User talk:Eozhik

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Stereotype space, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Teahouse talkback
Hello, I responded to your question at the Teahouse.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflexive spaces
Dear Sergei, I saw that you made a serious reorganization of that article. I am interested in that article, where I wrote some sections (in particular, some years ago, the locally convex definition that did not exist at the time, although the Montel example was already given!). I think the article looks better now, thanks to your action. However, could you give an idea of what you are doing by filling the "edit summary"? That would help the editors who are "watching" this article.

I am the one who recently created the stuff on super-reflexive, and I'll be very interested to know what you want to do about it. I support creating a new article, but I don't think though that the present content should be completely removed from "Reflexive space", rather it should be summarized I believe.

With best wishes, Bdmy (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) (retired "Banachiste")


 * Dear Bdmy, thank you and excuse me, this is only a beginning! My idea is the following:
 * 1) I want to separate the material devoted to Banach space from what is written about locally convex spaces, because usually people are interested in Banach spaces (the majority of those who is interested in this topic), and
 * 2) I want to clarify the connections with the other articles, to supply them the necessary references, to remove mistakes, etc.
 * I think it will take me several hours today. Eozhik (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Bdmy, I have just put the following suggestion in the talk page of this article:


 * I can't force myself to make corrections that I want to make, because I suspect that I will damage the philosophical idea that the authors had in mind when writing this. Please, let me know would you mind if I define reflexive Banach space without references to the article about dual (topological vector) space, but instead on the base of the notion of dual normed space and dual norm? I've just made correction in the article on this topic. My idea is that it is easier to define reflexive Banach space without topology. We must use this possibility, because in my opinion, if something can be explained in a more simple way, the one who explains must use this way. What do you think about this?Eozhik (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Polylogism
Hello.

I started the article on polylogism as a stubby article on something I don't know much about. I'm not sure I can help with it further. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. Thank you anyway. Eozhik (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Smith space was accepted
 Smith space, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Envelope (category theory)
Hi and thank you for contributing this article via the articles for creation process! I have now accepted it, but I have to admit I'm not a mathematician (and probably neither are the other editors working away at the AfC backlog), so I'm in absolutely no position to determine notability here. By accepting the draft, I've made it more visible to editors who deal with maths topics, so if there do happen to be any issue they're likely to get picked up soon. – Uanfala (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you, Uanfala! If there will be questions, I will answer. Eozhik (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stereotype algebra has been accepted
 Stereotype algebra, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Stereotype_algebra help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Strong monomorphism has been accepted
 Strong monomorphism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TeaDrinker (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Strong_monomorphism help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Strong epimorphism has been accepted
 Strong epimorphism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TeaDrinker (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Strong_epimorphism help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nodal decomposition has been accepted
 Nodal decomposition, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TeaDrinker (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Nodal_decomposition help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proper context-setting
You wrote this:
 * In category theory, a nodal decomposition of a morphism $$\varphi:X\to Y$$ is a representation of $$\varphi$$ as a product $$\varphi=\sigma\circ\beta\circ\pi$$, where $$\pi$$ is a strong epimorphism, $$\beta$$ a bimorphism, and $$\sigma$$ a strong monomorphism.

I changed it to say this:
 * In category theory, an abstract mathematical discipline, a nodal decomposition of a morphism $$\varphi:X\to Y$$ is a representation of $$\varphi$$ as a product $$\varphi=\sigma\circ\beta\circ\pi$$, where $$\pi$$ is a strong epimorphism, $$\beta$$ a bimorphism, and $$\sigma$$ a strong monomorphism.

The phrase "In category theory" does not accomplish the purpose served by the phrase "In geometry" or "In calculus", etc.: it does not tell the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, it's OK! Thank you, Michael! Eozhik (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

stereotype spaces
I just wrote a review for your Draft:Refinement (category theory). So -- to me stereotype spaces are completely brand new, but definitely seem to be way cool. It seems to clarify assorted confusing thoughts I've had in the past. ... Anyway, scrolling down, I see various new tensor products. After about 10 seconds of thought, these remind me very much of the operators in linear logic. Not surprising -- linear logic is the internal logic (foo -- try this instead -- https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/internal+logic ) of symmetric monoidal categories, so for example, for C* algebras. The crazy notation used in linear logic seems to be invented by Girard in the 1980's. So -- the new operators you define in stereotype spaces -- are these the same as those in linear logic, but using different symbols? Are they "almost the same" but not quite? Is there actually no relationship at all? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello 67.198.37.16. Thank you for the review, I'll aswer your questions at that page later. As to linear logic, I am not a specialist here, and I had no time to study this attentively. It was Todd Trimble who drew my attention to those relations between stereotype spaces and linear logic at . What he writes there sounds plausible and reasonable, so I believe stereotype spaces are indeed a model of linear logic. Eozhik (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, understanding linear logic is not "hard". The basic ideas is this: first, understand why simply-typed lambda calculus is the "internal language" of Cartesian closed categories. This is not "hard" -- just consider the products of 3,4,5,6... objects, try to write them down on a piece of paper, and after a very short time, you realize that you are just writing down generic lambda expressions (in *untyped* lambda calculus; because there is only one type: all objects in the cartesian-closed cat have the same type.). There's no magic; its just about arranging the symbols on a piece of paper and manipulating them algebraically. (lambda calculus is just some very stupid algebraic re-arrangements). Once you get this idea, you then realize that any category with tensors or exponentials will have an associated "language", so it is natural to ask "what is that language?". For the symmetric monoidal categories, it is linear logic. Since you used those words in stereotype spaces, it was an obvious guess; just verify the details. If you have not seen it, you might enjoy this article: its really pretty easy to read: Mike Stay, John Baez, "A Rosetta Stone"; you will be able to figure all this out in a day or two if not an hour or two.67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 67.198.37.16, thank you for the reference. I am reading this article, it's interesting. Eozhik (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 67.198.37.16, I have read this article by Mike Stay and John Baez. I must confess, some details are vague for me. For instance, one thing that I wanted to ask people, remains unclear: in which sense categories are considered as models of logical systems? What is the exact definition of the model in this construction? Eozhik (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this question. When people say "model" they usually mean model theory. Categories are considered to be models of logical systems in several different ways. One way is the elementary topos which very explicitly are used to model logic. Recall first that the Yoneda lemma allows you to model topology with sheaves - viz classical predicate logic with borel sets, and the heyting algebras (the intuitionistic logic) with topological spaces (viz with open sets of a topological space. This is Stone's theorem on the representability of boolean algebras, and leads to pointless topology and then to the Grothendieck topology and then to the elementary topoi.

But there is much much more. See for example, categorical logic for the tip of the iceberg. Also, nlab provides excellent resources for these things. See https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/internal+logic and more generally https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/logic   The general upshot is that logic, type theory, category theory, theorem proving and programming are all "equivalent" in a way, and are a generalization of concepts from topology. So for example, two proofs are "homotopically equivalent" (in the sense of a homotopy, viz a continuous function (continuous in the Scott topology) that transforms one proof into another, without altering the thing that the proof is proving. This idea of homotopy underlies the modern-day proof assistants e.g. Coq or HOL (proof assistant) or e.g. Agda (programming language). To see that its exactly the same homotopy as in topology, you have to walk the path from the Yoneda lemma, to the sheaves, to the Grothendieck topoi and then the elementary topi. I guess there is also a "much easier" path through type theory - for that, see the HoTT book - Homotopy type theory - its a nice and easy-to-read book.

For the case of the Baez& Stay paper, you want to look at linear logic and also at intuitionistic type theory. These days, its all hopelessly tangled with model theory and category theory and so on but I still don't understand most of the details and am easily confused myself. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that the correct place to pose this question is on mathoverflow -- if yo don;'t know mathoverflow -- its an excellent place to ask (advanced) questions and to get answers from actual mathematicians (or grad students). 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, when I look at your articles on refinements and envelopes, I have several things that block my understanding. So, first, you define commuting triangles, one leg of which is unique, i.e. is "universal" in the ordinary sense (e.g. universal property). So to me, these triangles look exactly like pullbacks or pushforwards ... you can take the triangles and turn them into squares by just inserting an identity morphism into the triangle, so now they seem to become "obviously" pullbacks or pushforewards. It would be very very helpful if the articles clarified this. The next block to my understanding are the hom-sets $$\Gamma$$ and $$\Phi$$ -- I suspect that they are sieves (see the Grothendieck topology article for a definition of a sieve. A sieve just says that if $$f\in\Gamma$$ then so is fg for any g whose codomain is the domain of f.  Sieves are certain subsets of homsets. When the category is a category of open sets on a topological space, then a sieve is exactly the same thing as a filter (or an ideal, if you reverse the arrows).  Sieves are covered by covers in the same way that topologies are covered by covers. Open covers (and sieves) have refinements ...  I am guessing that your $$\Gamma$$ and $$\Phi$$ are sieves but you never actually say this -- the buzzwords that I am used to are missing. So the statements about LCS and normed spaces seem to be saying something like "pushouts and pullbacks exist for these certain subobjects, and the category of all of these pushouts and pullbacks is called a refinement" or something like that. Not sure. You realize that its a theorem that if pullbacks and equalizers exist, then all limits exist? and.v.v if all pushouts and coequalizers exist, then all colimits exist.  67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 67.198.37.16, we are like habitants of different planets: each word requires a translation. :) Pullbacks and pushouts (I think, you mean pushouts) don't resemble me refinements and envelopes... As to mathoverflow, I know it and I have an account there, thank you! :) Eozhik (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Refinement (category theory) has been accepted
 Refinement (category theory), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Refinement_(category_theory) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proper TeX usage
Note my edits to Refinement (category theory). If you write something like \text{arccsc} instead of \operatorname{arccsc} then here is what happens:
 * 3\text{arccsc} x :
 * $$ 3\text{arccsc} x \, $$
 * 3\operatorname{arccsc} x :
 * $$ 3\operatorname{arccsc} x \, $$
 * 3\text{arccsc}(x) :
 * $$ 3\text{arccsc}(x) \, $$
 * 3\operatorname{arccsc}(x):
 * $$ 3\operatorname{arccsc}(x) \, $$
 * $$ 3\operatorname{arccsc}(x) \, $$

So you see: with \operatorname{} you get proper spacing to the left and right, and the spacing actually depends on the context; with \text{} you get no spacing. In Refinement (category theory) you see that positioning of the superscripts and subscripts looks conspicuously better than it did before. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Michael, thank you! I didn't know that, I'll have this in mind! Eozhik (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing
Hi Sergei,

Continuing from here: I am not by an means an expert in the AfD process, but I'll do my best to be helpful. The usual test for whether something deserves an article is notability, which has to do with coverage in reliable, independent sources. I think the full policy is here (I don't particularly recommend reading it all :) ). This is what Deacon Vorbis was addressing in his comment.  If it is true that this concept (and not, say, several unrelated concepts that happen to go by the same name) is mentioned in a number of research papers and textbooks by a variety of authors, probably the concept is notable (whether or not it is correct, or even sensible).  More in the spirit of your comments is the guideline WP:FRINGE, relating to fringe theories.  The section Fringe_theories is probably the most relevant.  A recent AfD where this came up is Articles_for_deletion/Postmodern_mathematics; unfortunately it's hard to tell there whether this argument actually convinced anyone.  (You can see that there, as in this AfD, I sometimes make comments without ultimately expressing an opinion one way or the other.)

As a final remark, if you'd like to draw more attention to the discussion from the mathematically inclined, I suggest leaving a note at WT:WPM. (Again for formal/bureaucratic reasons, the message should be neutrally phrased; e.g., "Here is an AfD that could use additional attention from those with expertise in mathematics and set theory", or whatever.)

All the best, JBL (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you! I work all the week. I will try to look at this on the weekend! Eozhik (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I put a note at WT:WPM and made a little summary at the page where the deletion is discussed. I don't know, maybe this is enough. Eozhik (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disorderliness
Yes, this website is disorderly. There are very few hard and fast rules, like the rule against threatening. So don't take it personally if they delete your article--it doesn't mean that your article violated the rules, merely that the deleters thought it did.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. OK, thank you, ! I'll say some more words about this on that page. By the way, I looked at your articles about Luther, they are great. Eozhik (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on others
Please don’t make statements like you are not a mathematician. You do not understand the logical arguments, you do not follow the accuracy of the spoken and you do not hesitate to say absurd things as you did towards. These are considered personal attacks and not welcome here. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 01:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , but this is truth. How should I react if my interlocutor repeatedly makes false statements "We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works." "But they are not Wikipedia articles." — and deduces from them that my article must be deleted? Eozhik (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Eozhik,
 * I believe we discussed some issues productively in the past, and I am not involved in the present discussion (and do not intend to become so), so I hope you will not mind if I add my 2c. It doesn't matter whether the personal remarks you are making are true or not, you should avoid making them.  The slogan here is "comment on the content, not the contributor".  It is a necessary condition for working together on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.  (WP is a really strange place, and it takes the idea that "anyone can edit" literally in some ways: there is no bar to non-experts editing on technical topics, for example.  This obviously has its limitations, but overall it has worked very well.)
 * All the best, JBL (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , Joel I appreciate your good will, but I do not understand how it is technically possible to follow this slogan. Look at this situation: I give necessary references in the article. Suddenly a person appears and says "these authors don't mention this term!" I explain to him that they do, we spend two days on discussing who, where and for which purposes mentiones this term. Then on the third day the interlocutor writes:"We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works."— as if there was no discussion at all. Is your point that I should just agree with him? And this detail: "But they are not Wikipedia articles." I gave him references both to the articles in  “Encyclopedia of Mathematics” and to the articles in Wikipedia. And after that he writes that "these are not Wikipedia articles". How should I react? Stating that these propositions are not true is telling the truth in this situation. You have another opinion? Eozhik (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response -- I started to write something, had to go teach, and then the discussion had moved on quite a bit. (I hope at least you are satisfied with Coolabahapple's explanation of the note; their edit added the discussion to the list here, which some of us keep an eye on to see when mathematics articles are being deleted.)  I think that my answer will not be terribly satisfying for you, so apologies in advance: my suggestion is that not every wrong argument someone makes needs to be directly challenged.  Some administrator will eventually read through the entire discussion, and they will have a much easier time reading a clear stand-alone statement that makes the case that the topic is notable than a long back-and-forth; there is no "penalty" for letting an argument go unanswered or letting someone else get the last word.  Anyhow, that's my two cents. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , Joel thank you. To tell the truth, the more I see what is happening, the less I have a desire to stay here. I think I'll do what I can for defending the work of my group here, and after that I'll leave. Eozhik (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the feeling of frustration is understandable, as is the desire to take a break from stressful and unpleasant things. If I may offer two further comments: (1) I hope you will eventually return and continue contributing; I am sure everyone agrees that your work here has been beneficial (even if they regrettably want to delete some of it :-/ ).  (2) I haven't tried to understand what this discussion is about in detail, but it seems like a major issue is the question of naming rather than of substance.  In that case, one resolution (maybe proposed by D.Lazard first?) is to skirt the issue by including substantially the same content as a section of another article, at least for the time being.  (If the article is deleted, it will be possible to ask an administrator to provide a copy of it, so it will not be completely lost.) --JBL (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Joel thank you! Eozhik (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , Joel and look at this: ":Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)" I found it several minutes ago. What is this? Does this mean that my arguments will be just deleted? Eozhik (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * please see explanation at the afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * JBL is correct. Even if you think that someone is stating falsehoods, focus on what you believe to be falsehoods. I.e. Stating that these propositions are not true as you say. In this instance, you went further in several claims about the editor personally, e.g. you are not a mathematician and you do not hesitate to say absurd things are not about the arguments themselves. — MarkH21talk 19:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , this strategy does not always work. It is more or less normal in discussions with mathematicians, who usually understand the difference between true and false statements. There is also a certain layer of people who, not being mathematicians, nevertheless have the habit of weighing words before pronouncing them. But a lot of people do not have such a habit. And my thesis is that your proposed method of communicating with them will not teach them anything and will not bring any results.


 * A person who has an idea of responsibility for his words will, at the very initial stage, check the proofs before blaming anyone. Everything is different here, and I was shocked when seeing this. From the very beginning, I was accused that the term I am writing about is not visible in my references. And even after two days of explanation, as it turned out nothing has changed. Moreover, I have reasons to think that even now not everything is clear here for some of my interlocutors.


 * The same with my thesis that in the human culture there is no tradition that in encyclopedias all articles are written on the basis of textbooks. As in the previous example, I have a reason to think that despite several days of explanations with a bunch of illustrations, this thesis was not understood by many people here.


 * How will you use your strategy in such situations? Eozhik (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a Wikipedia policy to only focus on arguments and consensus among a group of editors in centralized discussions, such as those appearing at AfD, will revolve around the application of policy and logical arguments. This is also what I find normal in discussions with mathematicians; I don't find focusing on the person themselves instead of their arguments to be the typical productive conversation between mathematicians.In this case, there is a difference of opinion between you two on how much we should base articles on textbooks; just let others weigh in. There's not much else to it. But do not start making personal comments (unless they're positive, I suppose) about other editors. Even if you find that refraining from making personal comments does not always work, making such comments will definitely not work and may eventually lead to a block on your account. — MarkH21talk 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , you can teach me. Look at this: "But it is true that we cannot find a general reference work that gives the definition of a stereotype space." How would you react? The reference to the work with the definition of stereotype spaces is given in the section "Definition" of the discussed article:"A stereotype space is..." What do Wikipedia policy suggest in this difficult situation? Eozhik (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You should react by giving exactly that: The reference to the work with the definition of stereotype spaces is given in the section "Definition" of the discussed article: [article link]. Then my guess is that would elaborate on what they mean by general reference work, which may not mean what you thought it meant. Maybe not, but either way, just pointing out references is the way to go. — MarkH21talk 21:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In this game it is much more profitable to be irresponsible. Eozhik (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear User:MarkH21 and User:Joel B. Lewis-- I disagree that Eozhik made personal attacks when he wrote that User:TakuyaMurata was not a mathematician, etc. The statements he made were fact-based as best as Eozhik reasonably understood them and therefore did not violate the policy against assuming bad faith. The following comments after that were reflected his judgement of TakuyaMurata's writings in a general way, and likewise were not personal attacks. I have been following this on and off over weeks, it appears that there is weird politicking going surrounding Eozhik and work he has done on articles, with some users feeling that they "own" certain topics and then wikilawyering to prove their point. Your accusation against User:Eozhik fits into my overall observation. The center of your argument rests in your assumption that since you know Wikipedia policies and rules better than Eozhik, you can accuse him without his being able to refute you. But what if you are wrong?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think my comments above are completely clear and have been received by Eozhik in exactly the way that they were meant. I don't see what you hope to accomplish by your post. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you refrain from this behavior in the future?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your comments to me are misguided and misplaced, and I do not feel any particular obligation to respond to them substantively. Eozhik and I are fully capable of speaking with each other in a constructive and appropriate way; I do not think that your confused and belated intervention is required. --JBL (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, this is a misunderstanding, there is no reason to argue., it doesn’t matter if there were personal attacks or not, the question of the significance of the article should not depend on such things. There is no need to exaggerate the importance of events, I will find where to popularize our science. In particular, it’s evident that I should have written a textbook, I was postponing this because they don’t pay anything for this, but sooner or later it’s still necessary to do it. Do not worry, everything is ok. Eozhik (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if people on wikibooks.org behave better. The advantage of wikipedia is that google indexes it on the first page of results; people will actually get to it. Wikibooks gets a google listing maybe on the fourth page instead of the first page. But it would be a more obvious place to reuse the wikimedia syntax work you already wrote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Monographs
A monograph is a really long scholarly article. It is about only one topic, generally attempting to be comprehensive for the topic. Some monographs get published as books or as circulars for government agencies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I wanted to clarify, because in the list of references of that article there were references to my long texts, which, with a certain understanding, could be considered as monographs. But now it does not matter, of course. Thank you for everything, and good luck! Eozhik (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You were strongly vindicated by User:Wham Bam Rock II--especially in your style of writing. It is possible now to take material from the old pages for Stereotype algebra, Stereotype group algebra, and Stereotype space and appropriately copy and paste parts into the places where they redirect to. Of course you must use good judgement as to not overload the articles, and you may need to edit them to make them fit. I might add that TakuyaMurata may possibly have been displeased with having the article on Stereotype algebra redirected. If "misery loves company" well then he his your company. Whenever you copy material from one page to another, it is a Wikipedia policy to write, "Copied from X article on April 8th," (or instead of April 8th, whatever date it the old article was) into the subject line of the new article. The date does not have to be the exact date the old article was written--just any date reflecting the text that you are copying from. If you copy a non-deleted article, you usually put in today's date.


 * There are conflicting politics on Wikipedia to either make it more educational or to make it more impressive scholarly. Your article was justified on by being educationally useful, but was dinged by it (supposedly) the wrong or at least a more obscure term for respectable scholarship.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have no will to continue to do anything here. In my opinion, the unceremoniousness that people demonstrate here with respect to other people's work disgraces this project. This becomes especially scandalous when it is seen that this comes from persons who do not understand the meaning of what is written, who enjoy impunity for their actions, and who in addition pretend to not understand the moral problems standing behind all this. I don't want to make oaths, because I had a similar experience in Russian Wikipedia, where once I decided not to intervene anymore, but later I could not resist seeing what absurdity they write in their articles on mathematics. I do not exclude that in the future something similar may happen here, but I still hope that this will not come to this. Of course, I do not blame the bona fide people who remain in this project and honestly write good articles or improve written ones, but I can’t do that anymore, this contradicts my understanding of decency. Please, accept my sincere wishes for success and convey to the participants who wish to make corrections concerning the notions that I described, that they can do this using my notes left after this story. Eozhik (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a serious problem with this website and I don't have a good answer. Your dedication makes you a target, but the other side of the coin is that your dedication enables you to write articles that are more helpful and understandable than most. Think of how many college students that are currently reduced to working without help from others because of the epidemic. They are reading Wikipedia to try to figure out their assignments given to them through the internet.


 * People are way more likely to take advantage of you on this website if they think you are alone, and if you write your own articles. If you work on an article that already exists you may have less interference from either crackpots/cranks on one hand or on the other hand the people who do understand things but are egotistical.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)