However, I think this is one of the most conceptually important articles in WP, and I don't like the idea that it has had recently only major input from me.CSTAR 17:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. It's not exactly well expressed, right now. Charles Matthews 17:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks!CSTAR 17:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo
Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am NOT a sock puppet of Rienzo! Sandor 14:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes you are, your edits are identical in style to Rienzo's other sock puppets, particularly your edit summaries. CheeseDreams 14:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about this. Charles Matthews 15:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dangerous vandal! Block it!
FYI, I have unblocked the user and then blocked it again with an expiration time of indefinite. Such users should be blocked indefinite. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that's entirely justified. Charles Matthews 12:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Phase Space
As I've noted in the old Liouville's theorem (Hamiltonian) discussion (your archive 6?) some of the recent additions there seem to me to be out of place. I have tried to start working back to what (to me) is a sensible order, rather than just reverting, but there is a large section added by Denevans on phase space which should really be discussed separately under that heading. The present phase space article redirects to phase diagram which (in my dimly remembered days, on Nat Sci Par 1A !) was the term used by the physical chemists for the thermodynamics-equilibrium diagram, rather than the space of dynamical variables. I have added a para on this aspect, to phase diagram, but it would make more sense _to me_ to put the physics aspects (including Denevans material at Lt(H)) in an article called phase space with NO redirect, and save phase diagram for Mr Gibbs and friends.

But others may disagree, and be happy with both articles as is... views from the bridge??Linuxlad 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we probably need a separate phase space (and configuration space too, for that matter). If you have have an adequate article-start to put there, don't hesitate. Charles Matthews 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well my initial intention would be to move the physics bit of phase diagram there, leaving the physico-chemical phase diagram para (plus perhaps some reference to a goodie, like the iron-carbon phase diagram) and see what I can move from Denevans' Lt(H) bit.

RE: Logan Pearsall Smith
I don't see the point of paraphrasing something of such a perfunctory nature. Any paraphrasing would be equivalent to the copy except for it's superficial structure. I don't want to editorialize, nor do I have secondary content to merge with this original content to make a worthy paraphrase. It's fair use. The site is of a library of a public university. The site is available on the public on the Internet--therefore copying it into wikipedia does no harm. I give a link to the Source.

You are welcome to re-configure the structure so that it's not a pure copy. You can also mix in additions so that it's much different than the copy.

You are also welcome to delete it or refer it to copyvio. I can understand that the rules are the rules.


 * OK, I'm not claiming that this is a serious case. But policy in general is to go the extra mile in avoiding copyright problems - for the sake of the whole project. I do a fair amount of taking biographical information myself from academic archive sites. The facts themselves are not copyright worries. The reason that there is a message below the edit box about not copying in from most websites is that WP is not aiming to copy-and-paste, but to develop material that can properly be released under GFDL because it has been written from the ground up with that in mind.


 * Can I ask you, then, about the list of quotes?


 * Charles Matthews 10:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in retrospect, I agree. Wikipedia's great because it has standards. --Philosophistry 23:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pcpcpc
To be honest, I'm not really sure what to do about him, I see the latest attempt to defend oneself has just been deleted. The problem is if nobody challenges these people they get away with it - but I don't know, does one really want the bother? Probably not! Giano 12:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't any real idea what your problem with him is. Everything I have raised with him is on his talk page. I would simply advise a very moderate approach, unless and until there is some really burning issue. Charles Matthews 12:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason people are feeling quite as angry as they do is here where Pcpcpc insulted just about everyone who voted "delete". People were especially angry at the way the nominator a very new editor was treated by Pcpcpc, on the deletion page, and his own talk page. Another insulted editor had never even heard of Pcpcpc before. I have had several contretemps with Pcpcpcp, because I do not just walk away as is probably the best policy with him; but I do take him with a pinch of salt. However, he should not be allowed to think that such behaviour is acceptable. Regarding his ignore list, I think Bishonen has barely spoken to him, and has certainly avoided him all of this year, so quite why Bishonen's name is on the list is a mystery. I intend to avoid him until he starts hectoring and bullying again and then I shall point out the error of his ways yet again. Giano 18:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking 68.82.180.24
Charles,

I wonder if you would mind blocking the IP 68.82.180.24; it has been used for vandalism quite a few times today, as you may surmise from its contributions page.

Thanks, --Taragui 12:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Done (7 days) Charles Matthews 16:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for your support. Looks like this one is going to go right down to the line. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Algebraic solution
Not within my area of competence (statistics), but this definition seems inconsistent with usages I've heard. My understanding by example: the roots of a quadratic have a closed-form expression (algebraic) but the roots of a quartic do not (obviously computable, but non-algebraic). I'm also a bit suspicious because of this edit. I'm guessing you might be savvy about this, mind having a quick look? Michael Ward 17:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)