User talk:Hubby56

users that have answered my questions - thanks, this is an impressive attention

 * PrimeHunter - administrator
 * Finnusertop - wikipedian
 * Maproom - programer, to check Pauli group
 * Paulscrawl - reviewer
 * Tigraan - bot owner
 * Joe Roe - administrator
 * Cullen - administrator
 * Jmcgnh - hard worker also IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help

interesting story in the Teahouse : COI
Brian Brennan (author)

Reversion of one of your edits
I have undone this edit because neither the content of the edit nor the summary appear to me to make any sense. The summary says this:
 * The bijections here are not wikipedia bijections but invertible arrows. Why ? because bijections, injections and surjections will be further defined in theory. Please wait for the required expert.)

I have no idea what a "Wikipedia bijection" is, but the definitions given here antedate Wikipedia.

Can you explain what you unsuccessfully attempted to say in your edit summary? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Michael, Species Theory will investigate further objects like bijections, surjections, injections, as they are described in Wikipedia, (Wikipedia bijectons, etc) To do this, ie explaining stuff at some level, one needs a higher level theory ie. category theory . In the category theory the object used is something like SetBij written with bold scary Gothic bearded letters, just to underline the things in species theory here are not Wikipedia Sets and they are not Wikipedia Bijections.
 * So, in conclusion, you have just killed the definition of a Species. You are now in the position to delete the whole article, because the object of this article has been just massacred.
 * If you are really interested in species, watch me here applying the stuff : https://math.stackexchange.com/users/567523/nicholas-boyku Hubby56 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Combinatorial species
Could you explain at talk:Combinatorial species what you mean in this edit summary and the one before it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read two lines below in the definition paragraph: "Functors also operate on morphisms, i.e., on bijections in this case". In 1980 the isomorphism between two sets-objects was named "bijection" because the sets have no shape, no structure, no nothing and the use of word "morphism" is confusing. For your OR to be coherent, you will have to kill also that line below and replace morphism with function etc. BTW, did you studied the references as I recommended to you ? Hubby56 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh dear me ! did you saw, mr. Hardy, what just happened ?
 * Good luck to you and mr. Lem on writing good articles.Hubby56 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)