User talk:JackSchmidt/Archives/2008/06

Reply to post at Talk:Semidirect product
I'm not sure how to treat the effect of adding a handle on the fundamental group directly, but the general problem of the fundamental groups of the compact surfaces is indeed fairly trivial. Allen Hatcher does it by writing the surface as a wedge of circles with a single 2-cell attached. That gives a presentation with a single relator. Algebraist 10:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How many generators are needed in general? Many? If the generators are few, then maybe a Schur multiplier argument could be interesting.  Otherwise, I think much is known about one-relator groups, and perhaps it is possible to prove that Z semi Z/2Z is not such a group. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you need that many, but the 'obvious' way gives 2g generators for the orientable surface of genus g and g generators for the nonorientable. Why do you want to prove that Z semi Z/2Z is not one-relator? Algebraist 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Generically just an exercise in using the topological ideas.  This would show that Z semi Z/2Z is not the fundamental group of any compact surface, much less the klein bottle. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My brain must have been turned off yesterday: you do need all those generators, and so Z semi Z/2Z is not the fundamental group of a surface. Algebraist 09:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, JackSchmidt! Everything seems to be in order, and I greatly appreciate all of your help. I will also study the changes you made in an effort to learn from your expertise. TFCforever (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. You can see my [ changes] amounted to almost nothing; I just moved a few noinclude tags. JackSchmidt (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clonakilty AFC
On reflection, you're right. I was looking at the U-12 trophy, which wouldn't represent notability, but the Beamish Cup appears to be an adult-level trophy and does indicate notability. I've restored. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Vyse
No apologies needed! The sculptor stub is probably more descriptive - sculptors often model clay images. That potters glaze and fire their figurines shouldn't disqualify them from the 'sculptor' category. ciao Rotational (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

group theory
Hi Jack,

sadly, nobody(!) is (yet) responding to my peer review request of the group article. The WP:M seems to be chocking on AfD's and similar stuff. is Intermittently, I'm working on group theory. It seems to me that this matter is much more condensed than the close-to-leisure approach before. Hope to see you around,

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a summary of sources to the discussion on the article on Conway groups. I am next planning one for the article on the inverse Galois problem. Please let me know what else I ought to add. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty categories
Please delete the empty categories. They were created by mistake. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Can you check my speedy close at UCFD
Your actions look just fine. : - ) In the future, if you have questions, User:VegaDark may be a good person to ask. He's done about a million UCFD closures. He's always been a great source of guidance for me. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything was good, except the original nomination should have been moved to a new date under June 5th. The closure part was fine, however. Feel free to move it yourself, or I will move it next time I make an edit to the page. VegaDark (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for taking the time to check! JackSchmidt (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox categories
Thanks for your help. I will learn more about wiki then contribute to it. Lilymou (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Kohn
Ooh, nice. I hadn't noticed the "living" argument to BIRTH-DEATH-SORT. Michael Slone (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Cajigal y Odoardo
Hi! Thanks for the "(bdsort (as a Spaniard)" edit. TriniMuñoz (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lorena (name)
Sorry for leaving that one hanging. I've added a cat. SlackerMom (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sometimes I move a little too fast - there's so much to fix!  Never hesitate to call me out! SlackerMom (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stubs
One of your sub pages, the one called User talk:JackSchmidt/stub, has a number of stub tags on it. I was wondering if you could kindly take them off, as its putting your talk page into Category:Stubs. Thanks. &mdash; Maggot Syn 13:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. I didn't copy over the final version of the demo to this wiki.  All fixed.  Let me know if you have other comments at the discussion on WT:STUBS. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate it. &mdash; Maggot Syn 09:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect map
Dear Jack,

I have removed the following symbol from the page on perfect maps:

Please confirm that I have done the correct thing.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, you've mostly addressed the wikify tag, so it can be removed. There is still some wiki work to be done, but it is more minor now.  The numbered list should be turned into prose (eventually), and some of the links are to WP:disambiguation pages, so need to be fixed. JackSchmidt (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined WP:WPM too
I've responded to your message about WikiProject Mathematics. I prefer to keep discussions on a single page, so I've responded on my own talk page. Michael Slone (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

catwatch
When I use the catwatch script, the "Lookup 'Foo'" tabs are produced and change to "Looking up 'Foo'" when clicked, but they never produce the 'Add 1E6 pages to my watchlist' button. Does the script fail when you use it, or is this just something on my end? Michael Slone (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The api.php API changed a while back. cmcategory=Mathematics changed to cmtitle=Category:Mathematics.  I also updated it to work on other mediawikis (that have a sane wgArticlePath, so including all wikimedia projects and every mediawiki i've ever seen). JackSchmidt (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay, thanks. Now I have 665 pages on my watchlist. Michael Slone (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Locally finite group
Dear Jack,

Please have a look at the article locally finite group. I recently added a lot to it. Could you please give me your opinion on this (this is the first article I have contributed to in group theory)?

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

z
Wow, you keep your tabs open for a week! That truly is zen at its best. (Do you know "Zen and the art of maintaining a motorbike" [or something similar]? Good book) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

automaton group
Looks like User:Gogo Dodo deleted it as "A3 no meaningful content". I've politely requested to have it undeleted, but I thought you should know. --C S (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained my deletion on C S's talk page: I checked the deleted revision and my deletion was correct. The only content was a link to a website in China. There was no definition of any mathematical object. Upon some further looking and careful reading of the link and editor's username, it appears that this was an attempt by a Chinese SEO company looking to spam their link. I don't know why they chose that particular term, but then you never know about these SEO companies. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tube Lemma
Dear Jack,

Thanks for polishing up the article on the tube lemma.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read R.
Sorry; University of Waterloo (math Dept.) or Kocay his student on wikipedia at Winnipeg might be able to shed. I'll try.

JRN08 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1345
Thanks for your input. I was having difficulty figuring out what he'd done and made the false assumption that he had moved the article. Deb (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The situation looks confusing.  Looks like Wrad was doing a good thing, then stopped.  Unclear how to proceed, but I thought I'd mention the current list of things that were broken, because that probably affects what to do.  I didn't try to fix anything, since it looks like you guys are still working it out. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not stop. Even if I had made ten year articles like it, though, Deb would have put them all into a lame summary page. I'm pretty ticked off right now. I really wish Deb would just leave me be and let it be how it has been happily for months now. Nobody is going to comment on the years project page except me and the other editor who wrote the article because nobody cares. That project is dead and useless and has been for awhile. The talk page of the old article showed very clearly that there was support for the status quo, letting it stay as it was. I'm very upset that this admin changed it and then accuses me of leaving it to rot. I was going to post my new 1346 research today, ironically enough, but dare I? It will just be moved to some stupid summary page. It's like all the discussion we had about this before doesn't even matter. RRRRR! I will put my 1346 stuff up today and put it up for DYK if Deb will move things back the way they were. THEN, when it is up for DYK, the 1346 article will attract a lot of attention, just like the 1345 article did when IT was DYK. Then we can see what a larger portion of people think about where year articles should head and how they should be organized. That seems reasonable to me. Right now it's a tiny little argument in a tiny corner of wikipedia that will never get solved. Wrad (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)