User talk:R.e.b./j2007June-2007October

2005 March-2005 October 2005 November-2006 June 2006 July-2006 October 2006 November-2007 May

Frobenius Group
A fair number of changes have been made to Frobenius group, and in the next few days I was going to add back in some reverted material in a new section. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything since the revert wasn't explained. I assume that basically the new text was awful and so you turned it back into something nice. I plan on including the information in a much nicer way with better context and references, so don't foresee any objections. However, the edit log mentioned the definition being incorrect, so I wanted to check first. Oh, and if you care I commented on capable groups in your older talk page. They are quite important to some of us :) JackSchmidt 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of Frobenius group was indeed wrong, though not seriously: it omitted the condition that the subgroup H is non-trivial. The main problem was not that the definition was slightly wrong, but that it was unintuitive and unmotivated.R.e.b. 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RS1900
Are you Richard Borcherds? Well, sir, I am RS1900. In future I will created article related to physics and mathematics. Can you help me? Thank you. RS1900 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to edit math articles you might find the pages Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics useful. R.e.b. 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and also Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not answered my question. Anyway, I am mainly interested in Physics. Thanks for the reply. All the best. RS1900 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not ask any personal questions. I looked at your edits and you two are very interesting individuals. All the best. RS1900 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Names
Greetings. In the von Neumann algebra article I find some parts of the introduction a little bit too direct now. I wonder if you could possibly change this please? Mathsci 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you be more explicit? I have no idea what you mean. R.e.b. 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I very slightly changed your format. There are other texts (eg Bratteli and Robinson I, Stratila and Zsido, Pedersen, Kadison and Ringrose) which could be added, but that's a matter of taste. Mathsci 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The books listed are just those I happen to be familiar with; if you know other good ones go ahead and list them. They were added to satisfy the Scientific citation guidelines.R.e.b. 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

proof of Minkowski inequality
Hi R.e.b.,

I've made a comment on the proof of the Minkowski inequality that you added on its talk page. --MarSch 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of George W. Whitehead
A tag has been placed on George W. Whitehead, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Rackabello 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)