User talk:JackSchmidt/Archives/2008/05

naming authority
Hi Jack, in connection with the naming authority issue I told you of I had another idea (I already wrote it at my talk page). If you have a moment I'd be glad to hear your opinion. Thank you, I appreciate your expertise. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt O. Friedrichs
Jack Schmidt I am writing to you since it seems you are the person who deleted the content I had put on the page for Kurt O. Friedrichs. Indicating there were copyright issues. So not sure you are the right person or even if this is how to contact you. K. O. friedirchs is my father and the content I put on was primarily from two sources - Note my father wrote on his own career (that I have ownership of as his heir) - an article a family friend (now deceased) wrote about my father that I and my father contributed to Part of the copy write issue mentioned was that this same content was found on the website friedrichs.us, but this is my website and I posted this content many years ago. I now wanted in on Wikipedia.

So how can I get this placed on without it being re removed. If you are not the right person can you redirect me. Thanks Martin Friedrichs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinfriedrichs (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Schmidt I am writing to you since it seems you are the person who deleted the content I had put on the page for Kurt O. Friedrichs. Indicating there were copyright issues. So not sure you are the right person or even if this is how to contact you. K. O. friedirchs is my father and the content I put on was primarily from two sources - Note my father wrote on his own career (that I have ownership of as his heir) - an article a family friend (now deceased) wrote about my father that I and my father contributed to Part of the copy write issue mentioned was that this same content was found on the website friedrichs.us, but this is my website and I posted this content many years ago. I now wanted in on Wikipedia.

So how can I get this placed on without it being re removed. If you are not the right person can you redirect me. Thanks Martin Friedrichs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinfriedrichs (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Howdy, the thing you are looking for is WP:IOWN. If you put a note on the http://friedrichs.us/ website saying that you are the copyright holder for that article, and that anyone can copy, edit, publish, and redistribute the article under the terms of the GFDL, then you (or anyone) can put the material on wikipedia.  For the material to stay on wikipedia, the copyright owner must agree to allow anyone to copy, edit, publish, and redistribute the article under the terms of the GFDL (but you can send an email to the Wikimedia foundation instead of changing your website).
 * You may not own the copyright to the article (the friend's heirs might be for instance, but I am no lawyer), so you probably want to read WP:DCP too. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lagrange's Theorem
Lagrange's Theorem is concerned with the size of the group and it's subgroup, not with the order. These two are often the same thing, but are not by definition. The page has a section "Using the theorem" which goes on to then say how that the order of subgroup H divides the order of group G. Admittedly it's a small difference, but is essential knowledge for students being able to construct answers to algebra questions using Lagrange's Theorem as defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.241.138 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to see order (group theory). The order of a group is exactly the same as the size of a group.  The order of a subgroup is exactly the same as the size of a subgroup.  The order of an element is different from the size of an element.  JackSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply concerning sporadic groups and links
Let me see whether this might fill the bill. On the discussion page of each article I am working on I can post a summary of the sources where what I am writing about can be found. I can start with the page on Mathieu groups. btw on that page I am considering some internal links from maximal groups to other relevant sections.

The Mathieu groups are at the bottom of sporadic groups, so links would mainly be upward to Conway groups, and I think there is one. I have made some links to define technical terms, and no doubt there should be more. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple subgroups in M24
I noticed that you explicitly listed the conjugacy classes of these subgroups. That is something I have been working out. I got what you have except that I have found 3 instead of 5 classes isomorphic to A5.

1) orbits of 5 and 15. These are found in M20, hence in the sextet group. Also in the octad group.

2) orbits of 5, 6, and 10. Found in M11, also in M21. In M11 they split into 2 conjugacy classes, depending on how they act on which dodecad.

3) 4 orbits of 6. Found in the sextet group, also in M12.

Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am looking in PSL(2,11), the 12-12 version. It has 2 conjugacy classes of A5. Maybe they are not conjugate even in M24. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert
I happened to notice that you removed the exercises on the article "Locally finite collection". Why did you do this? I believe that these exercises are information and even if someone doesn't treat them as exercises they could always treat them as information. I have convinced others not to remove the exercises. Could you please tell me your purpose? I hope that you understand that I am just trying to improve this article. I also am the initial creator of this article.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Topology Expert (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

automat(a)? group
I happened to see your note on your userpage about writing an article called automata group. I don't actually know what such a thing is, but it just struck me that the plural sounded odd. Googling for "automata group" gets some apparently relevant hits but they're interspersed with research groups that study automata, whereas "automaton group" -- which to me just sounds less awkward anyway -- gets a lot higher proportion of relevant hits on the first page. Of course since I don't know what they are, I can't rule out the possibility that automata group and automaton group refer to two different things, but assuming they're the same, I just thought I'd put in a word for using the singular form. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was requested under "automata", but my main source uses both singular and plural. I'll make the article singular and redirect from the plural.  I mostly wanted to do it since it is easy to assume automaton groups are just automatic groups (the definitions are pretty similar).  I think the plurality is probably due to the idea that there is more than one automaton per automaton group (at least there are for automatic groups, the only ones that are relevant to my research).  Luckily my todo list is pretty long, so this won't be an issue in the short term. My main wiki concerns right now are group theory and the finite simple groups of Lie type (aka, linear algebra for algebraists, including the weight merge project, and all those orthogonal, symplectic, unitary guys). JackSchmidt (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the concept of an automatic group? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I am looking still for the precise relation. It of course may only be a superficial relationship, as most infinite groups are the same to me: weird.
 * Finitely presented groups are hard, because you can't tell if two words represent the same group. However, some groups have automata that answer questions like "is this word the identity?".  They are called automatic groups, and the automata fixes a problem with finitely presented groups.  Infinite permutation groups are hard, because it takes a lot of space to write down a bijection of Z.  Some permutation groups have the property that their permutations are just the action of an automaton, and so there is a compact description of the bijections.  These are called automaton groups, and the automata fixes the problem of describing the permutation. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

zeteo
Hi Jack,

another stab about the zeteo naming issue. I had an idea (see also my post at User_talk:CBM): measuring author's distance and hence article's distances could be done by measuring how close they are in the WP category tree. This, in addition to a supplementary term given by possible common coauthors (or at least persons with the same name), should give a fairly reliable means to decide whether two persons have been working in the same area.

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Huppert
No problem at all - I happened on it at WP:PNT. Glad to be of service! Cricketgirl (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)