User talk:Nbarth/Archive 2005 - 2007

Archive 2005 – 2007 | Archive 2008 &rarr;

Oleg's Welcome
Welcome!

If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC) (Edited by Nils)

Hi
I thought that I should mention that your recent article Structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain was breifly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I notice that you seem to be quite capable in mathematics, and a good editor at that, and are mostly notable in your absence from the discussions at WP:WPM. Thus, if you haven't seen this, I invite you over, and encourage you to add yourself to the participants list. linas 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice I'm not the first to edit your talk page. By convention, it is common to "archive" talk pages when you get sick of looking at them; typically by copying the contents over to, for example User talk:Nbarth/Archive. This is often done manually, although there ae also some automatic bot that will do this (e.g. Werdnabot) linas 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stable normal bundle on DYK for 12 March 2007
Thank you for your contributions! &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Connection form
I'm glad you have taken an interest in the connection form article, as I believe it is definitely in need of a rewrite, particularly in light of the extensive progress that has been made on connection-related articles in the past year or so. However, it's a mistake to say that the torsion is an invariant of a connection in a vector bundle. This is only true if the bundle is the tangent bundle (or some other related tensor bundle). But for a general vector bundle with connection, the torsion isn't a well-defined concept (there is no solder form defined on it). So the article as stated was correct (or simply "more correct") prior to your edit. Nevertheless, I hesitate to revert it, since I am eager to see the section rewritten entirely. Silly rabbit 14:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Style note
Hi Nbarth. I have a small style note. On Wikipedia one should use formal style, so "need not" instead of "needn't", etc. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Super Mario Bros. Technicals
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Super Mario Bros. Technicals meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Technicals. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Macaronic language
Hi - interesting addition you made to the Macaronic page. Not sure whether that strictly counts as macaronic as such, but I suppose one could stretch a point. They certainly are fun!.... Anyway I think it would be nice to have a recording of someone speaking the words of some of the mots d'heures gousses rames. If you would like me to do the humpty dumpty one let me know - I'm all geared up and ready to recite :-) Dwsolo 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hey
I am locked out; can you let me in? Also: get back to work! The economy depends on you. Sdedeo (tips) 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I do that? (locked out of Wikipedia?) (or are you just chatting?) Nbarth 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A reference to the number of times I called up from the entrance of Grays M54. Love you Nbarth! Sdedeo (tips) 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course (missed in my addled state) -- night night! Nbarth 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

 * This was added from an unknown IP address directly to the archive page.
 * (But naturally, one can guess who it is.)

Hi Nbarth, Just noticed your edit in a page I was reading and thought i'd say hi! (your friend in cambridge, MA)

Tina Brown
Hello. I have made some contributions to this article and have a feeling that it may have been tampered with to make it appear very positive about Tina Brown. As you may know, her life and career have not all been sweetness and light and I have tried to reflect this in the material I have added. Is there any way you can check that this has been/will not be removed in the future? Ivankinsman 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vesica Piscis
My only concern was lack of references. I don't even remember how I came across this article. Probably tracking various nonsense of neopaganism, therianthropy, etc. - Mukadderat (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recent group theory edits
Thanks for improving a slew of articles in the last few days! I especially wanted to thank you for correcting an error in Dicyclic group and pointing out a general way to recognize the error, since dicyclics cover dihedrals as in Pin group. I also like your expansions to symmetric group, including specifying the longest element in the Coxeter group and the new article numerical polynomials.

Integral combinations of binomial coefficients pop up in a lot of places, including Hilbert polynomials and Philip Hall's polynomials for commutator collection. The commutator polynomials are nearly unrelated to Hall polynomials, but are used to prove the lower central factors of a free group are free abelian. I've found most texts on numerical polynomials themselves unreadable, so I like already having a nice place to gather digestible information on them. At any rate, thanks again. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

notation
Hello. A recent edit of yours wonder whether on your browser the following look different from each other:
 * It has curvature -1.
 * It has curvature &minus;1.
 * It has curvature &minus;1.

Michael Hardy 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, they look different to me, &amp;minus; &minus; is longer than the US keyboard hyphen -. JackSchmidt 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional auts
Howdy, I wanted to make sure it was you who added the Fact/Citation Needed tag to the claim that there are no other exceptional automorphisms. Insofar as sporadic groups cannot have exceptions, and insofar as every non-sporadic finite simple group has a name under which its automorphism group is precisely as expected, there are no exceptional automorphisms of finite simple groups. One could check the table of exceptional isomorphisms to be sure there were no other surprises than A6, but due to the oddity of calling a sporadic group exceptional or not, I wasn't sure if this was worth the trouble. If it was not you that added the tag, could you point out where that line came from? Checking the edit history makes it look like it appeared out of thin air with a Fact tag. JackSchmidt 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Warm fuzzy
Warm fuzzy, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Warm fuzzy satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Warm fuzzy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Warm fuzzy during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Warm fuzzy
I think that could be a good idea, but you probably should have waited until the AfD was over before performing the merge.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Picard horn
Thanks for the Picard horn improvements - you're right, I find it still not intelligible, but it's much improved. Tempshill (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Catenary
You seem to have made a rather strange edit to Catenary a while back. Could you perhaps drop a line on the talk page to help explain this diff? Cheers—Cronholm144 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue because it looked like (maybe??) vandalism. I have no strong opinions about how it is presented. Pleasantville (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Unitary group
Howdy, there is some question about how to define the unitary groups over arbitrary fields. My viewpoint is from finite groups, so I wanted to use the talk page to figure it out. The gist of my stance is a unitary group is defined precisely for field extensions of degree 2 (not for fields, though it is convenient that for the real field and for finite fields there is a unique degree 2 extension). If we can agree on the definition for "arbitrary" fields, then I'll add some verbiage on the finite case in response to a request on the talk page. JackSchmidt (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks good. I'll see what I can add to the finite and the algebraic group case (though I suspect RobHar will have to take on most of the algebraic and schemey part). JackSchmidt (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * New text looks good. One could mention the triality versions too, {}^3D_4 and such, as they are basically the same idea. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem on the tex thing. Looks a bit like a mediawiki bug, but it was easy enough to get around with reasonable tex.  I totally missed the 3d4 in Unitary group.  I think it looks good at the current level of detail (no subsection needed, the links are good).  Group of Lie type needs some expansion perhaps, but it is hard to tell how much is useful and how much might better be on a list page like List of finite simple groups. JackSchmidt (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)