User talk:Drschawrz

Hello, please see Verifying some formulas for fractional iteration for a discussion on whether the section on Some formulas for fractional iteration can be verified in a peer reviewed published paper.Daniel Geisler (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supermembranes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maxwell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Vector Artist
Hello, Drschawrz,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Vector Artist should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Vector Artist.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Deunanknute (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Vector Artist
 * added links pointing to English, Ring, Proprietary, C Sharp, Chrome, Android, PNG and Unity 3D

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Subgroup lattice
I think you don't need the line from F23 to M since you already have F23 to B and F23 to F24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.50.180 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to AdS/CFT correspondence
I'm assuming you're the person who's been editing the AdS/CFT article with the IP number 94.119.64.0. I just reverted the most recent changes, and I wanted to explain why. If you're not the same person, feel free to ignore or delete this message.

As I said in our last conversation, I welcome any changes to the article, provided they are technically accurate and supported by reliable citations. It would be very interesting to include a more detailed discussion of the mathematical status of the AdS/CFT correspondence, but the text you've added has some serious problems.

The main problem is that you are oversimplifying the issue. For example, when you write "The AdS/CFT correspondence has not been mathematically proven (as of 2015)", it is very unclear what you mean by the phrase "AdS/CFT correspondence". Generally speaking, this phrase does not refer to a particular duality but rather to a large collection of similar dualities. The subject does not have well defined boundaries. It's not clear to me whether you're referring only to the classic relation between type IIB string theory and N=4 super Yang-Mills theory, or whether your statement includes things like higher spin gauge theories or pure (2+1)-dimensional gravity. These are very different conjectures, and one expects the relevant mathematics to be different in each case.

It's also not clear what you mean when you talk about mathematical proof. In most instances of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the theories on the two sides of the duality are very far from being mathematically well defined. Even the theories on the CFT side are not rigorously defined, so it's hard to even pose this as a mathematical question. The AdS/CFT correspondence is not at all analogous to the Riemann hypothesis, which is a completely well defined mathematical problem.

It's possible that you're talking about "proof" in the physicist's sense, although in that case, I'm not sure why you include the statement "A mathematician, however, would not consider the hundreds of pieces of evidence in which the AdS/CFT correspondence seems to work as a proof". Like mathematicians, theoretical physicists have certain standards of rigor, and you would need to explain more precisely what counts as a "proof" of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Aside from the imprecise nature of your contributions, the major problem is still that you have not cited a single reliable source. If you have not done so already, I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies regarding citations. This is really a very fundamental part of how Wikipedia works, and you should not expect any of your contributions to survive unchallenged if you have not included the proper references. Like I said, I would be very interested in expanding the discussion of the mathematical status of the AdS/CFT correspondence, but you'll need to find a reliable source that discusses this in a sufficiently precise way. Polytope24 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Invariance mechanics


The article Invariance mechanics has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Vectorartistscreenshot.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vectorartistscreenshot.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Any chance this user could spell his or her name the same way twice?
Otherwise, I strongly advocate the removal of this web page.