User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 9

JustBerry
Thanks for the userbox and your reply! --JustBerry (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A little help to conclude
Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks re: Chinese character revert!
Hi John,

Thanks for your revert of my mistaken edit which accidentally blanked Chinese character (I was editing a section and there was an edit conflict, so I accidentally replaced the whole page instead). I’ve since re-done the edit correctly. Thanks again!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Summing volumes across dimensions
Hello, John.

I don't know how much math you have studied, but all I wrote was that if you sum the volumes of even-dimensional unit balls you get eπ.

I am not sure if this fact has any significance whatsoever, but it is entirely correct, since volumes are positive real numbers, and it is widely believed that any convergent series of positive real numbers can be summed. And most people would find it interesting, a.k.a. amusing.

You are way too quick on the trigger to "undo" a correct mathematical statement that was relevant to the subject, clearly stated, and not mentioned anywhere else in the article. If the fact that I'm summing volumes from different dimensions distresses you, why not just avoid reading that fact in the future.

You never know if someone else might read that fact and come up with a reason for it other than dumb luck. (Did you ever hear of "monstrous moonshine" ? Several people won Fields medals as a result of John Conway's observing this then-unexplained coincidence that certain numbers, with no apparent connection, just happened to be equal.)

If you want to undo something that has no obvious reason for being undone, I suggest that you bring it up on the Talk page associated with the article first, before single-handedly appointing yourself judge, jury, and executioner.

Sincerely,

Daqu (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for it? As though it looks correct it is not a result I've seen before and not an observation I'd make. As I noted in the edit summary it makes no sense to sum a zero dimensional point (how do you measure the size of that anyway?), a disk, a 4-volume etc. to infinity. It is a dimensionally meaningless quantity, not a valid sum.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is explained in that very article why the volume of a 2k-dimensional ball is πk/k!. The sum of these real numbers over k ≥ 0 is precisely the Taylor series for ex, with x set equal to π. This Taylor series is well-known, but maybe they don't teach it at the University of Cambridge.


 * And you are not qualified to say what "makes no sense".Daqu (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As this is now being discussed on the article talk page I will reply there if I have anything more to write on this.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

On deletion of Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry article
Dear John, You sent the article 'Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry' for deletion, when it containe 2 refs. I have removed one ref and external link. This article was not submitted by me, but I am an author of this very important book for all scientists. I spent 10 years to compile, write, type, edit it. So it would be good, if several lines about it will be in Wikipedia. Could you please say me concretely, what should I do more to save this article in Wikipedia? Thank you very much. Steven. Duplij (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now nominated it for deletion. See the discussion page at Articles for deletion/Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry. You should raise your concerns there and read the main page Articles for deletion for information on the process and what you can do.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * John, if I remove as you said "blurb from the back of the book", and leave only the reference to it, as it was before today editing by somebody several hours ago, may it will not be nominated for deletion? Thank you. Steve.
 * Again it would be best to continue this discussion at Articles for deletion/Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for protecting my User Page --Greenmaven (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your assistance with List of tallest buildings in the world!

Baseball  Watcher  00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 

Rent regulation
Hello John, I DID use the move function. The OTHER user moved it back without the move function! Please check the history. (I did however cut and paste for the talk page, because I didn't know what else to do.) I'd be grateful if you undid your changes now.  Wik idea  15:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've also erased the work I've done, can you please change that as well. Please be more careful in future. Thanks,  Wik idea  15:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rent_regulation&oldid=584375410
 * (cur | prev) 13:09, 3 December 2013‎ Wikidea (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,162 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Wikidea moved page Rent control to Rent regulation: more accurate) (undo)

solids of revolution
I, again, disagree with the definition you reverted to. If you rotate a circle you get a sphere, not a ball. to get a ball you'd need to rotate a disk, which is a plane, not a curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaitibber (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

aiding and abetting
You really should not encourage trolling and harassment by that editor. Reposting his baiting nonsense only encourages him to continue to be disruptive.--MONGO 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious source
Explain why an interview with a physics professor who disputes a pseudoscientific proposal like biocentric universe is a dubious source, please. Just because an interview is on youtube does not make it dubious. jps (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you just ignoring this section for your own edification? The interview is with an expert in quantum mechanics. That it is found on youtube is irrelevant. That kind of argument is pretty lazy. The best sources are experts. jps (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - WP:DTTR. Also, the source looks reasonable to me.  If something is making WP:REDFLAG claims, we should apply WP:FRINGE properly.  Complaining that a source that's clearly being used as an opinion is "unreliable", because of its provenance is just nonsensical. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not though a reliable secondary source. It's also unclear who the speaker is: you would expect an authority on QM to be notable enough to have an article, but there's none for Phil Moriarty. At best it's a primary source, and so should not be used on its own. It works more in support of the statement immediately before it but that is unsourced, there and elsewhere in the article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because an article's not been created yet doesn't mean you can't use your head and look him up . As yet, looks a bit young to have an article (he's only about 45).  With reference again to WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.  You should know that the reference (YouTube piece) discusses an article that appeared in the British tabloid the “Daily Mail”.   This tabloid is known for its outrageous and sensational journalism.  Lanza wasn’t interviewed for the story, nor does biocentrism make many of the claims in the story.  Adding an extremely one-sided statement in the “Introduction” calling the “Biocentric universe” “woo” based on such a piece is inappropriate.  There is already an entire “Reception” section that includes some quite harsh criticism.  One would just as easily add a quote from another YouTube at the beginning of the Wiki page saying how great the idea is.  Also, making such an exception claim [REDFLAG?]would “require multiple high-quality sources.”  Also, as you allude to, it appears the reference is self-published, and as such would also not be considered as a source. Thank you for your considering these points Josophie (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've know of an interview with a physic professor who is laudatory of Lanza's idea? Please share it! jps (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This should probably continue on the article talk page now there's a thread there.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)