User talk:Linas/Archive10

No personal attacks
Regarding Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tim Smith 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Linas, that DrL deleted most of the comment you wrote on the AfD...and moved your opinion to the talk page. Apparently stating one's opinion of what Wikipedia should be doing is "libel" now.  Funny how none of the abuse poured upon me (about which I complained to no-one) was removed by these kind, concerned, people who are "not personally involved" in the saga, isn't it? Byrgenwulf 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack to call someone crazy when they are actually crazy. It is called "telling the truth". Which, by the way, some people seem to find difficult. The political pressure of "being polite", "nice", "avoiding personal attack", etc. is trumped by the need to be truthful and honest, which is more important for the healthy function of a society. linas 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Photovoltaics article
Great edits, much appreciated.Itsmejudith 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you twice remove the engineering stub from Gasification ?
Linas, this isn't a big deal but I would like to know why you removed the engineering stub from Gasification. The first time you removed it, your edit summary called it "link spam". It is neither a link nor spam, so I reverted it. Now, you removed it again and this time your edit summary called it an "inappropriate cat". It is not a category, it is an engineering stub which asks for people to help expand the article. Are you unfamiliar with the use of stubs? Would you please explain why you have now removed the stub twice? Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I recated several hundred articles yesterday, some of them multiple times. The "link spam" comment pertained to the removal on an ergregiously horrid link farm. The "inappropriate cat" referred to Category:Energy and/or Category:Electric power which contained all manner of uncategorized/miscategorized stuff. In this particular case, Gasification does not in any way even remotely resemble a "stub", so I am not sure why you ask about that. Stubs are articles which have only a few sentences to them; any article that is longer than a few paragraphs is not a stub. Now, pick any article on WP, and someone has probably written a book about the topic -- and so, for any article on WP, one could expand it to book length. That does not mean the article is a "stub". linas 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. At least now I understand your reasoning. I would only say that the length of an article is really no indicator of whether or not the article still needs work or expansion.  As one who has helped to design gasification plants, the gasification article still needs quite a bit of work in my opinion. If tagging it with an engineering stub is inappropriate, what other tag should one use to ask people to continue work on the article? - mbeychok 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. You might ask over at WikiProject Engineering. My personal opinion is that of the 15 thousand math and physics articles on WP, 99.9% of them are inadequate, damaged, stilted and incomplete, and need a whole lot of work to whip into shape. I assume similar percentages apply to the engineering articles. But tagging all of them achieves no particular purpose: the only editors who could expand Gasification are those who are both knowledgable, and who are interested, and these editors are presumably rare birds. But if one of them happens upon the article, and chooses to work on it, it won't be because the article was tagged. In WP, one assumes that if its not a Featured article, then of course it needs work and improvement. linas 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gadzooks, WikiProject Engineering is a red link !!! You may want to start this beast, and model it on WikiProject Physics or WikiProject Mathematics, which have hundreds of participants, and have very lively talk pages debating such issues. See also Category:Science WikiProjects and Category:Technology WikiProjects and Category:WikiProjects. Its high time there was one for engineering. Or perhaps you are just intersted in WikiProject Energy development linas 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the great majority of technical articles on Wikipedia are incomplete or inaccurate and written by people with no experience in the subject matter that they contribute. I am a retired chemical engineer (visit my User:Mbeychok page).  In the 6 months that I've been in Wikipedia, I have created 20 new technical articles, completely revised and expanded 17 technical articles and significantly revised and/or expanded 28 other technical articles. I am completely amazed at how few engineers with real world experience contribute to  Wikipedia. I can only assume that they are too busy earning a living and raising a family to become involved. - mbeychok 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its the "chicken and the egg" problem: no one contributes until there is something to contribute to. So at first, growth is slow. WP math has more than 10K articles, originally written by lay writers and grad students. Its gained recognition and critical mass, and now there's a number of full professors who are (semi-anonymously) active on WP. I say semi-anonymously, since they still want to make sure they don't look foolish in front of their colleagues, and thus avoid the limelight of having "famous person so-n-so is working on WP". However, the number of WP authors is growing at something like 10% a month, so you may well start finding your colleagues active here in a few years. linas 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilkinson's polynomial
Hi Linas, I replied to your comment on the talk page, you might be interested in reading it. I think we can remove the tag now. What do you think? Julien Tuerlinckx 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I slapped a delete tag on that page. Based on a quick look at the reference that you gave, this article appears to be "not even wrong". I'm hoping you won't contest the deletetion. This sort of stuff is an embarrasment to WP.linas 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I am puzzled by your comment and I am most certainly contesting the deletion. I'm looking forward to hearing some details. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
Hi, Linas, IIRC also threatened you with blocking, so you might be interested in this. ---CH 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere (slashdot?) of a study that purported to show that communities with a good police force and policing policies tend to have a greater number of freedoms, a greater excercise of those freedoms, and a larger range of acceptable and accepted set of behaviours, than communities which are poorly policed. I found this idea fascinating. (A simple, naive example is the ghetto: due to a lack of policing, the residents are fearful of going out, fearful of overt expression in public spaces). Thanks for the note. linas 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see...
RFC: Talk:Hamilton-Jacobi equations (unsigned note from User:Maury Markowitz)


 * Sorry, can't help. That stuff makes my eyes water and my head spin. I have a different manner of understanding this stuff, whereas User:WillowW, who wrote most of the current version, followed a distinctly 19th-century presentation which I find painful to digest and understand. I am not sure of what the correct textbook definition would be, as the few textbooks I still have on mechanics that weren't lost in a flood present this material in a radically different way. linas 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

orthomolecular medicine
Why do you think that orthomolecular medicine is not pseudoscience? What's the evidence that large doses of vitamins cure cancer and schizophrenia like its proponents claim? -- Cri du canard 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop. I am not sure why you are on this crusade, but this whole style of argumentation is inapporpriate. A casual review of the literature will indicate that real doctors and scientists have been carrying on real research on this topic, and publishing on this topic in real peer-reviewed journals, for the last 50 years. Just because you seem to dislike this topic does not mean that it is pseudoscience. Its OK to be dubious or disbeleiving: this is the nature of science. If you don't beleive it, go perform a study, get it published in a journal. But don't just walk into wikipedia and randomly label orthomolecular medicine as pseudoscience. I don't see any evidence that it is, and it seems highly unlkely that such evidence can be produced. linas 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, except I did produce such evidence that mainstream medical organizations have criticized OM as pseudoscience. You deleted it from the article.  Nowhere on the talk page do you identify a single incorrect thing stated by my sources. -- Cri du canard 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The ref I deleted is already listed on the orthomolecular medicine page. It does not claim that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. It takes a critical view -- which is very differnt than calling something pseudoscience. FWIW, it also sounded distinctly cranky to me, and not at all unbiased. This guy has it in for orthomolecular medicine.  I also note that it is posted on an anti-quackery webste -- in case you haven't noticed, the anti-quacks and debunkers are often as nutty and twisted as the things they are trying to debunk. linas 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that my sources are cranky. They include the American Cancer Society, NIMH, the AAP, the Canadian Pediatric Society, ACSH, etc.  Quackwatch is a highly recommended site for this sort of information. I fail to see why these sources are inferior to "orthomed.org", a cheerleader site. -- Cri du canard 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your recent contributions re:orthomed. The "new" editor above, who manuevers through admin pages better than I do, is crying foul & filing complaints while screaming certain epithets. I am not sure of your interest level in this situation or orthomed subjects generally, but I would appreciate any informal mediation or pointers that you would offer. Thank you.--TheNautilus 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)(previously 69.178...)


 * Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this, and it seemed particularly egregious. The WP process for dealing with such abuse is very slow, and mostly consists of waiting for the controversy to die out on its own. User:Hillman is interested in the general topic of how to curtail the non-science and irrational pseudoscience/quackery edits, but has little in the way of concrete proposals. Its hard to see what to do except on a case by case basis. linas 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am not "POV-pushing," as you repeatedly accuse me of. I have no objection to Nautilus et al. including their pro-OM claims on the OM page; I recognize that WP:NPOV requires this.  I merely  request that, as WP:NPOV requires, that the mainstream view of OM as pseudoscience be included with the prominence it deserves as the majority viewpoint.  I think the majority viewpoint is correct, but I recognize that this is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since the standard is WP:V, rather than truth, but everything I've added has been verifiable from an established and legitimate source. Please assume good faith.-- Cri du canard 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything that implies that there is a majority viewpoint that OM is pseudoscience. Not even the few critiques of OM that I've read go so far as to call it pseudoscience. Furthermore, please stop quoting wiki policies at me. Its rude and insulting. linas 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, I find your attacks on me to be rude and insulting. How about the Canadian government? Are they neutral enough for you? I didn't pull the idea that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience out of thin air. -- Cri du canard 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound neutral at all. The opening sentence is blatently false: "vitamins don't cure any disease"? Oh please, they cure deficiency diseases, such as scurvy, etc.  That is inane non-sense and discredits the rest of the page, however weighty the rest of the page may sound. It's like opening a physics tract with the sentence "Einstein was wrong...".  All I get from that URL is that a total nutball has access to a Canadian webserver. linas 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the page doesn't say ""vitamins don't cure any disease," you're clearly not interested in a good-faith discussion about this, and I can now assume your edits reflect a bias against mainstream medicine. -- Cri du canard 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As of this point in time, that page states: "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease". Don't state a bald lie, and then accuse me of bad faith. I will support the actions needed to block you from further editing on WP. linas 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like yours above are looked down upon as incivility Linas. Treat others with respect, or it is you who may face a block. Jefffire 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I was not being incivil. Follow the link to the canadian URL. Read the first sentence. It really does state "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) This means that Cri du Canard is a bald liar. If you believe that telling the truth is "incivil", then go ahead and block me.


 * Furthermore, I have had it with this dispute. I never heard of the topic until a week ago. I tried as best I could to mediate, and now I am accused of incivility. Stop this nonsense now! linas 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a material difference between "vitamins" and "orthomolecular therapy." The OM supporters would surely be upset if their page was merged into vitamins.  So I'm not lying. -- Cri du canard 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not. Please don't do that. I have made no proposal to merge the OM article into "vitamins", and I do not deny that there is a material difference between "vitamins" and OM. What I am claiming is that the sentence "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease" is false. That it is false is easily demonstrated. The "orthomolecular therapy" of administering vitamin C for the treatment of the disease scurvy is a scientifically accepted fact. Thus, scienctific research has found a benefit from orthomolecular therapy, and, if you read the page about scurvy, you will see that science accomplished this feat 200 years before Linus Pauling coined the term "orthomolecular medicine". linas 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Orthomolecular medicine holds itself as opposed to conventional medicine. Therefore, a conventional medical cure that happens to involve vitamins is not "orthomolecular medicine," any more than astrology is validated because the moon affects tides. If all orthomolecular medicine was "nutrition" there wouldn't need to be a separate discipline for it.  -- Cri du canard 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cri du Canard, I am unable to find any statement in that reference that says that OM is opposed to conventional medicine. Is there a specific sentenence in there that states that? linas 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, how about the chart listing all the ways in which OM is supposedly better than mainstream medicine (including OM's rejection of double-blind studies)? Or "there are by now some well defined beliefs and principles that also distinguish the orthomolecular practitioner from orthodox health practitioners"?  Or the part where the Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm" is replaced with "Put nutrition first"?


 * Linas, you self-identify as a rational skeptic, so I'm just utterly surprised that you're not only taking the side of orthomed.org, but that you're also calling the people who cite to JAMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics and NIMH and NIH "kooks and cranks" and threatening fellow skeptics with "bans and blocks" because they seek to include the mainstream medical view in an article that had previously omitted it. -- Cri du canard 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Kunin pledges to the Hippocratic oath both before and after the sentences discussing "put nutrition first", I don't see a problem. Furthermore, I can't imagine how "putting nutrition first" could ever be unsafe; it appears to be entirely compatible with the Hippocratic oath. In any case, I see not a single shred of evidence in the Kunin essay to support the idea that OM is pseudoscience.


 * As to being a skeptic, no. I self-identify as a rational scientist. I find skeptics to be modern-day flat-earthers, loudly proclaiming that the earth is flat, and citing the pre-eminent authority of the modern-day equivalents to the Catholic Church as the foundation of their claims. Skeptics and debunkers tend to be ignorant of science and scientific procedures, and consistently react against any novel idea, irregardless of the merit and scientific support for that idea. By contrast, scientists have to entertain and hold the wildest, craziest ideas in their mind, while at the same time doubting the truth of those ideas, so as to tell apart truth from falshood. A not atypical story is of Kekule dreaming of a snake, leading to his understanding of the benzene ring.  Wild and crazy ideas are like a diamond in the rough in a handful of rocks. Skeptics discard the whole handful because of the rocks. Scientists search for the diamond they beleive might be there. linas 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! This discussion is incredible. Linas, you admit that "Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this...." Why then are you so adamant? You're dealing with other editors who may know far more about this than you do. You risk making the same mistake that Pauling did - he claimed expertise in another field than his own. The point has been made several times above that OM is not just the use of vitamins. In your reasoning, you seem to often equate them. You even misquoted Cassileth, and then personally attack a fellow editor, thus failing to assume good faith, calling him a liar, when it was you who misquoted and twisted the meaning of a noted researcher. Here's what you wrote:


 * "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease".


 * Your interpretation of Cassileth's quote is very simplistic. (1) "Orthomolecular medicine" is far more than (2) "vitamin supplementation for documented deficiency diseases," something that modern medicine recognizes. The two are treated very differently by the scientific, nutrional, and medical world. They treat OM with suspicion, and classify it as "unconventional." . The BC Cancer Agency page is a summary of the medical literature, and the summary doesn't deal with approved and well-documented vitamin supplemenation for deficiency diseases at all, but expresses complete doubt for OM and megavitamin therapy:


 * "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth)


 * That is the modern medical view of OM, and is not at all contradictory with modern medicine's own viewpoint on the need for effective vitamin supplementation in proven cases of vitamin deficiency.


 * I don't know if I have just wasted my time, but I hope you'll stop accusing other editors of lying and of twisting what you say, like you stated here:


 * "You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not."


 * Your accusations above ring pretty hollow, since this discussion reveals that you are the one doing the twisting and that you actually did misunderstand and misrepresent the quote by Cassileth. Calling other editors "total nutball," and liars is unbecoming conduct. An apology is in order (or have I just wasted my time?). -- Fyslee 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, all I can say is that you appear to intentionally misunderstand the nature and the content of the conversation. You, also, appear to twist what I say, as I believe the record of the conversation above is pretty clear. I assume you are trying to muddy and spin-doctor the issue. I am assuming bad faith based on your part, as evidenced by your posting immediately above. Good grief, folks, stop behaving like immature children! linas 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider this a second warning for incivility. Your behaviour and comments speak for themselves. Wikipedia is not Usenet, treat other editors with respect. Jefffire 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeffire, warn me all you want. What Fyslee just wrote is on the record. It is a distortion of what I said and what I meant. As such, it also is a subtle form of lying. His/her comments are not helpful, they add nothing new to the conversation. Instead, Fyslee's comments attempt to demean me and to discredit me, by making me look foolish and incompetent. Go warn him/her for incivility. You folks have got to stop slinging your political mud, blackening everyone and everything that touches this issue. linas 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors can and do get blocked for rudeness and incivility. I urge you to reconsider your approach to this. Jefffire 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I urge you to stop threatening me. It is you three, not I, that are the ones being uncivil. I have attempted a rational conversation about the facts, and all I get back are an escalating wave of mis-representations, distortions, outright lies, and now personal attacks. Stop attacking me now. linas 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see I did waste my time above! No one has threatened you. You have been warned about your behavior. Take it has good advice, instead of getting defensive. Consider the possiblity that you aren't perfect, and that you have misunderstood the situation. Do that, rather than make accusations and openly admit that you are deliberately failing to assume good faith. We're trying to discuss this in a civil manner, and instead we get called liars!


 * Now you've gone so far as to write this nasty comment:


 * Orthomolecular medicine. Outright misrepresentation and lying. User:Cri du canard, User:Jefffire and User:Fyslee. The most vicious debate of all.


 * It seems to be that you are having similar problems with other users. I guess everyone else is wrong and you are right, including this subject, about which you admit to not knowing much (or whatever you mean by this quote of yours):


 * "Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this...."


 * You document your problematic attitude toward other editors here: User:Linas/Science controversy. The first paragraph looks pretty good, until one begins to examine your beliefs and edits, and then one discovers that when you write derogatory descriptions of other editors, you are using the words in just the way scientists would describe you! I have no idea, but are you a $cientologist? You seem to use words to mean the opposite of their usual meaning, which is one of their typical tactics.


 * Since you continue to be beyond the reach of appeals for reasoned reconsideration and reconciliation, I think your own actions are sealing your imminent doom. I don't take kindly to being called a liar, or to be deliberately doing something wrong. That is an exercise of very bad faith on your part. I have been acting in good faith all along, and have attempted to explain things to you as best I can. It's out of my hands now, and I'll cooperate with any editor and administrator in whatever action is necessary to see to it that your influence here is limited - as long as you persist in cherishing such bad faith and belligerance toward other editors, and conspiring with other editors in your own little cabal. That is not collaborative editing, but antagonistic editing. Deliberately planning edit wars is very unWikipedian. -- Fyslee 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scientologist. I am not planning an edit war. You are the one being belligerent. Please stop harrassing me. linas 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for this...(diff) (hist). . List of pseudoscientific theories‎; 19:04. . Linas (Talk | contribs) (→Physics - rm steady-state theory from the physics list. This was once an accepted and even popular theory; it is now a disfavoured/obsolete theory, and not pseudoscience)

I was going to do that, but since I'd been disputing it with another editor, I thought it best not to. Cheers. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. linas 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool!!!
cool, KKK was funded by the democratic party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan 70.48.251.229 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And why, exactly, is that cool? linas 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals?
Not directly related to Wikipedia, but instead concerning your ideas at http://linas.org/theory/seti.html (A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals). I just wonder: Does it spoil your scheme, if the pseudo-random noise bit sequence associated with the PSK-modulation is palindromic (e.g. like 1011001001001101) or "complementarily palindromic" (e.g. like 1011001010110010) in one of its rotations? If not, then the quadratic residues (or non-residues) of a prime (padded with an extra zero or one), might provide a very natural pseudo-random binary sequence associated with each prime. (Maybe not so random as various LFSR-sequences, but probably random enough.) Please contact me at my-firstname.my-surname@gmail.com and I will explain more. Yours, Antti Karttunen.


 * I see no reason why anything palindromic would spoil things. The only requirement is that the polynomial be prime. I have not thought at all about what polynomials might be considered "interesting"; I suppose palindromic codes could be interesting. Also notable might be anything that has importance to math or relevance to physics. For example, binary Golay codes are particularly notable, because of their relation to the Leech lattice, the monster group and monstrous moonshine. They're a bit short for this purpose, but maybe something longer can be cooked up. Of course, in the end, every possibility must be tried, and that's what makes this hard. Anyway, this is exciting ... I'll try to write tommorrow, or you may reach me at work at my WP user name at austin ibm dot-com. Although I now get too much mail there too :-(. linas 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

your modular groups artwork permission request
Hi Linas,

i discovered your wonderful modular group artwork.

May i have permission to use one of your image, this one: http://www.linas.org/art-gallery/numberetic/disc_re.png for my article on Algorithmic Mathematical Art here: http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t1/20040113_cmaci_larcu.html

Thanks.

Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/

Xah Lee 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just give me credit (put my name next to it). The particular one that you picked is also already on WP, used to illustrate a few articles, its at Image:Discriminant real part.jpeg, and has a detailed explanation of what it is there. linas 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added your work with credit. Thanks for the explanation on wikip too. Xah Lee 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for number-related cleanup and recats
Thanks for going through many number system related articles, cleaning them up, and applying some good recategorizations. I hope that eventually we have a good overview over who invented what, when, how was it named, where a certain system or program is isomorphic to others, and where do differences arise. Thanks again for helping. Jens Koeplinger 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, although, as you are the newcomer, I should be thanking you. The articles were an interesting read. I've been vaguely aware of many of these, with unclear ideas about their relationships, such as why some appear on Berger's list but not others. I don't know how much you know about Lie groups and Lie algebras, but certainly, all of the associative, non-commutative number systems should be isomorphic to one of the Lie algebras.


 * I'm sorry about the wikiproject mathematics dispute. For what its worth, all the participants in that dispute were newcomers; I did not recognize any of them as part of the regular "establishment". Note also that wikipedia has been attracting cranks of all stripes, and the need for dealing with these has put many of us on-edge. Seems that "shoot first, ask questions later" is a not-uncommon reaction. Your work on the articles seems good; as long as an article is comprehensible, people will usually quiet down. I hope that you will find future discussions at wikiproject mathematics much more enjoyable. linas 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words. As a newbie I'm glad and happy about any help. As for Lie algebras, this is an open question to me. The relation between Lie algebra and the number concept is not clear to me. Certain select bases in some hypercomplex number types reflect Lie algebra, but I wouldn't call Lie algebras a "number" (but then, what makes an algebra into a number system? - well, we may not get consensus on an answer to this right-away, but your recategorizations of several number systems from 'abstract algebra' into 'hypercomplex number' makes the most sense, because it respects different viewpoints one may have). We both have a background in physics, and Lie algebras are - of course - of the most importance. But how would they relate to "number"? Take for example A. MacFarlane's hyperbolic quaternions: If you write it to bases $$\{1, i, j, k \}$$, the non-real bases are indeed the Lie algebra su(2) (note that the definitions of i, j, and k are not consistent throughout the hyperbolic quaternions article; I believe it reflects different definitions in the source material). But then one may want algebraic closure of addition and multiplication for a "number", so the unity base "1" is added to these i, j, and k. This allows to build a multiplicative modulus on such numbers and therefore allows for division (with exceptions) ... but it surely isn't a Lie algebra anymore ... Anyway, thanks - Jens Koeplinger 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, given an associative number system, and two elements x,y in that system, I can always compute xy-yx, right? And the value of xy-yx is always expressible as a linear combination elements in the number system. Thus, I have just proved that every associative number system is a Lie algebra. In the case of ordinary quaternions, they are isomorphic to $$\mathbb{R}\otimes\mbox{su}_2$$ where i,j,k give the su(2) part and the adjoined real number line R gives the 1 part.


 * The hyperbolic quaternions article appears to be so error-filled that it is gibberish to me. Insofar as its Minkowski-related, my gut impulse is to say that its the Lie algebra $$\mathbb{R}\otimes\mbox{sl}_2(\mathbb{C})$$ (that's SL(2,C) there). linas 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand it correctly, in Lie algerbas all elements have to be antisymmetric [a, b] = -[b, a] for any {a, b} in the same algebra. A unity element ("1") is commutative under multiplication with any other number base and can therefore not be part of a Lie algebra. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for starting the discussion on hyperbolic quaternion, I'll follow-up right now. The numbers work, but I agree they need clean-up. Thank, Jens Koeplinger 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [1,a] = a.1 - 1.a = 1.a - 1.a = 0 = -[a,1], so its anti-symmetric just fine. The real number line is a Lie algebra, for which all commutators vanish identically and so art trivially anti-symmetric. More generally, n-dimensional space over any field is a Lie algebra, with trivial commutators. The fact that its a trivial lie algebra means that its not usually noted as such, although we list it in List of Lie groups. There is no particular restriction on what values the structure constants of an algebra may take; these may be zero for some or many elements. A collection of elts which commute with one-another are refered to as the "center" of the algebra. A "simple" lie algebra is one where 0 (zero) is the only element that commutes with everything. (i.e. one for which the "center" is trivial). This is why the real number line is not a "simple" lie algebra. linas 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course, thanks for the corrections, your answers were exactly on target. As far as I can see, the hyperbolic quaternions satisfy the defining relations in Lie algebra, even though their product is not associative (detailed now on talk:hyperbolic quaternion). I'm not familiar enough with Lie algebras to say how exactly they are categorized. Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Linas, I just want to let you know again that I am thankful for your clean-up and improvement work you've done, I appreaciate you going through this lot of material and adding a whole bunch of value. Also, thanks for bringing me to realize that what I thought to be Lie algebras are really only the simple Lie algebras. It is sometimes amazing how much one forgets just over the course of a few years, in particular when it was never learned or presented right (i.e. with seemingly "trivial" cases left-out). Jens Koeplinger 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

scale invariance, self-similarity, de Rham curves
Dear Linas, I noticed you are involved extensively in physics and mathematics articles, and in particular have done some work on De Rham curves and a little on refinable functions. I've recently started editing and have begun to do some work on the articles related to scaling and the renormalization group (mainly beta-functions and scale invariance so far, but I think conformal field theory could do with an overhaul).

I think people often associate self-similarity with scale invariance, and so i've kept (and tried to refine and expand) the relevant section in the scale invariance article, in particular trying to use the same language as for the rest of the article. I'm not an expert on fractals and self-similarity, though, so probably my exposition is suboptimal.

Finally, my question. One of the examples I've tried to expand on is the Koch curve, and I *think* the self-similarity can be expressed by the relation :$$\mathbf{x}(3s)=3\mathbf{x}(s)$$. On the other hand, looking at the De Rham curve article, and using the 2-adic expansion I think something like
 * $$a\bar{z}(2s)=z(s)$$

should hold, where a is some specific complex number. Are either or both of these assertions correct? I suppose I'm asking partly whether using a 3-adic expansion will change the form of the relation to what I guessed, or whether my intuition is completely off. (unsigned, User:Jpod2)


 * You timing is interesting. I just spent yesterday re-writing some old unpublished papers of mine for greater clarity (and accuracy); these try to give a precise form to the self-similarity of the various deRham curves. See http://linas.org/math/chap-takagi.pdf for details. Short answer is they're both 2-adic. While one can construct 3-adic fractals, these aren't anywhere near as common in nature; they fail to have "good" properties in a number of ways; but I've not really explored that deeply yet.


 * I see what you just wrote in scale invariance; although the scaling factor may be 3, do not confuse this with a 3-adic symmetry. More precisely, the concept you are looking for are things like the Hausdorff dimension, the box-counting dimension, and dimension theory in general. (Hmm. Seems we don't have an article on dimension theory. Too bad.) In dimension theory, one can say, roughly, that if one takes a topological structure, scales it by a factor of s, and the system scales as $$s^d$$ for some positive real number d, then d is the dimension (the fractal dimension) of the structure. Period-doubling (i.e. 2-adic) fractals typically have d being anything between 1 and 2. For the Koch curve, d=1.33 or something like that.


 * The scaling of fractals is given by a discrete set (although it does have a continuous limit). I don't want to give a long-winded reply, but there are many many many interesting connections to hyperbolic geometry. In-so-far as conformal field theory takes place on Riemann surfaces, the two subjects do abut on each other. For example, hyperbolic flows on such surfaces are ergodic, see Anosov flow or Hadamard's billiards. Such flows have a symmetry given by a Fuchsian group. Such groups have 2-adic subsets (not subgroups, just subsets) that are "fractal". For whatever reason, (i.e. I can't articulate it) 3-adic stuff does not seem to appear there. linas 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Linas


 * Thanks for the reply. Let me preface what's below by saying that this is unfortunately an area I know less about than I should do. However, it would be useful (for me) to learn about it, and more importantly it would be useful to make sure the scale invariance page is accurate.


 * I've skimmed through the paper, though I need to digest it more fully. Yes, though, I had (incorrectly) deduced that the 2-adic expansion effectively led to a scale-factor of 2 in the statement of the self-similarity.


 * So in short I need to ponder this all more carefully. But, in the meantime, is my statement about the Koch curve in scale invariance along the right lines? What about my general statement of self-similar functions being invariant under a discrete subset of dilatations? If not, what do you think is the simplest way to state these things?


 * (In a way I would say these are not central topics to scale invariance, at least not in physics. But once I found them on there, I thought it would be useful to keep some explicit examples, as people might expect to find something about self-similarity in scale invariance....)


 * Two other comments/questions while I am here, if you are not bored or too busy.


 * (1) perhaps the self-similarity page could have a little more detail about this stuff? Or at least some links.


 * (2) Despite intending to edit primarily physics, I am intrigued by the self-similarity stuff. So I have one other related question. Is my statement about the self-similarity of the logarithmic spiral correct?


 * I would suppose that the log spiral wouldn't be termed a fractal, yet it is apparently self-similar. In that case, it seems that it is possible for \theta to be both self-similar and continuous because the it maps onto a circle. If I'm not misunderstanding this, is it part of a more general picture? i.e. do self-similar functions have quite different properties depending on whether they map onto something simply connected?


 * We can carry on any further conversation here if you like---I'll watch your page. --Jpod2 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What you wrote in scale invariance looks correct. Fractals are self-similar under a certain discrete set of dilations, translations and rotations (and not just dilations alone). The logarithmic spiral is self-similar *only* at the origin (and the set of its self-similarities is a continuous set of dilations only). By contrast, the self-similarites of Koch curve are labelled by the discrete set $$\mathbb{Q}\times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{Z}_2$$, with the N part labelling the possible different dilations, the Q part labeling the different possible rotations/translations, and the Z_2 part labelling the left-right mirror symmetry. The article should mention fractal dimension because that is the general way of defining scaling for general topological spaces. Simple-connectness has nothing to do with it.
 * Scaling for most undergrad/begining-grad level physics is "trivial" because it all takes place in spaces that are diffeomorphic to Euclidean R^n. The exceptions are turbulence and fluid dynamics, where fractal things come into play, and classical chaos/quantum chaos, and those parts of string theory and nuclear physics that deal with hyperbolic geometry: anything hyperbolic is generally ergodic and thus has fractal scaling come into play. You will be exposed to hyperbolic geometry as you continue on in conformal field theory; its unavoidable. Whether you'll also catch on to the ergodicity and related topics depends on your teachers. Be forwarned, there's a decent-sized overlap with number theory as well. If you want to be a good theoretical physicist working in field theory, you will want to bone up on geometry as much as possible, and then make the excursions to number theory as needed ... and it will be needed for things like Wilson loops and Hecke algebras. Good luck. linas 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the comments and edits. I might reposition what you've added on the critical exponents---I agree it is worth adding, but I think it belongs probably in an expanded section on scale-invariance in quantum (or perhaps quantum and statistical) field theory, rather than self-similarity. What do you think? I'm planning extensively to edit the CFT page at some point, which is weak at the moment, and I'll include more details on critical exponents and examples there perhaps. (I'm fairly familiar with CFT and geometry, just far less so with fractals...)


 * best wishes and thanks again--Jpod2 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the logarithmic spiral, I agree with your edit that it is invariant under all dilatations, if one allows for a rotation of theta---although I'm not sure what you mean by `only at the origin'. Anyway, perhaps considering all dilatations is a better way to understand the self-similarity, I will leave it up to you.


 * It sounds like I was on the wrong track with my intuition about the topology of the circle being crucial. I guess in general the topology of the target space certainly determines which functions satisfy a given self-similarity relation though, right? But perhaps there is nothing very deep in that.... --Jpod2 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The self-similarity transforms that preserve the spiral always map the origin to the origin, and there is no other way. The self-similarity transforms that preserve the Koch curve can be mapped to many different places on the curve; there is no single, unique fixed point. The topology of most fractals is that of the Cantor set, and the topology of the Cantor set is "compatible" in a certain sense with the real numbers (in the sense that binary numbers represent both the real numbers and the Cantor set, identically). Fractals occur with the "natural" topology that we already know and use everywhere. linas 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Oh sure, the log spiral is self-similar only under transformations which leave the origin invariant. It was not obvious to me that that's what you meant by saying it was self-similar `only at the origin', but I understand what you mean now.


 * On the topology, I am not referring to the topology of the (fractal) curve itself. I am talking about the topology of the target space of the map. For example, the Koch curve maps the interval into a portion of R^2. In that example it would be the topology of R^2 to which I was referring, not the topology of the image of the interval.


 * So what I meant was that the log spiral seems different, because the map theta(r) = log(r) is from R-->S^1. It just seemed to me that the S^1 was rather important for theta(r) to take the form it does, and yet still be self-similar. However, as I said there is probably nothing too deep.


 * I think the changes I made with your edits on phase transitions are appopriate, I hope you agree.I will try to make progress on the CFT (and also RG) pages when my thesis-writing is less pressing. All the best --Jpod2 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

CFT and fractals
Hi Linas

Thanks for the comments on scale invariance, I realise that it's not your main priority. See what you think of it at the moment. I will say a little about the fractals and anomalous dimneison when I get the chance. It is something i ought to read more about. I think the ising model example displays nicely the use of CFT in phase transitions, and sets up nicely the proposed fractal discussion on computing anomalous dimensions. It might all belong in CFT though---when i get round to editing the CFT article, I hope you will enjoy reading it! All the best --Jpod2 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I wasted my time generating pretty pictures of fractals yesterday. I've resolved to revisit some of what we talked about and make it a bit more concrete. I'll try to write something lighter and easier to read, while at the same time less hand-wavy and more concrete. (I write for my own benefit, but if/when I get this on paper, I'll send a copy). linas 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. Ah, I see the nice pictures, cool. I'd be interested in reading what you write on what we discussed. I am reading more on the SLE approach to CFT, which I think is related to what you were getting at. It is something I'd seen flying around in abstracts but hadn't devoted time to learning about. Interesting stuff.


 * On a more mundane note, I still want to switch round and clarify a couple more things on scale invariance, when I get the chance. Probably will introduce a classical scalar field, so that it is clearer how the anomalous dims in the ising model example modify the classical scaling dimension. All the best--Jpod2 08:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once you've found some particularly good references, let me know. I'd not heard of SLE before; I was describing the general ideas about scaling and universality from the 1970's-1980's. SLE seems to be from 2000. I just found  math-ph/0312056, at least the intro is readable. linas 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, well I haven't digested these fully yet, but from what I know of the authors and initial impressions I think the following are worth reading properly (I will be doing so, when I have the chance):
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303354 (Wendolin Werner)
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309080 (Denis Bernard)
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0503313 (John Cardy review for theoretical physicists)
 * I think SLE isn't the usual way for a field theorist to think about CFT, but John Cardy in particular I know has been writing a few papers on it. It seems that in the meantime the mathematicians have been leading the way, and winning prizes for it....

Yech. Another 250 pages of reading material in addition to the several thousand I've got queued up for reading "real soon now". At least this time springer-verlag didn't make another $50 off of me. linas 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Cesaro-0.5.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cesaro-0.5.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scale invariance
I think the scale invariance article is looking quite decent, now. See what you think if you have the chance?


 * Looks good. Put some minor critiques on the talk page there. linas 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, who is your thesis advisor? linas 17:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know you reverted some spelling corrections in this edit, so if you can fix that, I'd be grateful :) Thanks, — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:22, 27 August 2006


 * No. The user who made those corrections blatently ignored the Template:inuse tag. Perhaps you too did not see it. Go away before I start being incivil and start hurling explatives. Harrumph. You've got some nerve. linas 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way, the correct spelling is "likelihood", not "likelyhood", so in fact, this user was introducing spelling errors, and not correcting them, Cheeze.linas 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually he was correcting the spelling, and you reverted it to "likelyhood" in this edit, as I said before. For your information, I did see the inuse tag – otherwise I would have gone ahead and corrected the spelling myself. — FireFox  ( talk ) 21:07, 27 August 2006
 * Oh, and by the way, you're right, I do have nerves. — FireFox  ( talk ) 21:09, 27 August 2006


 * Yes, well, at the moment, you are not making any friends. Please, go away. Really, because If you show up here a third time, I will start calling you names. linas 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to write an encyclopedia :) Anyhow, I was just letting you know, and I have now re-corrected the typos. — FireFox  ( talk ) 21:18, 27 August 2006

Fuck you, asshole. Your actions above clearly demonstrate that you are not at all here to write an encyclopaedia, but instead enjoy provoking fights. Wikipedia would be a far better place if there were lass people like you around here. Fuck off. linas 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about inuse
I apologize for editing the article, I didnt see the tag because I was using an automated spellchecker that goes directly to the edit page. xxpor ( Talk |  Contribs ) 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza talk page.
Hi. I've removed your section on the Esperanza talk page as that is not at all the right place to put it. Esperanza does not deal with user disputes.

My advise to you is, drop it. FireFox acted in good faith, and you told him to get off your talk page. This was incivil. Please, just try and cool down a bit, try not to brake the no personal attacks rule, and assume good faith in other editor's actions. We're all here to try and make this a better place :)

Happy editing. Th ε Halo Θ 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)