User talk:Lethe/archive4

Wolok needs help
, maybe you could tell him that AN/I is not for asking for help, that you only gave him that link so he could see that people were talking about him? Better still, maybe you could help the guy. He needs someone to walk him through Wikipedia process, and didn't you say that you would love to work with this strange character? -lethe talk [ +] 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lethe, I am not sure if I said I would LOVE to work with this guy, but what the heck. Anybody that calls Jimbo's cell phone during diner you gotta love I figure. Anyways, let me try to help this guy. Thanks! --Tom 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. Your exact words were: "I would be HAPPY to work with this guy".  Sorry for the misquote.  Anyway, I think it was you who brought him to AN/I (the wrong place), so I think you ought to help him find the right place.  -lethe talk [ +] 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do. Also, you are right, this guy is a character :) Cheers! --Tom 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One or two editors who oppose Everett's theory? Geesh.--CSTAR 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive Talk:Axiom of choice, not just digression
The talk at axiom of choice is getting very long. Perhaps it is time to archive it, as Lethe has just done with his talk. I can only suggest this since I do not know how to archive (or create subpages) yet. JRSpriggs 04:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have done it already. Thanks. By the way, I am afraid that I accidentally destroyed someone's edit of this page when I saved my previous entry in this section. JRSpriggs 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I don't see any evidence of any edits gone missing in the history of this page (you're the only editor in the last few minutes), nor in any other of your recent Special:Contributions/JRSpriggs.  Why did you think that happened? -lethe talk [ +] 04:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first tried to save it, the page I saw did not contain my edit. So I backed-up with the intention of hitting save again. But then it showed a page containing my edit at the end and the other stuff above it and a message saying that I must somehow reconcile a conflict with someone-else's edit. So I copied my part into a file on my computer and cancelled my edit. But then I saw what I had been expecting to see at the outset (when I first saved). JRSpriggs 04:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. You made an edit conflict with yourself.  This usually happens when you save, then hit the "back" button, then save again.   I don't know why your first edit didn't appear though. -lethe talk [ +] 04:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. JRSpriggs 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates
Hi Michael, I just found this page. Maybe you can tap one or more of these more experienced users for assistance. I have been here 6 months and have over a 1,000 edits and I feel that I am still VERY VERY "green" and I am still feel like I have a TON to learn. The point is slow down. Its to bad there are "sides" to some articles but there are. Some users have less patience and maybe have forgotten how frustrating this project can be at times to new contributors. Cheers --Tom 13:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a very good suggestion, and I thank you for taking the time to look into ways to help the lamentable Michael D. Wolok. However, as you may see here, Wolok has already contacted the AMA.  In fact, I pointed out to him all the methods of dispute resolution including AMA, RfM, RfC and RfAb already on the many worlds talk page, which is probably how he found that page.  I really don't know why he keeps asking for help, after an advocate and a mediator have both responded to his requests.  I guess I will just ignore any further requests on his part.  -lethe talk [ +] 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lethe, yeah, I didn't know that you already had made those suggestions, so very good. I also received and sent back an extended e-mail to Michael with some further suggestions. I sort of got my nose into this because it seemed that this editor was sincere (also the Jimbo diner call) and I am a newbie still myself. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) ps I love that painting on your talk page and what does Lethe mean, is that french or Italian? and yes, I am university educated believe it or not :)....Never mind, I just Wiki serached "lethe", I like it :)...


 * Well I'm glad someone has finally been able to open up a dialogue with Wolok. Maybe things will improve in the future.  Are you also going to join his lonely people's internet club?  Haha :-)  Anyway, the painting is by de Goya, one of the Titans eating his son.  A morbid and mesmerizing painting, de Goya painted it on his kitchen wall, so I have my print hanging also on my kitchen wall.  Careful it doesn't put you off your lunch!  I love the painting, but my choice to put it on my userpage has occasionally prompted trolls to accuse me of being a child murderer or something.  Go figger.  I chose the username lethe because of my interest in all things classical, especially the classical underworld (I studied classics as an undergrad).  Perhaps it's also a metaphor for my propensity for binge drinking.  -lethe talk [ +] 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

outwith
I notice that you had a tussle over the usage of the word "outwith". Coincidentally, I removed that word from the article Scotland when I was a newbie, because I was an American who had no idea what it meant. I was later convinced by the Scottish speaking contingent to let them use Scots English in Scottish articles, so that a year later, when I discovered that that particular Scotishism had been deleted again, I restored it. -lethe talk [ +] 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the good old days, when my battles were so much smaller and insignificant :). Actually, after a full education on that words usage and history, it really is "old" Scottish and was/is used more in legal documents. The best meaning I found was to be "outside of" ie. Glasgow's rail system is the largest system outwith London's......Looking back I can't believe I really spent as much time on that but hey, I did learn something new and I am still amused by it :)...--Tom 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here it is If I ever do decide to be an admin, I guess I can use this for my Did you ever have an altercation with another user question :)  --Tom 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

B. Roy Frieden's POV-pushing edits
Note that Frieden is Prof. Em. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits: I posted fairly detailed criticisms of Frieden's "method" to sci.physics.research some years ago.---CH 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 20 May 2005 confesses to being Roy Frieden in real life
 * 2) 6 June 2006: adds cites of his papers to Extreme physical information
 * 3) 23 May 2006 adds uncritical description of his own work in Lagrangian and uncritically cites his own controversial book
 * 4) 22 October 2004 attributes uncertainty principle to Cramer-Rao inequality, which is potentially misleading
 * 5) 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution can be obtained via his "method"
 * 6) 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Klein-Gordon equation can be "derived" via his "method"
 * 7) 9 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his work to Fisher information
 * 8) 8 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his highly dubious claim that EPI is a general approach to physics to Physical information
 * 9) 16 August 2004 confesses IRL identity
 * 10) 13 August 2004 creates uncritical account of his work in new article, Extreme physical information
 * 1) 16 August 2004 confesses IRL identity
 * 2) 13 August 2004 creates uncritical account of his work in new article, Extreme physical information


 * Hmm... I see that I'm the admin who closed the AfD for Extreme physical information not too long ago. Well anyway, I've removed the claim from the Wheeler-deWitt equation that extreme physical information is used to derive it, which seems like a pretty radical claim.  I'll see what else needs reverting. -lethe talk [ +] 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just deleted similar EPI crap from Schrödinger equation with the following comment: "Deleted EPI claim since 1) not specific to Schrodinger 2) original research: all references in EPI article are self-authored" --Michael C Price 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He's been inserting this material into Wikipedia basic physics articles since 2004. He's in it for the long haul, I guess. -lethe talk [ +] 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing Dispute
Hello. Mr. Wolok contacted me saying that you were "following him around wikipedia reverting all of his edits without commentary." I wish to hear your side of the story. Please post it on my talk page. I would very much appreciate it as it will help me to bring a peaceful resolution to this "editing war."--scareslamfist 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I apparently got the same message from Mr. Wolok that Scareslamfist did. I gather from the above that he didn't get any satisfaction calling Jimbo Wales, so he turns to me. How can I help? Rick Norwood 00:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure how to help Wolok. I've solicited people to try to give him guidance, which appears to have caused him to leave messages on maybe 50 or 100 peoples talk pages today.  So I am loathe to take any more steps. -lethe talk [ +] 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am submitting this dispute to the Arbitration Committee. I'm sure they will make a final decision. Unless, of course, anyone has other suggestions. --scareslamfist
 * Sounds good to me. -lethe talk [ +] 09:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An act of courage
And of principle. I tip my hat to you.Timothy Usher 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that some admins are very trigger-happy with the block button. I don't support blocking good-faith editors over missteps or misunderstandings, but rather only over persistent intransigent bad faith. -lethe talk [ +] 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We need more admins who think like you do. Sophia  15:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we certainly do. rom a rin [talk ] 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just hope we can get some discussion going about what step to take next. And I'm totally willing to help, if I can figure out some way to do so.  -lethe talk [ +] 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you already send the e-mail? It hasn't appeared yet. I think you have to be subscribed to be able to send an e-mail, though I'd assume you get an automatic reply if you try to post without being subscribed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sent it before I posted it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I did subscribe to the mailing list, but only after I had sent the email.  I wasn't sure if that mattered, apparently it does?  I never received any email saying that it hadn't been accepted or whatever, so I didn't think anything was wrong.  How long do they usually take?  Anyway, I've just resent it.  -lethe talk [ +] 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your second mail has arrived (I assume it is the second one because it arrived 09:06, 19 June 2006 UTC). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So it has! Here is the hyperlink. -lethe talk [ +] 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. Brion appears to have given a positive reply. I will discuss this privately with Jitse. Dmharvey 17:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is his request for a login handle and PGP key meant for you then? -lethe talk [ +] 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not totally clear to me who it's aimed at. Presumably either Jitse or myself would be most appropriate. I have asked Jitse to do it, because he knows the mediawiki glue code and issues much better than me. Let's see if he jumps at the chance :-) Dmharvey 17:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well at any rate, it's not for me, that's all I need to know. So yeah, right on!  Keep us posted! -lethe talk [ +] 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sig
How do you link your talk page into your signature? Let me know on my talk page, if possible' Thanks --Michael C Price 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK all working now. What threw me was you can't point to the page you're on, its seems. It worked ok in the sandbox. Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock.
Thanks for evaluating the merits of my case and doing what you felt was the right thing. Al 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lethe, why did you unblock without consulting the blocking administrator? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lethe, that's what the Ministry of Unblocking is for.--CSTAR 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Thanks for your reasoned reponse to my comments on the Alienus unblocking. I was getting frustrated and I think my comments were stronger than they needed to be. I appreciate your not escalating past my own strong comments. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup tie-break scenarios
FYI, I added a comment to Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup that I thought you might be interested in, seeing as you like the qualification roll-over stuff. Carcharoth 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

l^p
You wrote: "Lebesgue spaces can be defined on any measure space. A Lebesgue space on a measure space S with counting measure is the space . In the case that S = N, the set of natural numbers, the standard space is obtained. In the case that S = n, the set with n elements, the space Rn with its p-norm is obtained. -lethe talk + 09:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"


 * From this, you agree that R^n is not l^p, though it is L^p for a certain measure. (Cj67 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC))


 * No, I don't quite agree. \ell^p is, by definition, Lp with the counting measure. Since \mathbb{R}^n is Lp(n) where n is the set with n elements and its counting measure, we conclude that according to the definition, \mathbb{R}^n is an \ell^p space. In particular, it is \ell^p(n). It is the space of sequences of length n. Rn with its p-norm is indeed an \ell^p space, though it is not the standard \ell^p space of sequences of countable length. R^n is not standard l^p, but it is some l^p space. Your wording makes it sound like you think there is only one \ell^p space, but there are many. -lethe talk + 15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say there is one \ell^p space, although there might be many \ell^p(\Omega,\mu) spaces. (Cj67 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Signpost updated for June 19th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

to all: what do you think of my sig?
To anyone who might find there way here: I include a link to my talk page not so other people can read my talk page (which is after all meant for me to read, not you), but rather so that you can easily leave me a message. So that you can do that in one click rather than two, my sig contains a link to add a new section to my talk page. It seems to me like that would be convenient, but I never have to leave myself messages, thus never used the link. You are the people who might have occasion to use it. So that's my question: do you use it? There has been some noise lately about overly complex sigs, and I'm just wondering if the extra code included in my sig is justified by its utility. I thank you in advance for offering your opinions. -lethe talk [ +] 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * link to talk page: good idea. link to create new section? : not so good since usually folks want to add to an existing section.  I would ditch the new section part. --Michael C. Price talk 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that replying to an existing conversation is more frequent than starting a new conversation, and therefore we don't need a link for the latter? -lethe talk [ +] 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes (although I could be wrong), but also that they can of course start a new section anyway once they get to your talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

With due respect to my favorite admin (heh :) it does not make any sense to have your talk page link go to User talk:Lethe/sig and neither is the link to the new section that terribly helpful, rather confusing. I believe your signature would only gain if instead of
 * lethe talk [

it would be the normal
 * User:Lethe talk

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I do find the redirects useful, and I hope that they aren't too obtrusive. I will consider losing them as well at some point, but for now, I'm only thinking about the "add new section" link.  It sounds like no one uses it.  I also don't use it, so I guess I will lose it. -lethe talk [ +] 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never used it, but I suppose the primary reson for tht is that I've never noticed it. I saw talk, and was confused by the presence of the image indicating an external link but pursued it no further. I agree that it is certainly a useful and intuitive idea. (For an admin, at least.) -- He Who Is[ Talk ] 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why only for an admin? -lethe talk [ +] 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose not only for an admin, but it would certainly be more useful for an admin, considering that an admin tends to receive more messages. (One could argue that one of the primary functions of an admin is to reply to messages of other users.) I, for instance, receive a message once every few days to once every few weeks, and they are usually of little importance. For this reason, it would be significantly less useful if I were to do the same thing. But I do still place a link to my talk page, simply because it doesn't require external linking. -- He Who Is[ Talk ] 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Lethe. Wanted to let you know about this and this. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete
The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Benon's RfA
Do you realize that you voted oppose for Benon's nomination but said you concurred with Where, the nominator? — Mets 501 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I guess I mistook Where's response to one of the opposes for the sig on that oppose. It is now fixed.  Thank you. -lethe talk [ +] 03:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to ordinal number was not broken
You "fixed the link" from large countable ordinals to ordinal number, even though the link was not broken. Why? This just forces it to go thru one of the redirects and slows things down. JRSpriggs 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because linking fragments of a word is ugly and doesn't conform to interface standards. Link the whole word or none at all.  As for the idea that using a redirect slows things down, I don't believe it, but I'll be happy to bypass the redirect if you like. -lethe talk [ +] 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. I did not mean for you to change it again. I was just wondering whether you were planning to move "Ordinal number" to "Ordinal numbers" or whether you misunderstood what the article's name was or whatever. Redirects are not that bad. It is just that if everything else is the same, one should avoid them. It is not worth doing an edit, just to avoid one. But I would do an edit to avoid the mess you replaced it with. JRSpriggs 06:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the names of any articles. I just don't like to see a word wherein some of the letters are hyperlinks and others are not.  I'll be perfectly happy to return to the redirect if you'll prefer that.  I just don't like the half-hyperlinked word.  It really is an ugly thing, in my opinion. -lethe talk [ +] 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark
This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines
Are you aware that you are not supposed to delete pages yourself in which you have been involved in the AfD? I am specifically referring to what happened with the Half-life computation page, and the fact that it was deleted by you a merely four hours after a reported major revision. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am, was unaware of any spam campaign involved with this AfD, though I admit that I removed myself from the discussion because it was becoming too heated on both sides and it became too hard for outsiders to follow. Anyways, you obviously haven't broken any rules, I just feel that the procedure in this case could have been handled a little more carefully, to avoid any more blame being thrown around. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me, or perhaps you have misquoted me; I gave no "dissension" whatsoever. You could even interpret my comments as to say that I was in favour of deleting the article. I will not petition of you to comment further on this issue. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Riemannian volume form
Hi, I finally replied on my talk page to the comment that you made back in April. &mdash;Toby Bartels 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

complexification
Hi, you edited my example in complexification and it is now part text part image. Can you explain why? Thanks, --Blakeops 09:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Text rendering works better for many browsers. If you like to always see PNG, you can set that in your preferences. -lethe talk [ +] 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's only half done though.. --Blakeops 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

wiki2tex
Thanks, Lethe! (I just sent you an email.) ---CH 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I notice you've been tracking and proof-reading a number of my recent edits, (and keeping me honest in at least one case); I wanted to say thanks. linas 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And let me in turn take this opportunity to thank you for actually doing the hard part and creating the new content for me to copyedit. I've always admired that about you; your inexhaustible ability to create new content on esoteric topics.  It seems like I can't muster the energy to do that myself as much as I used to, and I think it's easier to correct than to create.  Now I want you to write "indices" on the chalkboard a hundred times :-) -lethe talk [ +] 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, another smelling error my smelling checker missed. Speaking of errors, you added a note implying the Yukawa interaction is not renormalizable. Surely that's not right? spinors have dimension (mass)^3/2 and the scalar field has dimension (mass) so psi-bar psi phi has dimension 4 which makes it completely renormalizable. The coupling of the higgs field to the leptons in the standard model is the yukawa coupling, right? a non-zero const value for phi is what gives leptons thier mass. linas 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct someone else, introduce your own errors. What can I say, you're absolutely right.  I think I was confusing the old Fermi four lepton interaction model with the old Yukawa pion interaction model.  The former is nonrenormalizable but the latter is, as your rightly point out.  I went to fix, but someone has already.  Thanks. -lethe talk [ +] 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Smelling checker? Now that's irony. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

help
I'm just a lowly student.

See Talk:Order (group theory). --VKokielov 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been resolved. As usual, I can't read.  Thank you anyway.  --VKokielov 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Inverse limit of cyclic groups
A while ago on the math reference desk you asked what the inverse limit of all the finite cyclic groups under the order relation of divisiblity was, and I boldly attempted to answer even though you know way more math than I. Just now I stumbled across Adele ring which looks like it has the answer. Does it? —Keenan Pepper 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does indeed look like it has the answer! Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  It brushes past this inverse limit quite quickly, I have a passing concern that the limit taken in the category of rings might be different from the limit in the category of groups, but my intuition is that including multiplication will pose no barriers to the limit construction, so the two limits are the same (in the sense that the underlying additive group of the limit in the category of rings will be isomorphic to the limit in the category of groups)  Anyway, if for some reason there were a difference in the category of groups, I'd be perfectly happy to switch discussion to rings.  Speaking of intuition, I note that told you that I didn't think that the limit group was the direct product of the p-adic groups, but this article says that they are indeed.  Let me see if I can figure out why I thought it wouldn't be.  I'll play around with it some and post back.  By the way, speaking of old reference desk questions, have you made plans about prerequisites for monstrous moonshine?  I dug up a textbook on the subject to bone up in case you came back with more about that. -lethe talk [ +] 06:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's see. First let me make explicit why I thought it wouldn't hold.  The inverse limit is a subset of
 * $$\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z},$$
 * a product which has factors for every integer n. On the other hand, the direct product of the p-adic groups
 * $$\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\mathbb{Z}_p$$
 * has factors for each prime, and each factor is itself a subset of the product over all powers of the prime. Left out of the latter group is any factors from cyclic groups of composite order.  If they're to be isomorphic, it must be possible to construct all compatible elements of these composite cyclic groups from the corresponding sequence p-adic groups.  So I guess the question is this: is a number modulo a composite uniquely determined by that number modulo the prime factors of the original modulus?  Perhaps the Chinese remainder theorem answers this question in the affirmative?  Consider the number 5 in Z/6Z.  An element of lim Z/nZ which projects to 5 might be (1,2,1,0,5,...) (components belonging to the cyclic groups Z/2Z, Z/3Z, Z/4Z, Z/5Z, and Z/6Z, respectively).  If there is a corresponding element of the product of the p-adic groups, it ought to be (1,2,0,...) (factors corresponding to the p-adic groups Z2, Z3, and Z5).  Actually thinking about it, it is becoming obvious to me that for numbers less than pq (p, q primes), every number is uniquely determined by its values mod p and mod q.  I guess the upshot is that my intuition about modular arithmetic is lousy. -lethe talk [ +] 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, so as long as you know the residues mod powers of primes, that uniquely determines the residue mod any integer. The cool part is that you can have a consistent sequence of residues mod all the integers that still doesn't correspond to any actual integer. And then the ring of integral adeles is the direct product of this ring with the only other completion of the rationals: the ring of real numbers. Now I'm trying to piece together what it means to take the "tensor product of rings", because I'd never heard that before. —Keenan Pepper 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Afshar Experiment
I really dont appreciate your roll backs regarding vote for deletion of that article. Afshar's science is flawed and the experiment was faked. Every time you support Afshar the homosexual agenda movement gets another brownie point. Marrage is between a man and a woman, and this so called experiment and others like it undermine our christian society that we have worked so hard for. Science needs to have its limits, at some point we need to stop looking into things too deeply, and instead look into God. God holds all the answers, we need to spend more time paying attention to god, or the homosexuals will destroy our society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.169.155.246 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC).


 * If you perform an AfD correctly, I will not rollback. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with God or homosexuality. -lethe talk [ +] 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Will I'm surprised there wasn't a little rant against global warming alarmists or liberals.--CSTAR 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Break
Have a good Wiki-break - you'll be missed! --Michael C. Price talk 07:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Michael! Wikipedia has become part of my daily routine, I'll miss you folks as well.  I hope to be back online regularly within about 2 weeks, but that might be optimistic.  In the mean time, happy editing to you all without me!  Cheers. -lethe talk [ +] 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't make it too long, okay? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Paul August &#9742; 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe Lethe will be reincarnated .... as a sockpuppet (maybe "retexturized" might be better?)--CSTAR 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried he will "forget" to come back. Paul August &#9742; 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I avoid editing articles on your watch list? I do not know how to access your watch list. Or were you just joking? JRSpriggs 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a joke. You can't see other users' watchlists. —Keenan Pepper 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean you can't see them? Paul August &#9742; 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, all, I'm off. I'll be taking you all to arbcom when I return for editing my articles while I'm gone. -lethe talk [ +] 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lethe - since the time you said you were away, I have seen loads of changes on my watchlist you have made - are you REALLY having a break?!? :-) Madmath789 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * probably a bit of confusion over dates - on the 11th I saw you say that you would be away, and then I saw you were still making edits (maybe I didn't read your anouncement on the 11th saying that you would be away from the 12th) - anyway: welcome back, your presence is appreciated! Madmath789 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For those paying attention (like madmath), you may see that I've made some edits again recently. This is much shorter than the 2 weeks which I anticipated, mostly because internet access is closer at hand than I expected and I'm a Wikipedia addict. I'm leaving the away notice on my userpage for now, until I get a place to live, a computer, and internet access at home, but I might be editing semi-regularly anyway. -lethe talk [ +] 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't explain the reason for the break, and since I didn't want to pry, I feared it might have involved major surgery or some such. Not having a stable place to live is no fun either, but is (I hope) less serious.
 * See if you can get one of those new cerebral implant chips that provides wireless broadband connectivity directly to the brain. Explain your addiction and I'm sure the doctors will understand. :-D
 * I respected your wishes and did my best not to trash anything on your watchlist. I'll feel more comfortable now knowing you can resume oversight, even on a bandlimited basis. What I'm trying to say is, welcome back. --KSmrqT 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to see you haven't forgotten us ;-) Now I must take my own nightly imbibe from the sweet river of forgetfulness … Paul August &#9742; 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you moved IRL, Lethe? Can you email me?  I need your help with something (see my user talk page).  TIA ---CH 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Apprehension - Assertion
"Apprehension - Assertion"

I was hesitant about responding to the e-mail.

If you are ready I will initiate.

Thanks.

GeMiJa GeMiJa 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am ready. -lethe talk [ +] 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Lethe - thanks for your very encouraging words. I'll be sure to remember them moving forward...as you can see, this Wikipedian has reappeared! :-) --HappyCamper 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

what is prod for?

 * "Prod is meant to lighten the load on the burdened AfD process, but it doesn't work if you deprod things for silly reasons. If you have no opinion about keeping some article, then why are you deprodding? Just to increase bureaucracy and policy-wonkery at Wikipedia?"

No. "Proposed deletion is a process for deleting articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." If I find an article that experience tells me may be a controversial deletion, then I will move it to AfD. Otherwise, if I do have an objection, I will simply yank out the PROD and leave a comment in the history. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think that that course of action helps Wikipedia?

Yes. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Transfinite/infinte & Axiom of Choice
Hi Lethe, when you have some time could you have a look at Talk:Transfinite_number where I've been asking questions about the how the distinction between transfinite and infinite cardinals relates to the axiom of choice. The gist of the response is that I am somewhere between "wrong" and "pedantic", inclusive. Could you have a look at some point? --Michael C. Price talk 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail Sent
I sent you e-mail on July 12 GeMiJa 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did receive that email. Contained within it was nothing that seemed to require a response.  If you wanted someone to read your words about planar and nonplanar curves, you have succeeded in that goal.  If you have a question you want answered, please feel free to ask one. -lethe talk [ +] 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
Hi, Lethe, glad to see you are back. You might be interested in this MfD. Note that User:Hillman/Dig/Sarfatti and some of the other pages have justifications in addition to my research into wikishilling re forthcoming (I hope!) policy discussions. ---CH 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Message from an Attorney on Live People Bios
"I think that Wikipedia is going to bite the big one anyway. They're fast and loose with untrustworthy and incorrect information, always on the edge of libeling someone, and very easy to manipulate by anyone with an angle to play. I believe there are lawyers out there with very sharp knives looking them like a tempting Thanksgiving turkey. We just have to find the right cause of action so as to create a class of plaintiffs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.151.244 (talk • contribs)

Email me?
Hi, Lethe, are you back yet? I guess your old email addie is defunct, but I am trying to re-establish email contact with you. I am trying something new--- can you try emailing me at the same email address which you already know?

I have been contemplating Jimbo's call for a year focusing on quality rather than quantity and particularly his gratifying apparent acceptance of the notion that lack of leadership in focusing policy discussions has hurt Wikipedia (c.f. his apparent call for a new Advisory Board which would foster wise policymaking discussions), and have been contemplating a return to attempts at content creation. I am considering reversing my decision to abandon trying to myself create new content, as per our previous discussions. I have been considering trying to start in on algebraic geometry, finite groups, and Kleinian geometry, while continuing to avoid gtr and even information theory (since these seem to have attracted quite a few cranks, and I wish to greatly decrease the time I spend directly interacting with cranks).

A good start would be to get on-line a scan of Haskell's 1893 translation of Klein's 1872 Erlangen Program:


 * (English translation of Klein, "Programme on Entering the Philosophical Faculty and the Senate of the University of Erlangen", originally published by A. Deichert, Erlangen, 1872)

which I am currently trying to do. (I think I first need to have it rescanned at higher resolution.)

It has also occurred to me that I have quite a bit of rather literally encyclopedic stuff lying around which hopefully would be unlikely to attract crackpots if I added WP entries, e.g. extensive tables and graphs describing all the primitive actions of degree less than twenty. Amusingly enough, I see that the above volume has two fascinating papers by F. N. Cole correcting some embarrassing errors by Cayley on precisely this topic! In fact, it seems possible that these papers may be the first mention of the degree seven action by PSL(3,2) (the simple group of order 168; see also John's recent posts on the Klein quartic curve of genus 3), the degree nine action by PSL(3,3) (the simple group of order 504), and the transitive but imprimitive degree nine action describing the symmetry group (order 216) of the nine inflection points of a generic cubic curve. I also found a remark indicating that one of the readers of this Bulletin was none other than Camille Jordan! A bit surprising, since I think of the flow of information in those days as mostly going from Europe to the U.S. These old volumes contain extensive and fascinating "new book lists" which are about evenly divided between German, French, and English. The prices are amusing not only because they are so low but because they are given in marks or francs or shillings, i.e., in 1898 it was understood that if you wanted to purchase a math book, you'd have to write in the appropriate language to the publisher in Germany, France, England, or Italy, order a copy, and wait for the book to arrive by the next ship! We've come a long way since those days! I can also divulge what advanced math students at Harvard University had on offer in 1893--- very revealing!

There is also a nice remark about Klein's forthcoming visit ("forthcoming" in July 1893, that is) to Chicago: "Professor Klein has many enthusiastic pupils, friends, and admirers in America (as everywhere), who will rejoice at the opportunity thus afforded of meeting him". I have to wonder: is John Baez the new Klein? :-/ If so, is Lawvere the new Lie? ---CH 00:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak vs strong
Hi Lethe. Wonder what you think about this edit. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon is correct and the original version is mistaken. I guess that was my mistake.  I have it correct in the article axiom of choice.  Oops. -lethe talk [ +] 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of really odd things about the way that section is worded. For one thing, the Baire property is not any form of negation of the axiom of choice; it's a property of sets of reals (or more generally, subsets of a topological space). The "strong" negation of AC would be that every set of reals has the Baire property; the negation is not the Baire property itself.
 * Perhaps worse is the line about how
 * Solovay's result shows that it is not necessary to assume that all infinite-dimensional vector spaces admit discontinuous linear maps,
 * What's that supposed to mean, exactly? I'd say it shows almost the opposite—namely that you do have to assume something, beyond ZF, if you want to prove there are always such maps. (It certainly doesn't imply, by itself, that there don't have to be such maps, for if you believe AC is true—as Solovay, of course, does—then you'll believe there always are such maps.)
 * Finally, there's a problematic remarks about how such maps always have to be "nonconstructible", without specifying what "constructible" means. --Trovatore 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen B Streater
Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater - please add co-nom and then link into WP:RFA once Stephen has accepted. Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've answered the questions and accepted. Stephen B Streater 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)