User talk:Linas/Archive7

Older stuff at
 * User talk:Linas/Archive1 (Jan-May 2005)
 * User talk:Linas/Archive2 (May-June 2005)
 * User talk:Linas/Archive3 (June-Aug 2005)
 * User talk:Linas/Archive4 (Sept-Oct 2005)
 * User talk:Linas/Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2005)
 * User talk:Linas/Archive6 (Dec-Jan 2006)

See Talk:Binomial transform
Bo Jacoby 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See Afshar experiment
dear Linas I am sorry I was not here this week-end : I removed the tag on the 'working area' of the Afshar experiment. I would apreciate if you can check the text (I am not an english speaker : far from that). Comments are welcome. regards drezet 31 January 2006

Moved from your user page
PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME VANDAL! I have moved the entry into complementarity (physics) where the topic should be listed. This is encyclopedia, and if one is searching for information about complementarity, he should not type "apple" or something else in order to find it. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Danko, my apologies, then, I had no idea that the section had been moved. I was quite amazed that a large section of the article had been removed. I am truly sorry. linas 14:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I am glad that this was result from mistake. If you think that there should be no repetitions in the encyclopedia, you may put again the link to the complementarity (physics) article [instead of repeating all this again as it is now]. I think that if someone wants to contribute to the subject, he/she must edit the complementarity (physics) article, not Afshar's one. So if you have time put back the cross-link specified above, and remove the theory section, which is misplaced. Danko Georgiev MD 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

References...
If you are interested...check out -- Physics Letters A, Volume 224, Issue 6, 20 January 1997, Pages 326-330 "A note on the q-deformation-theoretic aspect of the generalized entropies in nonextensive physics" by Sumiyoshi Abe. Well, maybe my excitement on the topic is blurring my objectivity...but also see "Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics and its Applications" S. Abe and Y. Okamoto (Eds.), Springer 2001. --HappyCamper 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiral Potts
I created Chiral Potts curve, but I only understand it from the algebraic geometry end. Charles Matthews 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, you still probably understand it better than I; much of this stuff is on my "todo list". But if you are rooting around in this area, the "breakthroughs" I refered to were associated with people associated with Jacques Perk and Barry McCoy, (I don't remember the name of the main character).  What caught my attention was a quote along the lines of "interviewer: most mathematicians find genus-12 surfaces daunting; what do you think of the tools of algebraic geometry? response: They were useless; after 100 years of study, they still haven't accomplished anything." linas 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome
The title is sufficient to say what I want. Later on I will probably add something on entanglement in the complementartiy section since this an important point for many experiments. Drezet 7 /02/2006

Kernel
Are you sure about this edit? In my experience, the function K in the integral transform mapping f to
 * $$ y \mapsto \int K(x,y) f(x) \,dx $$

is called the kernel, but not the integral transform itself; this is also what our article on integral transform says. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jitse, you are absolutely right; I was sloppy, and I even knew it as I was writing it, but I just couldn't find the right words. What I was really trying to do was to provide a reference to Generalized Appell polynomials, where there was a complaint about the use of the word "kernel" on the talk page. linas 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bios theory?
I had a new idea for solving the Bios theory problem. Comments? William M. Connolley 20:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's been a tried-n-true method for previous crank/nonsense edits, but this one will not go quietly into the night. linas 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks.
Even if you disagree with it, I do not appreciate your calling my point of view stupid. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Lawyer2b 07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Quite the opposite, in fact; for you were the one being rude and uncivil. These templates are low and demeaning and insulting. They represent a stupid, uninformed, unenlightened point of view that is injurious to human existence. They're evil in the broader political discourse, and they certainly have no place on Wikipedia, where we are in the process of creating an encyclopedia. This is not a place for inciting riots.  linas 16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good God, man! Have you completely lost any sense of reality? Is this what happens when you are fixed to your computer 24/7? Why am I saying this? Well, you said that a simple little thing as an Anti-UN userbox merely depicting a crossed-out UN flag and a statement, "This user does not support the United Nations.", woudl incite riots? Are you demented? Sure, in this day and age you never know what will incite riots, as we saw with the recent and still on-going hubbubb over a few cartoons that are nowhere as offensive as what some Islamic newspapers have published, mostly in regards to Jews and Judaism, but still, do you seriously think that simply stating that you do not support the UN is going to cause riots? Are you insane, or do you just not think before you write? And how is that low and demeaning? I do not support the UN. That must mean I am a facist, neo-nazi warcriminal, right? Grow up. I know that being 18 must be hard for you, but seriously, no one is going to take you seriously if you write such rubbish and mean it. Again, I most go back and nitpick more: You say that the Anti-UN userbox is evil. EVIL? Do you know what evil is? Have you met true evil face to face? Do not take that word lightly ever again. I mean that. I know what true evil is, so I beg you, for the sake of my sanity, do not abuse that word in such a way. --PistolPower 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PistolPower, you are wrong in many ways. Please stop now. linas 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See, this is the point where you are not reading what I wrote. You wrote something that is utterly and totally moronic. A userbox will not incite riots. You refuse to acknowledge this. I retracted my rather vicious attacks on you. I would expect you to at least retract that statement. Don't worry, it's not the end of the world. As I said before, I am beginning to get the feeling that you are an elitist egomaniac who considers himself to be the final say on everything and anything that he dabbles in. I can almost see why some more or less famous scientists despise you. --PistolPower 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which famous scientists despise me? linas 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know, maybe you should check your own userpage if you can remember how to get there. The point is that as soon as you are faced with any sort of opposition you fail to address the issues at hand, all you do is squirm, squeal, cry foul, and repeatedly implore the other party to "Please stop now." Get a grip, man. Have you faith in yourself and your convictions and address the argument at hand rather than skirting the issue with idle blather! --PistolPower 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have faith in myself, and convictions too. The argument at hand appears to be that you are fabricating an argument, and are attempting to draw me into it. As this is a trap, I see no point of stepping into it. linas 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Really now? What was the origin of this whole issue again? Oh yes, I am against the UN and the ACLU because lovely ideas they may have been but they both failed and would be better off not existing without major review of their goals and operations (and methods, might I add). You are somehow hurt, insulted, indeed, aghast at how I could hold such an "evil" view, as if I were the root of all evil, nay, as if I were Joseph Stalin and you caught me red-handed murdering Chechens by the million or deporting the patricians/bourgeouis to Siberia to die a certain death. You see, the problem here is that you are opposed to a totally personal view I have and would just to justify but you think that Wikipedia doesn't allow for any of that, not even on my own personal user page where if I wanted to, I could say that I like to masturbate in peanut butter while reading the Crate & Barrel catalog. To sum it up succinctly: You think my expression of my beliefs even outside of a Wikipedia article is evil. I disagree and think you are full of shit and you should get a grasp on reality and the fact that not everyone agrees with you. The application of the No POV rule is not justified outside of articles or discussion of articles, especially not when it comes to MY FUCKING PAGE. If you think so then you better tell all the people who are avowed socialists and marxists that they cannot express such an evil POV view/stand on Wikipedia, you hypocrite. --PistolPower 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Get real. I actually have friends of my family who went and died in Siberia, and am friends with others who have returned. I think you are not only rude and insulting, but that you are lying and distorting every fact you can lay your mind on. This is the problem and the only problem we're having here. As to your page, I suggest that perhaps you would be happier expressing your views on a blog somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for free and unfettered expression of ideas, it is rather a project to create an encyclopedia. If you don't like that, you can lump it. linas 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh really now? Not the place for "free and unfettered expression of ideas"? So what the hell are you doing? What am I doing? I don't see any angry gods about to strike down on me with furious vengance. Hm, maybe the Wiki gods are more merciful than Prophet Linas predicted. Seriously now, there are entire articles pushing a POV here. Don't you think that hounding them would be a better used of your time than harassing me and my userpage? Pedophiles and islamphobes are on the loose, and you target me, just because I do not support the UN? I don't wish to kill Kofi Annan or two blow up the UN building in NYC, I merely do not support them. You however seem to think that is worse than the GNAA's blatantly inflamatory article, the pro-pedophile article, and the three (or is it four now?) anti-Islamic articles. I express my POV on my userpage, meanwhile entire articles are out there expressing a certain, narrow, POV freely and without control. GO AFTER THEM FIRST! Please. --PistolPower 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. linas 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

BEGIN_UNINVITED_RANT: I believe user boxes (for use on user home pages) that say things like "This user does not support the UN" or "This user does not believe in the historical existence of the Jewish holocaust" is an excellent idea - there's so much bias on Wikipedia and it's great to be able to quickly examine biases of individuals. Furthermore, I do not understand how saying "Person X has belief Y" is POV - its a statement of fact. Perhaps they are tendentious (as are very large parts of wikipedia). Maybe these should be (somehow) hosted in the "User" namespace to differentiate them from encyclopedic content, however I fail to see the harm that is caused by having these available to users. Personally, I have two jewish roomates that have relatives who are holocaust survivors, so you can guess where I stand on that, however I do not, in fact, support the UN, at least in practice, considering the corruption and ineffectiveness of the system (see Genocide for a great list of all the atrocities the UN has allowed to occur under its watch, or the Oil-for-Food_Programme). I do not feel like an "evil" person for suggesting this fact, and while I try to keep such biases from affecting how I edit wikipedia, I know that my efforts will not be entirely successful.

I think it's important to prevent individuals from abusing the user-page functionality, and I admit I've put a few things up in my namespace that really had nothing to do with wikipedia (a few travel planning lists) in hopes of introducing some of my family to wikipedia editing... but as long as server resources aren't being strained, and no U.S. laws are broken by User page content, I really cannot see who is being harmed by these "evil" statements.

One last thing, I do think that calling someone else's ideas "stupid" is likely to constitute a personal attack. Maybe you should have used a term like "unhelpful" or "unneccessary," which tend to be less loaded.

I happened to see this discussion in my watchlist and figured I'd add my two cents. If you feel it's taking up too much space on your talk page, I would not be offended if it were removed. - JustinWick 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with these userboxes are that they invite uninvited rants. Which waste time and energy that would be better spent writing articles. Two days ago, I had no opinion about these user-boxes: I probably had a "liberal" attitude of "anything goes, whatever turns you on". However, as a result of PistolPower's unprovoked, extremely hostile attacks, and JustinWicks's utter and complete misunderstanding of what PistolPower and I are arguing about, its now clear that the only recourse is to be against these types of user-boxes. Call it the "conservative" element in me: I wish to conserve the peace, and if the draconian, police-state measure of legislating the disappearance of these userboxes is what it takes, so be it. Once again, the UN stands by and fails to act while these userboxes provoke mass atrocities on WP talk pages.


 * By the way, PistolPower and I were not arguing about user boxes; we were arguing about his attacks on other wikipedians. linas 15:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase...
I should apologize for being so rude to you, but frankly your attack on me was personal and infuriating. If you also consider that I am not at all well at the moment and very tired due to lack of sleep, you might understand why I snapped. Now, back to my position. Why on earth is it wrong for me to consider the UN or the ACLU a bad thing? Isn't that a matter of personal opinion? And no, I do not just merely hold blind prejudices against either of these two organizations. I have reasons for disliking both. If you want I will elaborate but I hope you can see why calling me a hate mongerer and an ignoramus is not exactly good policy when you want to make a point to a complete and utter stranger. I hope you will reply soon. Have a good night. --PistolPower 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am not attacking you. Please re-read what I wrote; these were words of honest love and encouragement and hope, and not an attack. You may dislike the ACLU and the UN, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to announce your political viewpoints. It is even less appropriate for you to falsely accuse someone, such as User:MarkSweep, of holding a political position opposite your own, and then attack them for this. You need to stop behaving like this. linas 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to stop lecturing me. I am starting to think that you are an elitist egomaniac just because of your education and occupation. Yes, Wikipedia articles are not the place to announce your opinion on any matter but your own personal page and userboxes are fair game. If you have an issue with userboxes, please take it up with the appropriate people, but do not go around calling me evil. You don't know what evil is. This is the problem with you academics, you have no grasp on reality. --PistolPower 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PistolPower, I am sorry, but userboxes are not fair game, because they do incite riots on Wikipedia. It is as simple as that. The goal of the website is to write and disseminate an encyclopedia, it is useful to have a bit of a community to achieve this goal, and it has been found that userboxes expounding political opinions are harmful.
 * On a personal level, if you are tired, have a nap. Honestly, Wikipedia is not that important. Cheers. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just randomly stumbled upon this page and for some reason felt like chiming in. I think unsoftened User pages have value.  An unsoftened User page immediately alerts article reviewers to further scrutinize edits made by the User page owner.  In fact, I'm more afraid of those with highly sanitized User pages that conceal the biases of the owner.  I agree that articles themselves ought to be sanitized into a neutral POV, but I would prefer if User pages remained as raw and unedited as possible.  Just my opinion. Thoreaulylazy 03:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice and all, but I do not feel rested from sleep, that is, I haven't been sleeping well. Now, to the major issue and point at hand: To a degree everything on Wikipedia is very much POV influenced. Hey, otherwise, how could any article say that anything is a crime or some countries laws and courts consider something to be a crime, isn't that pushing the POV of that entity/legislative body, for example? The problem is that Wikipedia has a very liberal bent, especially in the humanities and within that the politics and culture articles. That is why Wikipedia will never be a proper academic encyclopedia like Britannica or Brockhaus for example. So, if various users get to point out their own POV by acclaiming themselves to be homosexual, conservative, Bush lovers, Bush haters, ex-cons, against abortion, pro abortion, Windows hates, Linux lovers, Mac fans, or fast car users, then hell, that is a very strong point as to their POV on certain matters and therefore articles. So, that could, by your definition, cause riots too. Now, let me remind you that before a few busybody fucks who spend way too much time glued to their computers and not enough time in real life took issue with the and  userboxes, no normal person found thoss offensive, divisive, and/or a reason to "riot" (which technically is infeasible on Wikipedia). Now then, these busybodies, being "proactive" to "avoid confrontations" decide to censor, delete, and shut down any POV among the whole set of POVs that the user boxes are because they personally disagree with them, that is, their POV doesn't disagree with my POV. You cannot do that in any official capacity. See, it was YOU lot who started the riot when you started pulling those user boxes. Before that, NO ONE had any problems with them, because they had their own userboxes proclaiming themselves to be pro ACLU and pro UN and they were happy because they got to express their POV on their personal pages and I got to express mine. Thus, there we were, the majority of happy people expressing our POV's where it was appropriate. Then you lot come and start the riots. Why am I even wasting time on this? Until you "official" trolls cease and desist trying to cause trouble where there is none, Wikipedia will always remain this joke that it is. --PistolPower 21:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling my viewpoint stupid

 * Even if you disagree with it, I do not appreciate your calling my point of view stupid. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  Thank you.  Lawyer2b 07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Quite the opposite, in fact; for you were the one being rude and uncivil. These templates are low and demeaning and insulting. They represent a stupid, uninformed, unenlightened point of view that is injurious to human existence. They're evil in the broader political discourse, and they certainly have no place on Wikipedia, where we are in the process of creating an encyclopedia. This is not a place for inciting riots.  linas 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * linas, your calling my viewpoint stupid on User:MarkSweep's talkpage, is not a good reason to carry on a conversation about your incivility there. This has nothing to do with User:MarkSweep.  This has to do with something you said about me and I think that either of our talkpages is the appropriate venue -- not some third party's.  If you would like to discuss on my talkpage, I am more than happy to accomodate the discourse.  Please feel free to move this entire conversation there at your leisure.  Lawyer2b 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressing your reply: I apologize first if you find my Anti-UN template "low, demeaning, and insulting".  I certainly did not intend for it to have that affect.  If I was at a dinner party and someone asked what my opinions were on current events and I replied, "I don't support the United Nations," I wouldn't think I that would be offending and insulting.   I must say, then, that I'm quite surprised and confused at your offense.  Can you explain how/why you take such umbrage at my statement?  2) Even if you find a comment from another user to be "rude and uncivil" and "demeaning and insulting", at least on wikipedia, the appropriate response is not to call their viewpiont stupid.  It is to point out how their behavior is a violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA.  If they continue, the appropriate thing to do is to request they be blocked/banned for a period of time by an Administrator.  Lawyer2b 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it. I have had quite enough of this template business. This stuff is entirely out of control. All of these templates need to be banned from WP. It appears that their only purpose is to elicit bad behavior from all parties and to draw everyone into a giant melee over the matter. linas 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that userboxes are really upsetting you. For what its worth, I'm really sorry about that.  I'm not going to remove mine from my userpage but if you ever think talking about it would make you feel better, I'm here.  :-) Lawyer2b 06:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lawyer2b, stop intentionally misunderstanding me, and stop trying to antagonize me on my talk page! Just in case its not clear, antagonizing people is considered to be "uncivil behaviour". It is YOU who are upsetting me, the things that you say and do, and not the userboxes.  OK?  A mere three days ago, I did not care one whit about userboxes. And then YOU took a pot-shot at User:MarkSweep.  I warned you to be civil over this matter, and you promptly took a shot at me. Your buddy User:PistolPower started posting some of the nastiest, ugliest stuff I have read in a decade. I find his behaviour, and your behaviour, to be completely un-collegial, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you think you're going to be a lawyer, you've obviously got some brains. I think you are smart enough that you know that you are antagonizing me; I don't think this is some misunderstanding or confusion on your part. Please put your brains to some productive use, instead of making other people feel bad!  15:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:linas, I'm trying to understand what you say, but when you don't respond to my questions it makes it difficult.


 * How do you define "pot shot"? How did I take one at User:MarkSweep?
 * What "shot" did I take at you?
 * I don't know User:PistolPower at all and while it's apparent he and I agree mostly on the subject of userboxes, I agree his behavior has been inappropriate and in gross violation of several wiki policies.
 * I believe I have treated you courteously and respectfully and continue to do so despite your incivility, personal attacks and refusal to assume good faith on my part.
 * If pointing out your incivil behavior is antagonizing you, I'm sorry, but YOU interjected yourself in the middle of my conversation with User:MarkSweep. Lawyer2b 18:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Dewikification of dates in place of volume number
Great work. There's a fair amount of nonsense generated when random people try to "fix" things. (I refer to Casimir Effect) Carrionluggage 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh. Thanks linas 23:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Raw Dataset
http://bruning.xs4all.nl/~kim/kim_query1.bz2

The key for this is ...

page_id | distinct_editors | oldest_revision | 2004_distinct | 2004_rev_count | 2003_distinct | 2003_rev_count | 2002_distinct | 2002_rev_count

Work was done by User:Gmaxwell.

Discussion on this on wikien-l at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/037890.html

Cumulative_distribution_function graph (no idea why he used that):
 * Image:Articles_distinct.png

2 additional images, unfortunately log on y axis only.
 * Image:Articles_distinct_loghisto.png
 * Image:Articles_distinct_logcdf.png

-- Kim Bruning 11:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.


 * Thank you; I will have to ponder a bit.linas 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wave Particle duality
I notice the travails that page goes through. Wavefunction is another one which has become a mess.


 * I'm not watching that one. There's a lot of these that should just be frozen. e.g. Maxwell's equations is constantly being jiggered in dubious ways. linas 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I notice that User:CarlHewitt blanked his page. Maybe he decided to start over; like rebirth. Now that is a pain. Hmmm ..maybe not. But imagine having to learn everything all over again. Or being like this idiot who can't do algebra.--CSTAR 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Carl's arbitration closed. His wikivacation could be mere hours; he's tenacious. linas 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wave-Particle Duality
Hello - I must confess I am new(ish) to Wikipedia and am a little confused to what is happening with the Particle-Wave duality page: do you disagree that all macroscopic objects behave as waves? Do you disagree that the probability of finding a particle in a volume element dv is the integral of the square modulus of the wavefunction???

At first I thought you were reverting my changes, but now it seems we are on the same side. Again, I state that I am confused. I'd like to fix Particle-Wave duality as best as I can. I am sure of the two facts I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Could you please respond?

(Also - please do not address me in my Talk page. I am watching this page and will see when you respond) --Jpawloski 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There were multiple errors in the set of recent changes, and so I reverted them. You state that you wish to "fix Particle-Wave duality" but in fact, all of your changes introduced errors into the article. If you are not intimately familiar with the theory of quantum mechanics, I strongly suggest that perhaps you should not be editing the article. linas 19:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen [...], I fixed two things on that page which were WRONG that you reverted back to WRONG. [...] 1) The probability is NOT THE SQUARE OF WAVEFUNCTION -- a square of a wavefunction can be negative. What does a negative probability mean? 2) EVERYTHING has a De Broglie wavelength, not just small things as is said/implied in the article. So until YOU learn quantum mechanics, YOU need to [...] stop reverting back to wrong things. --149.169.52.67 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [REDACTED per WP:RPA Srleffler 04:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)]


 * 0) Don't be foul mouthed. 1) No, the probability will not be negative. Squaring is performed by multiplying the wave function by its complex conjugate, which results in a non-negative quantity. 2) Its not clear that everything has a de Broglie wavelength. In particular, anything larger than a Planck mass (about the size of a large bacterium) will have a de Broglie wavelength small than the Planck scale, and the nature of physics at these scales is not clear. linas 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You two seem to simply be disagreeing about the definition of "square" for a wavefunction. Perhaps this is one of those mathematician vs. physicist things? Or just a misunderstanding between someone thinking in terms of complex-valued wavefunctions, and someone thinking in terms of Hilbert space states? My copy of Complex Analysis and Applications, 2nd ed. (1984), by Wm. R. Derrick definitely distinguishes between z2 and |z|2, and uses both. If the article is talking about wavefunctions, the terminology should be chosen carefully. --Srleffler 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thanks for your concern on the matter. I can assure you this has little to nothing to do with "mathematician vs physicist" as you have proposed; it, instead, has everything to do with Linas incompetence. It is univerally acknowledged that a complex function SQUARED can be negative. This is nothing new or exciting: consider f(x) = i if you don't believe me. The square modulus of a wavefunction is what the probability defined in the context of wavefunctions.


 * Remarkably, someone who pretends he is so knowledgeable in mathematics and physics - indeed, even stating to me that I do not know Quantum Mechanics and hence should not edit articles - could make such a terrible fumble. Without saying it for effect, his lack of understanding between the square modulus and the square of a complex number if a lack of understanding of day one material: literally, my Complex Analysis book (by Conway, Graduate Texts in Mathematics series) covers it in the first section, and again literally, my mathematical physics course as an undergraduate covered this on the first day of class.


 * Linas, you are incompetent. People tend to make errors at the periphery of their knowledge. As it turns out, the edge of your knowledge is day one in complex variables. Please refrain from editing articles on quantum mechanics and mathematics. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. --Jpawloski 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a train of absurd and insulting statements. I don't know what you think you are accomplishing with this conversation, but from where I sit, I can only conclude that you are a jerk. Surely this is not what you wanted me to conclude? I suppose you were hoping to get me angry and flustered? linas 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Linas, I think you will do best at this point to ignore his provocative comments. Karol 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style Edits
Hi Linas, thanks for noting your rebuttal on my Talk page. In my view, when expositing, the writer should put the reader's perspective first. Rather than use jargon, the writer should take the most common meaning of a word or phrase in order to make her work the most accessible to the widest audience. If mathematicians intend the phrase "It's easy to show" to mean "It only takes a few lines to show", then why not just say the latter?

I constantly feel belittled when reading mathematics writing peppered with phrases like "Clearly," "Obviously," and "It's easy to show that ...".

As the one trying to learn from the text, I think my interpretation is more valid than the writer's unspoken intention. (unsigned comment from User:Crasshopper on 20 Feb 2006)


 * In mathematics, there is an immense raft of specialized jargon. The phrases "Clearly," "Obviously," and "It's easy to show that ..." are a part of that jargon. Although they resemble the English language, thier true meaning is subtle.


 * Mathematicians often encounter head-scratching claims in the papers they read, claims that make them stop and wonder "what does this mean?", and "how could this possibly be true?", or "how could the author presume such a thing without any justification whaatsoever?". These head-scratchers come in two basic varieties: the simple, forehead-slapping, "duhh, of course" kind, and the complicated kind. These two types can be very hard to tell apart, and one can loose hours or days on them. There are some well-known stories of strong mathematicians who spent weeks on problems only to wake up in the middle of the night with a "duhh of course" inspiration. The phrases "Clearly," "Obviously," and "It's easy to show that ..." are used to indicate to the reader that what follows is of the forehead-slapping variety. They do not imply that what follows is somehow "easy"; its usually not -- if it was actually easy, then the author wouldn't need to coach the reader with this "com'on you can do it" pep-talk.


 * Yes, texts that use these phrases may seem intimidating, but that comes from an unfamiliarity of math jargon. No one expects that the claim following an "Obviously..." will be obvious to anyone wihout years of preparation. linas 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it comes down to us having different philosophies about who the most important party is. In my opinion, Wikipedia should speak to the broadest possible audience.  That means avoiding jargon, pruning and polishing our writing, and overall keeping the general reader's needs in mind rather than the specialist reader's.  There are more extensive resources available to those who are comfortable with mathematical jargon.  In my view Wikipedia should address the curious but uninformed. Crasshopper 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me the "general reader" for K-theory. linas 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many highly technical readers that are not mathematicians. Physicists, for example, tend to be rather sloppy with nomenclature and symbolic manipulation because unlike mathematics, there is an independent source which can verify their calculations (experiments), so hair splitting is much less important for a physicist.  I think there are many mathematics articles that someone such as myself, who has taken many math classes, but was not indoctrinated with the "culture" behind mathematics and would therefore be put off with odd uses of ordinary english phrases (when hair splitting must be applied to extract the meaning of their sentences).  I agree that the "average" reader probably would not care to read an article on K-theory, however there are many people who have degrees in sciences such as physics who are comfortable with mathematics but may miss important points if deceptive jargon is used.  Jargon that sounds like jargon can be interpreted through research, but jargon that sounds precisely like standard english may be misleading. - JustinWick 16:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Quantum uncertainty
Maybe there should be an article, Mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty, where we can remove most of the mathematical stuff. The state of that article is not very good now, in my view.--CSTAR 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are refering to Uncertainty principle. Yes, that's a pretty nasty and ugly article with lots of problems. I hate the graphic. The section labelled "The theorem" is ... well, probably not incorrect, but should be preceeded by much simpler, gentler introductions, starting with a textbook discussion of fourier analysis, complete set of states, and a sketch of Hilbert space. And, yes, this should be done on a distinct page; I suggest Uncertainty principle (mathematical formulations) as the title -- as there are many ways to understand it, and each should be at least breifly reviewed. Two that I like are Pontryagin duality and Heisenberg group.  linas 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey you [...]].
[Title redacted per WP:RPA --Srleffler 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)]

I'm going to revert everything you write. --IRevLinas 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone tell me if this is a sockpuppet of User:Jpawloski and User:149.169.52.67, and just block this guy? linas 01:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet or no, he's blocked indefinitely. Drop me a line if another user continues the same behavior. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was almost ready to slap a block also. Gosh. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. linas 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I slapped a block on this individual not knowing the previous block. Hopefully blocking does not toggle the block status.--CSTAR 04:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Danko Georgiev
Dear Linas, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment on the talk pages. My experimental results were verfied by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You should review Resolving disputes, and follow the proceedures there. I can do little other than to attest to Danko's character. Its possible that by alleging defamation, you might get a quick and serious response; however, since the defamation is happening on talk pages, rather than in an article, it may get discounted. You might be able to get Danko baned, or at least temporarily blocked, for being disruptive, or for stalking you, or some such. linas 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hi, and invitation
Thank you for writing to me and inviting me to join the Wikipedia Physics project, and also mentioniong the Wikipedia Mathematics project.

I will look into both of these. Figaro 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
Hi there. I think you might be interested in WP:SPR, if you don't already know about it. Karol 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)