User talk:Sławomir Biały

I think it is important to note that the original of the real numbers section of the cantor's diagonal argument page is poorly written, with too much time focused on trivial detail, and poor English used to explain the crux of the argument. You can't be serious with me being to formalistic! It's important to use the correct language when talking about math! Anyway, I spent time fixing an unreadable section. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I laughed out loud reading your post about reverting the code inserted into the prime numbers article.... I fell out of my chair when I actually saw the code.... The fact that the guy wanted to solve the Goldbach conjecture with that... RockvilleRideOn (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw your talk on 'Fourier transform'. If you have time, could you just explain a little more on normalization problem? Or state in the page so reader could be aware of this. Thanks. Allenleeshining (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fourier_transform#Suspect_wrong_equations_in_section_.27Square-integrable_functions.27

Does fixing some trivial math typos require commenting?
Hi Sławo, I fixed some math formatting in the Taylor's series section, which you have reverted to the original. I didn't realize I had to justify this as the changes were obviously typographical from the diff output. cerniagigante (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Why should one small section of the article be changed to a notation and styling that is inconsistent with the rest of the article? That's what needs to be justified.  Also WP:MSM cautions against large-scale stylistic changes from inline html to LaTeX, or vice versa.   S ławomir  Biały  01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Series Exemple
Hi Sławomir Biały. Following your correction. How can you explain the following identity:
 * $$\begin{align} \sum^\infty_{n=0} {x^{n+1}\over n!} = \sum^\infty_{n=1} {x^{n}\over (n-1)!} \end{align}$$

My calculus will be


 * $$\begin{align} \sum^\infty_{n=0} {x^{n+1}\over n!} = x + \sum^\infty_{n=1} {x^{n+1}\over n!} = x + x\sum^\infty_{n=1} {x^{n}\over n!} \end{align}$$ and not the initial result.

This way I get to the final result of $$\begin{align} \sum^\infty_{n=0}{x^n(x+1)\over n!}\end{align}$$ instead of $$\begin{align} \sum^\infty_{n=0}{x^n(n+1)\over n!}\end{align}$$

Please correct me if I'm wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupflamind (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These series are equal to each other. So what you have is correct, but it isn't a Taylor series since it's not a power series.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response:Topologies of uniform convergence
Hi Sławomir Biały. It's fine if you want to change the name however I would not pick the name "Uniform convergence in a topological vector space" since there is after all a concept in general topology about uniform convergence (i.e. uniformities) that in particular applies to all TVSs. Maybe change it to "Topologies of Uniform Convergence on Vector Spaces of Maps"? Also, I do have a very general introduction but that's because otherwise the same concepts would have to continuously reappear throughout the subsection. Mgkrupa (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Left response on my talk page (did it automatically notify you of this?).Mgkrupa (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I responded to your question at the Math reference desk at Reference desk/Mathematics. Best. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Why article Sergey Zonenko seen at "being considered for deletion"? Whay we can fix that article was not removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogeldke (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples of convolution
I saw the wiki page, but I couldn't find any examples using actual numbers evaluating the formula. Could you give some examples of convolution, please? Mathijs Krijzer (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition
The convolution of f and g is written f∗g, using an asterisk or star. It is defined as the integral of the product of the two functions after one is reversed and shifted. As such, it is a particular kind of integral transform:




 * $$(f * g )(t)\ \ \,$$
 * $$\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(\tau)\, g(t - \tau)\, d\tau$$
 * $$= \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t-\tau)\, g(\tau)\, d\tau.$$      (commutativity)
 * }
 * $$= \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t-\tau)\, g(\tau)\, d\tau.$$      (commutativity)
 * }

Domain of definition
The convolution of two complex-valued functions on Rd
 * $$(f*g)(x) = \int_{\mathbf{R}^d}f(y)g(x-y)\,dy$$

is well-defined only if f and g decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity in order for the integral to exist. Conditions for the existence of the convolution may be tricky, since a blow-up in g at infinity can be easily offset by sufficiently rapid decay in f. The question of existence thus may involve different conditions on f and g.

Circular discrete convolution
When a function gN is periodic, with period N, then for functions, f, such that f∗gN exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:


 * $$(f * g_N)[n] \equiv \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \left(\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty {f}[m+kN] \right) g_N[n-m].\,$$

Circular convolution
When a function gT is periodic, with period T, then for functions, f, such that f∗gT exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:


 * $$(f * g_T)(t) \equiv \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} \left[\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty f(\tau + kT)\right] g_T(t - \tau)\, d\tau,$$

where to is an arbitrary choice. The summation is called a periodic summation of the function f.

Discrete convolution
For complex-valued functions f, g defined on the set Z of integers, the discrete convolution of f and g is given by:


 * $$(f * g)[n]\ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty f[m]\, g[n - m]$$
 * $$= \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty f[n-m]\, g[m].$$      (commutativity)

When multiplying two polynomials, the coefficients of the product are given by the convolution of the original coefficient sequences, extended with zeros where necessary to avoid undefined terms; this is known as the Cauchy product of the coefficients of the two polynomials.

How to request IP block exemption
I saw your post at WP:VPT. It appears that WP:UTRS is currently down due to toolserver problems. Your best bet is to try Sockpuppet investigations. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know about this.  Wikipedia has obviously become too large and complex for me to handle :-)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

About axiom of global choice
Hello, Sławomir, I replied to you last comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Axiom_of_global_choice Eozhik (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Manifold
[] No. You apparently do not understand the difference between the ring $Z$ of integer numbers, which is a specific ring, and the ring of integers $O_{K}$ of a number field $K$, not a specific ring but a functor from fields(?) to commutative rings. Of course, the ring of integers of $p$-adic numbers contains some extra elements which Z does not have. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, indeed! You presume quite a lot about what others do not understand, while in the same breath betraying your own ignorance of the very subject that you would presume to "correct" me on.  Thanks, but I'll pass.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another wiki
Being "semi-retired" here, you could be welcome there. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Transpose: best abstract definition?
If you feel that way inclined, I'd appreciate a quick "yes" or "no" at Talk:Transpose. — Quondum 14:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

about angle
Thank you very much for your answers to my question. I've learned many from you. Could you please make some comments on my newly posted words about the angle in Reference desk/Mathematics? Thanks. Armeria wiki (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Banach space article
Dear Sławomir, Thanks for your comments and your interest for the Banach space article. I certainly agree with your comments, and I reply here because what I want to say is a bit personal. Actually, I would like some help of yours on the following points:


 * I don't feel like rewriting a lead in English. I can manage talking to mathematicians, but not to "a general audience".


 * I started writing a primitive sketch for an Introduction, but was blocked by the same language barrier. It was something like:


 * Introduction
 * Functional analysis aims to find functions that are solutions of various equations, several arising from physics. Abstract solutions, namely, functions that cannot be expressed by an explicit formula, are often obtained as limits in a well chosen vector space of functions X of a sequence of approximate solutions. Completeness of X is needed in order to make sure that the limit exists in X. Many examples of such spaces X, but not all, are Banach spaces.


 * Various type of compact sets in function spaces (norm compact, weak compact) are also used to prove the existence of abstract solutions, for example to optimization problems. In this respect, it is important to characterize compact subsets of function spaces.


 * I would like to have a section on differential equations in "Banach space", but I am not expert about this.

With best wishes, Bdmy (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Bdmy, I didn't mean to lay the task of improving the article entirely at your feet, just to suggest directions in which I think the article needs to be expanded. These are tasks that I wish I myself had time to undertake.  Your mathematical edits to that article are most appreciated.  There is now a solid foundation on which to build.  Best,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent censorship of talk page
Re your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Environment&diff=563829950&oldid=563780784

Sorry didn't mean it like that. I just thought that whole conversation was rather long and nothing to do with the talk page and had many insults and ad hominem attacks plus defences against those attacks - and thought it would be tedious reading for others. I hid lots of my own content as well with those tags. I have nothing to hide, just thought the whole conversation would be off topic for most readers.

But am probably not the best one to make a decision of what should be hidden if any :) Robert Walker (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone who has in the past been the subject of invective from other editors, I sympathize. But I think it is a bad idea to hide comments directed against oneself (unless they are clearly trolling edits and there is likely to be a strong consensus to do so).  Generally, it's usually best to let the comments stand.  If there is a valid point, then it should be allowed to be seen; if it's just meaningless insults, these are typically easy to discern by other readers as well, most of whom do not take well to insults being hurled at other editors regardless of the circumstances.  But hiding the comments of some editors in an apparent attempt to avoid engaging is clearly wrong, especially if you were the one who initially canvassed multiple projects.  Some of this is officially recommended in the WP:NPA policy, but this is my personal take on the matter.
 * To the larger issue: I think a more productive course of action, and one that would be much more likely to bring in informed input than your current strategy, would be to start a formal request for comment. It is very important in such matters to be succinct, and I think you sometimes have difficulty with that.  But I would fully support such an RfC if you're willing to go down that route.  I can help you to set this up if you want me to, but maybe you should contact a more sympathetic party first (e.g., User:Wavelength, who is a very experienced Wikipedian as well).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes that's okay. I understand now.


 * BTW, I know two wrongs don't make a right but BI and WP frequently hide my conversations on talk pages, or archive discussions while still open. I suppose I got the idea about cot and cob tags being okay because it has happened so much in those conversations it came to seem normal. I know it isn't now. Robert Walker (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried a RfC in the past, for a related topic, but it didn't work well at all, and it's put me off trying it here. Battery Included insults me and pays no attention to the reasons I give, and the whole thing puts off anyone else who wants to comment on it. []


 * Warren Pratts behaves almost identically to Battery Included, to the extent that I suspect them of being meat or sock puppets (due not just to the way they act, but many other strange coincidences). Whether they are or not, I think that RfC gives a pretty good idea of how it would go.


 * Any other thoughts do say, and thanks for the offer. I expect WP will find this conversation soon and start insulting me here, so probably will have to give up this discussion soon. Wavelength suggested trying again a year or so from now, meanwhile would continue editing wikipedia of course but just keep away from any topics to do with contamination issues. Difficult to do though when I'm on wikipedia every day and can see what is happening to a topic I care about. Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi. Just letting you know I've quoted a diff of yours at ArbCom in the Mars case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Any Thoughts ?
Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 July 6. — 79.113.213.214 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edition of dot product
Hi,

I am writing in response to your reversal regarding the dot product notation in Hilbert space:


 * The inputs of the dot product are vectors of the same type. Undid revision 565343587 by Elferdo

I understand your point, and don't object to the reversal. Maybe I should have discussed the notation before editing, I apologize.

However, I feel that your argument comes more from a programming notion of vectors than from a mathematical point of view. In fact, to me vectors (of the same vector space) in the mathematical sense don't have types, so the fact that a vector is represented with a column syntax or a row syntax does not change the vector to which that syntax refers.

This said, it is true that row or column syntax of vectors does affect the kind and the order of the operations that may be performed on them. But this is only a matter of representation, not of "vector type". To me, writing the dot product in euclidean spaces as a product of matrices feels more natural, because it follows the laws of matrix multiplication. For other definitions of the dot product usually the angle bracket notation <·, ·> is preferred.

So, to conclude, I would like to ask if the current notation is a standard, or if there are any reasons to prefer it over matrix multiplication notation. If so, could you please provide any references?

Thank you very much, Elferdo (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A row vector and a column vector lie in different vector spaces. The dot product accepts vectors in the same vector space.  It's not the same thing as the matrix product of row and column vectors.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I will accept that row and column vectors lie in different vector spaces, but they happen to be dual and isomorphic. I suggest you take a look at this other wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row_vector#Operations. Since those two different vector spaces that you mention are isomorphic, we could think of them as being actually only two different representations of the same vector space. Then, in fact, scalar product in euclidean spaces, which was the original context of my argument, can be written as the matrix product of the row representation of the first vector and the column representation of the second vector.
 * If you can prove me wrong, then I would suggest that both pages of Row vector and Column vector be modified accordingly. Elferdo (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The two spaces are naturally dual to one another, but this has nothing to do with the dot product. They are also not representations of the same vector space.  They are nonisomorphic representations of GL(n).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Functional notation


The article Functional notation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Possible copyright violation. This is just cut-and-pasted from the reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. I was not the original editor who added this to the project: I only moved it from functional (mathematics), where it obviously did not belong.  It is most worrying that this was copied word-for-word from the source.  Since forking out that content, I have noticed a number of alarming issues with the edits of the user in question.  I have notified WT:WPM of these issues, although I suspect that an escalation to WP:AN is likely to be warranted in the near future.  Thanks again for your vigilance,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to define a Taylor series of a function on an arbitrary field.
Generalizing is usually good in mathematics. Talking about real or complex only numbers looks awkward, specially when this holds also for function over finite fields. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it most definitely does not make sense over finite fields!  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but here is the source @ 44m25s updated with more exact link . AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I may have missed something, but he only seems to discuss polynomials. Moreover, even for polynomial functions what he says is false over finite fields, despite his off the cuff claim at 44m25s.  The derivative of a function on a field with p elements is not well-defined, all "derivatives" (in his sense) of the polynomial xp vanish identically, but the derivatives of the polynomial x are not all zero.  However, as functions xp = x.  Let's just stick to what standard, reliable sources, have to say on the matter.  YouTube videos are not acceptable.  There are thousands of textbooks written by authorities in the subject that define the Taylor series.  Almost all of these define it over the real or complex field, so this is the case that deserves the WP:WEIGHT.
 * Incidentally, even in complete fields (over non-Archimedean places), usually one does not talk about differentiability at all, although it certainly makes sense to, since the derivative is an essentially useless concept there, to say nothing of the Taylor series. (In fact, a function can be given as a convergent power series, but not equal to its "Taylor series" at any point!)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're right he talks about polynomials only, so I agree the claim does not hold for arbitrary function Taylor series discussion. Though not sure about your "The derivative of a function on a field with p elements is not well-defined," So yes, in your example,  f(x) = xp = x, i.e. f(x) is the identity function. A derivative of the identity function is a constant function with value '1', as expected. What's not well defined in that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The derivative of the polynomial $$x^p$$ is $$p x^{p-1}$$. This is identically zero for the field of p elements.  But as a function $$x^p=x$$ and the derivative of the polynomial x is just 1.  So it's meaningless to talk about the derivative of a function on a finite field.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct here, the first derivative is zero. Wildberger reviews $$x^p$$ case. He defines the k-th sub-derivative as the k-th coefficient in Taylor series. According to him, all sub-derivatives from the first till the p-1 are indeed zero, but the p-th sub-derivative is actually 1. We have to be prepared to think a little bit differently he says. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first derivative of the function $$f(x)=x^p=x$$, if it is well defined, is either zero or not zero. Which is it, then?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of contradiction here, but we have to consider bigger fields. Polynomials are not entirely functions in this sense.  Calculus gives different derivatives, since those polynomials are different over power of $$p$$ field $$p^n$$. So derivatives of polynomials $$x^p$$ and $$x$$  just don't have any choice but to be different, despite the annoying fact that as functions $$x^p$$ and $$x$$ are indistinguishable over field $$p$$ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem lies not in the field, but in the idea of thinking of polynomials as functions. Polynomials over general fields should not be thought of as functions to begin with.  Then the polynomials $$x$$ and $$x^p$$ are distinct, and their formal derivative makes sense.  The error lies in assuming that this has anything to do with the conventional differential calculus, despite what Wildberger would like you to believe.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been following this discussion with interest. There is another approach to resolving the apparent contradiction that can be defined on functions, applicable to a discrete domain. Wildberger is attempting to define the derivative in terms of the coefficients of the Taylor expansion of a function. It is natural to restrict this expansion to a basis (say) ${b_{k}: b_{k} = (x − a)^{k}},|undefined$ – aliasing occurs if not a basis. The crucial restriction on k is not unique, we could choose any basis (not only polynomials), and the definition of the "derivative" may vary depend upon the choice. Requiring further properties (e.g. the product rule) might severely limit this restriction, but assuming a basis as given with k∈{0,...,n−1}, we get a definition presumably valid for all/many commutative rings on functions (as opposed to on abstract polynomials). — Quondum 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. See "DiffGeom7: Differential geometry with finite fields". Talking about derivative of a polynomial function over a finite field makes sense according to  to a source, despite your personal opinion that it is a nonsense. Your understanding of WP:RS is really lacking. You are wrong about YouTube videos are not acceptable.  Youtube is only an archive and not a source, see Video links. The source in this particular case is N J Wildberger He holds Yale University PhD from 1984. and taught at Stanford University (1984-1986) and the University of Toronto (1986-1989) before coming to UNSW (University of New South Wales), So the source looks good to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong that the derivative of a function over a finite field makes sense. I have already given excellent factual reasons why this is true, but then you dismiss them as "personal opinion" (an obvious ad hominem).  In that next video that you sent me, he seems to be talking about polynomials, not polynomial functions.  As I've already indicated, these are not the same thing: $$x$$ and $$x^p$$ are different polynomials, but the same function.  Wildberger seems to gloss over this distinction.  Perhaps he is unaware of it, as expressions like $$D^kf/k!$$ that he loves to write obviously make no sense as written if k &ge; p (with a little work one can make sense of these, but he doesn't appear to try).  It's more likely that he can't be bothered to mention any mathematical details that inconveniently don't fit his preconstructed narrative.
 * But anyway, what he calls differential geometry is not what almost anyone else would call that. They would call it algebraic geometry.  One of the telltale features is that all "functions" are actually polynomials.  But again to do algebraic geometry properly, one needs to introduce a whole lot of commutative algebra, something which obviously doesn't fit his narrative.
 * Finally, while there is certainly no bright line rule about using self-published sources like YouTube videos, these are usually not considered to be reliable sources absent contravening reasons. In this case, the views that you are using the video to support are sufficiently outside the mainstream that they do raise a WP:REDFLAG (which is policy).  I certainly see no reason that these views deserve to be given more weight in an encyclopedia article than the thousands of published peer-reviewed sources that exist on the Taylor series: that obviously requires significant sources per WP:WEIGHT (which is also policy).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sławomir, live long and prosper ;) I probably was not clear, apologies. I hoped you'd be amused by applying Calculus to finite fields, I certainly was. Wildberger does mention the issue with $$D^kf/k!$$, where k &ge; p. Nobody wants to divide by zero. My point is I'm just requesting you not to remove  N J Wildberger references, as you did, just because it is a Youtube link. Hope you see my point. Again, May the Force be with you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. That source can probably stay, but I'd much prefer it to be replaced by a more conventional source. You can add it back if you want.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

AdS/CFT review
Thanks for commenting on the AdS/CFT article. I just wanted to let you know that I've made some changes in response to your comments. Let me know if it's what you wanted. Thanks again. Polytope24 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

tensor product
Hi,

I notice that ypou just reverted a fix I attempted on tensor product of Hilbert spaces. I made the fix mostly because I could not parse the formula there as written, and tried to replace it with something close to the original intent. FWIW, I made exactly the same change to tensor product. Basiclly, the issue is that the arrow w.r.t. the element of symbol: if x^* is an element of H^* then what the heck does x^* \to x^*(x_1)x_2 mean? The intent seemed to be to use a mapto not a \to. Or perhaps the orig author meant H_1^* \to x^*(x_1)x_2 but this doesn't make much sense either. I'm going to copy this over to the talk page there. Thanks. User:Linas (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes a mapto is what was intended there. The morphisms associates to an element x^* of the dual of H_1 an element x^*(x_1)x_2 of H_2.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Czesc, yes, I understand the intent of what is happening there. The problem is that the notation is weird/wrong; its just not written correcty. See talk page there, please. User:Linas (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I doing this right?
This seems to jump the shark a bit, even though it ultimately produces the correct result. It would be nice if my method could be justified by complex analysis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really follow your way of eliminating the error term. But your original approach to the problem is a very natural one, and it strongly suggests first multiplying by a Gaussian $$e^{-(x^2+y^2)\epsilon}$$ and then letting $$\epsilon\to 0$$.  The integral
 * $$\int_I e^{-\epsilon (x^2+y^2)}\cos(x^2+y^2)\,dx\,dy$$
 * can be easily computed in polar coordinates. Since the integrand now decays exponentially, the improper integral is no longer a problem.  (Likewise with the sine integral.)  On the right hand side of the two equations, the integrals of the form $$\int_0^\infty e^{-\epsilon x^2}\cos(x^2)\,dx$$ (likewise with sine) converge to the appropriate Fresnel integrals (in this case $$\int_0^\infty\cos(x^2)\,dx$$) as $$\epsilon\to 0$$.  There is a slight trick to proving this last statement.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The error term elimination I was trying was relying on the notion that $$\lim_{x\to\infty}\cos(x)=\lim_{x\to\infty}\cos(x+\pi)$$. But the first notion is probably incorrect, even though both are taking the limit as the argument of cosine goes to infinity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Dot product and inner product
I do not understand your revert of my edit in dot product. I understand that you consider that "dot product" has to be used for coordinate vectors, and "inner product" refers to Euclidean vector spaces. This is not the convention used presently in this article. More specifically, the sections "Geometric definition", and "Scalar projection and the equivalence of the definitions" are about inner product (called here "dot product") of Euclidean vector spaces. Before my edit and after your revert, the section "Scalar projection and the equivalence of the definitions" passes suddenly from Euclidean vectors to the standard basis of Rn without saying that this can not be done without choosing an orthogonal basis of the Euclidean vector space. This is not only confusing (see the recent good faith edits by an IP user and my comment on his talk page), but mathematically incorrect. My edit was intended to restore mathematical correctness. I agree that the article needs further edits for clarifying the terminology, splitting the section "Scalar projection and the equivalence of the definitions" into "Scalar projection", "Properties" (bilinearity) and "Equivalence", etc. But, in any case, mathematical correctness comes before accurate terminology. Therefore, I'll revert your revert, hoping that you or someone else will clarify the terminology, and adapt accordingly the articles dot product and inner product space. I cannot do it myself, because, for me, "dot product", "scalar product" and "inner product" are synonyms (by the way, the term "dot product" does not exist in French, and "produit intérieur", the equivalent of "inner product", is rarely used; this is not a problem). D.Lazard (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "dot product" is specifically defined in Rn. It is the sum of the products of the components of an n-tuple.  This is how the term is used in English, and the usage in the article is in agreement with the vast majority of quality sources (including those aimed at a wide variety of mathematical levels).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also remarkable that most math editors, even those proficient in “real/Euclidean space”, “dot/inner product”, “affine/linear function/polynomial”, and similar pettifogging, usually ignore existence of the real coordinate space article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "dot product" is specifically defined in Rn. But, this article does not apply this convention. Applying this convention would imply to move the sections "Geometric definition" ,"Scalar projection and the equivalence of the definitions", "Application to the cosine law" and "Physics" to Inner product, and replaced by a section "Relation with inner product". The redirect should also be edited. D.Lazard (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this proposal. The standard treatment of the dot product is to include both an algebraic definition (via coordinate vectors in Rn) and a geometric definition.  Many reliable sources define it each way, and derive the other. See Talk:Dot product for a list of sources by such mathematical luminaries as Josiah Willard Gibbs, Paul Halmos, Richard Courant, Peter Lax, and Tom Apostol.  Also, many such sources include a discussion of the cosine law.  Not to include this basic information would be a serious omission.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Taylors Theorem Revert
For readabiliy it is a good idea to separate out the history section. Also you reverted the fix for the "passive voice" weird grammar used.

"Taylor's theorem is named after the mathematician Brook Taylor, who stated a version of it in 1712. Yet, an explicit expression of the error was provided much later on by Joseph-Louis Lagrange. An earlier version of the result is already mentioned in 1671 by James Gregory.[1]"

There is an implicit statement here that Brook Taylors version did not have an error term. Implicit statements are not very readable because they create doubt in the readers mind. In my mind the above writing would be unacceptable for a primary school student. It is affected and pretentious. You could have corrected what you saw as wrong, but you chose just to roll it back. I will not play revert wars with you. Do as you will. Large numbers of mathematics articles are burdened with affected and pretentious language, which makes them inaccessible for the average reader. The wiki is not just for experts. It is a general encyclopedia. Of course expertise will always be valued, but effective communication is just as important.

Thepigdog (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but as far as I can tell you didn't copy edit the content to remove this perceived ambiguity. (In fact, you didn't seem to copy edit the material at all.  Nor did you even include an informative edit summary.)  I have no problem if you want to write a separate "History" section.  I can recommend some sources that should get you started on that project, if you're interested.  But namesakes for eponymous discoveries generally belong in the lead of the article.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the right page for me to make any changes to.
 * Respectful regards Thepigdog (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Mathematics
I was thinking you could help answer this question that I asked in lieu of a proper tensor calculus/algebra or differential geometry textbook.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Holomorphic functions: context goes first
Hey. Thanks for correcting any mistakes that I did there. Just want to know how do you decided that 'are the central object in complex analysis ' goes first than the actual meaning of the term?

I accept i missed correcting grammar there, but i think 'In mathematics' is good enough context for a topic like holomorphic functions.

for reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holomorphic_function&oldid=599710410&diff=prev

Mittgaurav (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Usually, we would want to include somewhere in a neighborhood of the first sentence that holomorphic functions are part of complex analysis, indicating not just that mathematics are involved but the area of mathematics that the topic is relevant to. This is essentially the way all of our mathematics articles are patterned.  Not every reader may know anything about the topic at all, nor even whether they have arrived at the right page.  For instance, someone might be looking for an article on homomorphisms, which are a part of algebra rather than analysis, and accidentally hit the page holomorphic function.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

cool. makes sense. thanks! Mittgaurav (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rational Pricing Discussion
Dear Slawomir,

I started a discussion thereabout on Rational Pricing because you reverted my edit.

Duxwing (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A quickie
Hi Sławomir!

Could you confirm or refute the correctness of the following?


 * If a representation $Π$ of a Lie group $G$ is not faithful, then $N = ker Π$ is a nontrivial normal subgroup. There are three relevant cases cases:
 * $N$ is non-discrete and abelian.
 * $N$ is non-discrete and non-abelian.
 * $N$ is discrete. In this case $N ⊂ Z$, where $Z$ is the center of $G$.
 * In the case of $SO(3, 1)^{+}$, the first case is excluded since $SO(3, 1)^{+}$ is semi-simple. The second (and first) case is excluded because $SO(3, 1)^{+}$ is simple. The connected component of the Lorentz group is isomorphic to the quotient $SL(2, C)/{I, −I}$. But ${I, −I}$ is the center of $SL(2, C)$. It follows that the center of $SO(3, 1)^{+}$ is trivial. This excludes the third case. The conclusion is that every representation $Π:SO(3, 1)^{+} → GL(V)$ and every projective representation $Π:SO(3, 1)^{+} → PGL(W)$ with $V, W$ finite-dimensional vector spaces are faithful. YohanN7 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have references to back it up, except for the conclusion (reps are faithful), but these references are 500 km away at the moment. The Wikipedia articles don't suffice. I'd appreciate your help. YohanN7 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems correct.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! YohanN7 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Limit
What does this mean? Why should the arrow be pointing downwards?
 * $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\int_{-\varepsilon}^\infty$$

– Smiddle TC@ 10:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a common notation for a one-sided limit. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laplace transform, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages One-to-one and Tempered distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Response: Beal's Conjecture
Hi, I am sorry not to give reasons for my edit of Beal's Conjecture's known cases, but the room allowed there did not make a response possible. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and am not sure if this is the appropriate place to give the reason, but I will. The paper cited does claim a proof of the (n,n,3) case, but does not make it explicit because it is so immediately apparent from how it is stated there. In fact, for this reason, it is not likely that a published paper will make this explicit. If n>2, then k divides n, where k is prime or 4. If A and B are part of a counterexample with exponents (n,n,3), then they can be raised to the power of n divided by k and therefore pertain to a counterexample of the form (k,k,3), contradicting the results as explicitly stated in the cited paper. By the same reasoning, in the (n,n,2) case for n not a 2 power or 3, n is divisible by 6, 9, or some prime greater than 3, and this factor can be taken as k in an argument like the one above. This is not a new result, just a less than clearly result already attained as stated in the paper already cited. However, I assume the author expected serious researchers in the area of the conjecture (the intended audience of the paper), would immediately see these claims as included therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle1009 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, yes. As the old joke goes, "Ah... It's trivial".  :-)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember BLP applies to all content including essays
Dzień dobry!

As a friendly recommendation, can you please try not to mention specific real-world (i.e. off-wiki) individuals by name in essays, when they or their families are being spoken about in a broadly negative fashion. I think this also applies to linking specific news stories. However, to get around this, I think you can provide sufficient contextual details that anyone with half a brain and access to Google can work out what you're talking about. This is because as I'm sure you understand WP:BLP applies to all pages, not only to articles.

Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. My intention wasn't to write an essay, but rather to post something over at WT:RS once the whole AfD has blown over.  I'm hoping it is still ok to comment on these sources, without implicating any living person, at least on the talk page.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sławomir, Thanks so much for your welcome message to me. The links you gave me are really helpful. Best wishes Fatootsed (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tensor density
I have to say this.

The comment "Fine. If three PhDs agree that a "mass density" or "charge density" is not a density at all, clearly they must be right." you made to our crank over at the talk page wasn't very nice considering he seems to be a harmless crank with bad self-esteem. Now not only he, but also his professors are declared idiots in his mind now. I'm sure he's walking around talking about this. I actually feel sorry for him.

Besides, you are wrong, experienced professor or not, this time you are wrong. All densities are densities with the other convention as well, just stick to one convention per calculation and you'll be fine.

This is what I meant by a measure of religiosity on your part. No doubt JRSpriggs is even more religious. I'm actually very surprised. YohanN7 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even this characterization seems overly harsh. Cranky, perhaps, but a crank, no. I can understand Sławomir's sarcasm in the circumstances, but I guess we should remember not to bite the newbies. —Quondum 06:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unthinking appeal to authority deserves to be called out, in my opinion. I see far too much of it, both on and off Wikipedia.  If I'm cranky, that's why.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The guy came in with the firm unthinking belief that $g$ had weight -2. He spent a month on a daily basis to change the article to that effect. When we finally got him to talk, it took a couple of days for him to realize (by himself actually) that there were two conventions. Then he got to hear that his and his professors convention was not only uncommon, but wrong. It is here that things went sour. Some effort has been made by SB and JR to argue that the alternative convention is wrong/unnatural, with or without quotation marks. These attempts have not been very successful. Whether you map the set of densities to numbers (so-called weights) with or without a minus-sign is pretty immaterial (or do you argue otherwise?). Yet, if you, like Weinberg, prefer the minus-sign, then you automatically agree that charge density isn't a density at all because such densities are "supposed to have weight 1", where that last clause appeals to your convention. Such reasoning isn't the very best if you want to keep the guy from "unthinking appeal to authority" because the alternative you offered there wasn't the most logically coherent.


 * I was convinced myself for a while that the alternative convention is flawed because of local authority (SB,JR). YohanN7 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to adopted the convention that densities have weight -1, that's fine. But in mathematics there is a thing called the "bundle of densities", and this has a clear and unambiguous meaning that is not subject to any arbitrary choices.  The weighted densities (for integer weights) are the tensor powers of this bundle.  It is most natural to assign the weight as the number of tensor factors of this bundle.  There appears to be no motivation at all for saying it should be minus that number of factors, and in fact such a convention leads to genuine confusion. It is in this sense that the convention of assigning densities a weight of -1 is "wrong".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to adopt the -1 convention. I wanted to make sure that we are talking about a valid convention and not something inconsistent that could be questioned on some mathematical/conceptual ground. It is still as far as I can see entirely equivalent to chose the negative of the number tensor factors of the bundle as a weight for those who want to do it (though I doubt that it is their primary motivation). I take your word for it that the other convention is impractical, perhaps even error prone. I just didn't want to leave with the false impression that the other convention has built in inconsistencies or is inadequate of handling all the things the +1 convention can handle. You can easily get this impression from the talk page
 * Thanks for explaining about the bundle. YohanN7 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacob Barnett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Edwards. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

's behaviour
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC

Jacob Barnett
You have reverted other editors at Jacob Barnett four times in the last 24 hours. Here are the diffs:     Breach of the three revert rule. Viewfinder (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not my intention to "edit war" with anyone, and I hope that my continued talk page participation has made this clear. I believe I have shown a willingness to explain my edits, and I am willing to work collaboratively with you, S. Marshall, Oleryhlolsson, Cunard, Agricola44, and anyone else.  A number of these actions were not reverts, though.  As you are no doubt aware, over the past two days I have edited the article extensively.  This has not only included expanding the article by adding text, correcting references, and organizing content.  The first two diffs that you listed was actually part of this series of edits, involving a significant expansion and restructuring of the content of the article.  You can call this a "revert" if you wish, but even if you want to be so insistent at worst it is only a single revert, not two.  In fact, at least some aspects of the structural changes that you initiated were incorporated into the final version.  (A series of consecutive edits is not considered to be more than one revert.)  Likewise, this edit part of this attempt to correct the misapprehension articulated in the previous edit summary that the statement was about Edwards, not Barnett.  It also removed the claim that Edwards was an expert on child prodigies as unreferenced.  That is a substantive change responding directly to the issues that were raised at the time, not a revert as I see it.  The misunderstanding on the discussion page, as well as the fact that myself and the other editor involved got our replies mixed up, makes this clear enough, I should think. These are the kinds of things that happen when too many editors edit the same article at the same time: you yourself are guilty many times of deleting others' posts for, what I assume, is the same reason.  The only edit that I unequivocally agree was a revert was this one.  But even if you insist on counting all of these actions as reverts, it was precisely three.   In any event, I think I have already demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively, despite repeatedly having my motives vilified by certain persons.  I actually do want the article to be as neutral a reflection on the subject as possible.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The first three diffs were all flagged up by my notifier as reverts. A revert does not cease to be a revert by being accompanied by other changes. As you are now fully engaging on the talk page I did not report the 3RR breach. I don't think blocking you would be helpful, even in the unlikely event that admin would do so. Viewfinder (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh - aren't you so kind? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Viewfinder, as I said consecutive edits count as one revert, not two. So even on the most draconian reading of that policy, the sequence of edits you objected to is precisely three reverts. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the policy before issuing such threats in the future. That is a good way to get yourself blocked for disruption. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Cut the sarcasm Barney. It's neither cool nor helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually - what's not helpful is your patronising and threatening an experienced editor who has spent a great deal of patience and time trying (but failing) to explain (to you pretty basic and fundamental issues with Wikipedia policy and how basic science works.  And you respond to this patience and understanding with a passive-aggressive note about edit warring.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a breach of 3RR which I felt that I was entitled to point out. Why don't you stop making personal attacks and revert to your recent helpful contribution to reaching consensus at Jacob Barnett? Viewfinder (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, I admonish you to stop accusing me of a 3RR violation; I implore you to read the guideline in question. In case you find the content in the obvious pink box there too nuanced to understand, there are a number of sentences that follow it in what appears to be plain English that even you should be able to comprehend. If this is not so, then I humbly submit that perhaps the task of writing an encyclopedia in the English language may not be your calling, and the turnip truck beckons.  Sławomir Biały  (talk)
 * There are three levels of response that you'll find you'll get, let me take you through the next two to save you time:
 * You will be ignored and told you're wrong. Detailed arguments based on policy are wrong.
 * will WP:CHANGETHESUBJECT and accuse you of personal attacks, including perhaps raking up old complaints from other people whose incompetence you've had to previously suffer.
 * will delete any correspondence from you and pretend that you don't exist.
 * Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Response on compact space talk page.
Just so you are aware: I responded to your assertion on Talk:Compact space with a concrete example (i.e. the case of a non-Abelian distance metric, for which your interpretation would be false). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TricksterWolf (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Spinor
We seem to be in a minor edit war on the Spinor page. I have been editing the spinor on and off for years trying not too step on too many feet. I agree that there is still a lot of room for improvement. I have been trying not to step on too many feet for years, and that has certainly led to a suboptimal leader as the same material keeps being rehashed and brought back It is sort of refreshing that you tried to break through that, You were obviously not too thrilled when I reverted your labor of love that you have been obviously working on hard. I must admit though that I did not think your edits were overall positive. You put a lot of emphasis on the topological side of things, but I think your description of the class of the representation was confusing at best and mathematically gets the argument backwards at worst. You have a point that this is an important aspect so I have added that, but in a way that I think is more correct. I also think that the Clifford algebra point of view is important and not very well explained by what you wrote. Anyway i think there is now roughly the same material in as you put in there except, I believe, in more detail, more concise and more correct even though it is now slightly longer than what you wrote. SInce I had things written up while you reverted my revert I reverted yours once more if only not to get my changes lost. I am sure we can work out differences. We both seem to have a mathematical background, and I think we both try to give a description that is precise even though I think we also try to remain intelligible for physicists, so I think we should be able to work out the differences.

P.s. I also find the animated GIF of the belt trick rather distracting but this time I left it in so as not to fight over things that are easily done later. P.P.s. What I REALLY would like to get rid of in this article, or change completely, are the examples in dimension 2 and 3 and 4, showing how the different constructions mentioned work out there. P.P.P.s what I also think this article is really missing is a description of the invariant hermitian form and the Dirac invariants, which I guess is hidden in the Fierz identities but again is hardly obvious. RogierBrussee (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is discussion about the lead already taking place at Talk:Spinor, in a number of sections at the end. The last section concerns the most recent edits, and further discussion should take place there, not on my user talk page.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Laplace Transform
Do you mind if we (or I) move your comment on my talk page to the talk section of Laplace Transform? It seems important, i.e. when an inverse LT is possible ... Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spinor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Integration and Kernel (mathematics). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

On the definition of e
Hi Sławomir,
 * you recently (essentially) reverted an (admittedly awkward) edit I made at E (mathematical constant) and I'd like you to reconsider it. My intention was to provide a clarification that I think is needed. Another editor had twice tried to change this definition and I thought that I understood why. The statement, as written, can be misinterpreted as saying that the exponential function is defined by the derivative condition at zero (and he pointed out that many functions have this property). What this editor was failing to see was that this condition singles out the exponential function from all the generalized exponential functions and thus defines "e". I thought to clarify this by explicitly talking about the generalized exponentials. The original phrasing (and the one you reverted to) gives the appearance of being circular, and you have to know the context in order to parse it correctly – not what you want in the lead of an elementary topic. If you agree, I wouldn't mind some help in doing a better job of getting this point across. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sławomir, your edits here are spot-on and achieved the desired result excellently, and I'm just adding this to show that this thread is clearly resolved. —Quondum 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding on Riemann Curvature
Thanks for your reminding on the commuting assumption! --IkamusumeFan (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I vote only one time but you....
Dear Sławomir Biały,

I'm sorry, but I keep only one time but you.... Please see again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dao%27s_theorem. Thank to You very much.


 * *Keep I write this page as following form of Thébault's theorem based on some articles publish in some journal. I write this page with neutrality, no promotional Dao Thanh Oai(I can not write this page with another name because title of some articles at here is Dao's theorem.....) Please noting that Dao's theorem is theorem on Euclidean geometry, and these Journal is classical of Euclidean geometry. If these theorem is no notable theorem we should delete pages but Dao's theorem is nice and notable theorem(because it is generalization of some famous theorem), so I think we should keep and improvement of this pages.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) User already voted.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see again, and please let me why you said that: I already voted?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

edit warring
Please read the policy write one level down applied to clarifying articles, see my bold comments on the relevant talk page. Edits like this removing tags without addressing the underlying issue won't get the article posted to ITN. It can also constitute a violation of WP:3RR even if you have technically not reverted the article more than thre times.

You are formally warned of this, I won't post here any more, discussion should be kept on the article talk page. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)


 * Frankly, this "warning" is totally out of line. I think you need to cool it, and also do some serious reflection on what the guidelines WP:JARGON and WP:MTAA actually say.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fourier transform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced templates in your user page
Hi, I found you have a hab in the Articles to work on section with no corresponding hat. --CiaPan (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed --CiaPan (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fourier transform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex modulus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks
I do not understand why you always feel the need to respond to my contributions to Talk:Jacob_Barnett with personal insults. If my contributions are as incompetent as you claim, they will make no contribution to the article, so why don't you merely ignore them? Viewfinder (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You have consistently demonstrated the same kind of incompetence in nearly every discussion that has taken place since the second AfD. Either you are a troll, incompetent at reading English (see earlier thread here), or you are pushing some agenda (and probably all three, based on my observations of months of continued interactions).  If you don't want to get called out for this, probably you should stop editing the article.  It's not as if I am stalking you.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you go again - this time accompanied with a threat. Viewfinder (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I sense that there is a bridge somewhere that has been left unguarded. Better see to it...  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What's that meant to mean? Viewfinder (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have known. The lack of reading comprehension is strong with this one.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some time ago I was well advised that "if they cannot make themselves clear, they should be ignored". Viewfinder (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So you ignore everything you don't understand? That is most telling.  Presumably, this explains why someone who is barely literate in the English language, incapable of processing even the most rudimentary metaphor, thinks that he or she should be editing an encyclopedia written in English.  But competence is required to do that.  So I suggest that you should leave the article alone, at least until you graduate from primary school.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If I don't understand, I ask for clarification. But all I got from you was yet another personal insult, the implication being that you are unable or unwilling to make yourself clear. That is why you should be ignored. Viewfinder (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you show every indication of understanding nothing. Every mundane point, obvious to everyone in the room but you, needs to get argued to death at Talk:Jacob Barnett, like what followed in your recent reversion of my edit.  And yet, there when your obvious error was pointed out, you doubled down on the stupid.  You persisted in arguing that there was something of encyclopedic value at the link in question.  This is not an isolated incident either.  (E.g., your denials of relativity theory, etc.) Viewfinder, WP:AGF is not a life sentence, and the truth is an absolute defense against WP:NPA.  You are a net drain on this project, wasting the time of other productive editors.  You are a useless troll whose incompetence we have all suffered quite enough of.  The sooner you leave this place, the better.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of denying relativity, and this is a public forum. Please withdraw or substantiate this claim. Viewfinder (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not an accusation. It's a statement of fact.  You repeatedly and vigorously defended the media sensationalism surrounding the story.  The AfD and talk page are full of this kind of special pleading: "You seem to be suggesting that his mother may have been serially lying to reporters. They're surely not all that gullible and her claims are likely to be verifiable." "Surely if Mrs Barnett were as dishonest as some contributors (notably SB and DE) are implying, then that would have been exposed long ago and the media would have stopped publicizing her."  You are challenging the reliability not just of the subject's mother, but of many internationally known publications, with plenty of fact checking resources. All of them are wrong and you are right? Strong stuff.  "For the most part, I still maintain that he did think he had expanded relativity..." along with attestations that there was "some truth to" the media sensationalism.  "Whether or not the material in question is fringe, it was written in publications that are certainly not fringe."  This is classic POV-pushing denialism.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So if I am denying relativity, then so were the entire international broadsheet media. In the words of a contributor to the DRV, this is nonsense. Utter nonsense. Viewfinder (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, just wow. Yet another implicit defence of the "broadsheet" media sensationalism.  Presumably, you were unable to read my post containing numerous examples of precisely this sort of thing in the media, helpfully organized because, as you said in that very discussion, you were unable to read the sources yourself and find these statements.  If you have trouble reading the plain English words written that I wrote there, then I suggest that you pay someone to read them aloud to you, possibly after translating them into your native tongue.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did defend the media and in particular the subject's mother against your ferocious comments, and that is why you think that I am too incompetent to be editing Wikipedia. Viewfinder (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No. I think you're incompetent to be editing Wikipedia because you appear to be illiterate.  Something is written down, and you deny it was written.  A source says something, but you deny that it says it.  When a comment you make is solidly and definitively rebutted, you continue to argue the same set of points, often doubling down on whatever your point happens to be.  This penultimate post is just one example.  But I think "variations on a theme" is something you are probably incapable of understanding.  So let me make this very simple for you: You are too stupid to edit Wikipedia.  Please go away.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. You are the truth, you are the whole truth, you are nothing but the truth, and everything else amounts to stupidity and/or malicious lies which should be banned. Incidentally my Mensa membership number is 61813. Viewfinder (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Viewfiender, I could care less about whatever clubs you are a member of. It is a fact that you have systematically been unable to read content that conflicts with whatever inane babble you happen to spouting.  This includes your utterly strange and vigorous assertions that the media never said that Barnett disproved and/or expanded Einstein, when even some of the headlines of references used in the article attested this.  You have also shown every indication of being unable to read (or possibly remember) all of the many times the same things were explained to you by a number of different editors (Agricola, for one, who you seem to hold in high regard).  This systematic pattern of your ignorance is there for everyone to see.  It is not some post-modern abstraction, whereby I am entitled to some interpretation of the "truth" or whatever.  Now a charitable, good-faith-based, interpretation  is that you suffer from a severe intellectual handicap.  You alluded to this handicap before, and it definitely shows in your contributions to the encyclopedia.  But regardless of the reasons for your behavior, you are a net drain on productive editors' time, while yourself not contributing anything of value to the project.  You should retire, for real.  Your further input to Jacob Barnett is not useful.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Like Jacob Barnett, I am affected by Asperger's syndrome. If you think that that should disqualify me from contributing to his biography, then think again. And think again if you think I will be intimidated by your invective. Viewfinder (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine. I take this as an admission that you are not editing in good faith, and that you will continue the disruption at the article in question, despite several warnings.  Your future edits will be treated as such.  Per your initial request not to be taken seriously, I will forgo any further interaction with you.  My next stop will be ANI if your disruption continues, and I will argue very strongly for an indefinite block.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made no such admission, express or implicit. And arguing my case on an article talk page is not disruption. Stop the threats. Viewfinder (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is the only explanation left for your inability to read sources and posts, that you had the capacity to read them, but willfully chose not to. That is considered to be disruption.  I can no longer assume that you are editing in good faith.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

redux
Moved here to usertalk from article-talk, per request. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping Sławomir. The answer to your indirect question, is because User:Agricola44 asked me to: "please read the entire meta-text for this article."  You are a big part of that meta-text backtrail, because you've made 100 edits to mainspace, 150 edits to this talkpage, and a bunch of edits to AfD, plus to related usertalk pages. And to be frank, once I started looking at your history on the drama-boards related to *this* Barnett article, I went ahead and dug through you entire noticeboard history. Strike your accusations, Sławomir, WP:INDCRIT says you are failing to be polite. Furthermore, WP:IDONTLIKEIT suggests you ought to please respond with WP:CIVILity, not dismissively. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strike your accusations, Sławomir. If you need me to call them out, one by one, I'm happy to do so.  You are free to be sick of the discussion; as already noted, you are the most prolific contributor to that talkpage, by far.  You are not free to make insinuations.  You've been on wikipedia long enough to know pillar four.  Back in 2009, you used to think it was important.  It still is important.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a point at which it is reasonable to expect that someone citing policies will have actually understood those policies. Someone lobbying for change in an article is expected to have read and understood the article.  Someone claiming to have read the AfD is expected to understand the arguments made there.  I've asked you to read (and understand) the older revision of the article.  There is also an expectation that such a person will have read and understood the replies directed at them during the discussion.  Whether you're simply not reading things, or not understanding things is unclear.  Please return when you have something of substance to say.  Until then, please don't bother me with your continued presence on this page.   S ławomir  Biały  22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am likewise having difficulty in understanding the motivation of 75.108.94.227 RE Jacob Barnett because past discussions explored every nook and cranny and there are really no new substantive sources that say anything else. (I suspect JB's 15 minutes of fame have run their course, but that's a separate issue.) So far there has only been vague talk, but no actual proposals, thought I've started asking directly for same. Unless there's some forthcoming substance from 75.108.94.227, I think the discussion is about over. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC).

Two accounts?
Why the two accounts, User:Sławomir Biały and User:Slawekb? NE Ent 12:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From the obvious box near the top of my user page "I typically operate an alternate account because my name is long and the diacritics are not always available."   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – JBarta (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for always taking the time to explain, like over at Talk:Spinor. Indeed, $SO^{+}(2, 1)$ is itself not doubly connected since its rotation subgroup is $SO(2)$. That didn't cross my mind. I owe you a barnstar. (How active were you when you weren't semi-retired?) YohanN7 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We're all here to learn, after all. :-)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * YohanN7 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

help request for William C. Rader
Sławomir, I realize that you are semi-retired from Wikipedia (and that this historically contentious article may not be among your primary interests), but as a recently-registered user here I'm unable to edit/update with the news that Rader's medical license was revoked by the Medical Board of California in November 2014, after what appears to be a long investigation of his dubious stem cell marketing practices. I've provided the relevant link on Rader's talk page, with the hope that an established user like you will incorporate it into the article itself. Rader's loss of license has yet to receive significant media coverage but will no doubt prompt a sense of relief among legitimate stem cell researchers and scientists around the world. Thank you for your help Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor syntax fix
Sorry about disturbance - thanks for revert 650439127 and explanation. The actual problem is that formula has ambiguous syntax and does not render on some browsers. Not optimal esthetically, but maybe one of these is acceptable? ---Fakedeeps (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * $$g_{\alpha\overline{\beta}} = g\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z^\alpha},\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{{z}^\beta}}\right).$$
 * $$g_{\alpha\overline{\beta}} = g\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z^\alpha},\frac{\partial}{\partial {\overline{z}}^\beta}\right).$$


 * Either one should be fine, and I have no objection to using one of these. But it seems most likely that the problem you are experiencing is a browser caching problem rather than something to do with the LaTeX itself.  I could be wrong about that, but most likely I've found that if you see red text rather than the rendered equations this is the issue.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this about problems with "overline"? There is one such that seems to persist when using MathML. Don't remember the details (I did report it though to the relevant place (I think)), but nesting "overline" is at least hazardous. YohanN7 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes - . Error message says indexes are ambiguous: . At some browser configurations it shows the red-text error, at others does not load; however commonly everything displays properly. Extra braces do fix the problem, but formula gets skewed/distorted a bit. I better leave it as is - agree that issue is elsewhere. Thanks for oversight. Fakedeeps (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fourier transform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Another edit you might wish to revert
You might want to look at this, where similar logic is applied but more detail is given. I realize that it is OR and for that reason should not be included, but I am having difficulty pinpointing the error in the logic, so I thought I'd leave it to someone with clearer thinking. Uniqueness of an additive inverse should not a problem (we are assuming + is a group operation), I can see that the left distributivity law is implicitly used (but it is a given axiom), and there seems to be a proof that negation distributes. I see that a near-ring allows noncommutativity, but it simultaneously drops the left distributive property that was implicitly used and thus does not serve as a counterexample. I'm interested in seeing the flaw. —Quondum 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he just proved that all groups are abelian. (The plus signs and the wording "additive inverse" etc, doesn't change the group axioms spelled out in items I-III one bit.) YohanN7 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the proof is right. The main lemma is the uniqueness of additive inverses.  If $$x+a=a+x=0$$ and $$x+b=b+x=0$$, then $$b=b+0=b+(x+a)=(b+x)+a=0+a=a$$.  (This proof uses that $$x$$ commutes with its inverse.  Conversely, if we assume that right inverses are unique, then we can show that the right inverse is also the unique left inverse.)
 * Note that $$x + y + (-y + (-x)) = 0$$. By uniqueness of inverses, $$-y+(-x)=-(x+y)$$.
 * Now is where the ring axioms enter. For any x, we have $$(-1)x=-x$$.  Indeed, $$1x=x$$, so $$1x+(-1)x=(1+(-1))x=0x=0$$.  So, again invoking uniqueness of inverses gives $$(-1)x=-x$$.  Hence on the one hand, $$(-1)(x+y)=-(x+y)=-y-x$$ (shown above).  On the other hand, by the distributive law, $$(-1)(y+x)=(-1)y+(-1)x=-y-x$$ as well.  So $$(-1)(x+y)=(-1)(y+x)$$, so multiplying both sides through by $$-1$$ gives $$x+y=y+x$$.
 * So, I don't object to including some statement later in the article about dropping commutativity from the hypotheses, but it should not be in the list of hypotheses for an abelian group. Rather it should be something like: "If we assume that $$(R,+)$$ is a group and $$(R,\cdot)$$ a monoid with identity satisfying a distributive law, then $$(R,+)$$ is automatically abelian."  Also it needs a source if we say this.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But aren't items 1-3 in Q's diff, exactly the group axioms? YohanN7 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, more is used than 1-3. Sry. YohanN7 (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This might fall into the category of mathematical statements that cannot be challenged (i.e. there exists a straightforward, "obvious" proof), but would normally be skipped by authors, making it difficult to find a reference. Yet it is reasonable for someone to want to check this in a reference (WP?), because it is tricky enough to make people unsure. In such cases, the burden of finding a reference may be unnecessarily high. OTOH, I agree with S that the list of axioms is not the place to include it, even as a footnote. If it is mentioned, I would include it in a mention that several of the axioms are redundant; for example, equality of left- and right-sided inverses in a group is usually stated as an axiom, but is redundant (e.g. an associative loop is a sufficient definition). Redundant axioms seem to be quite common in the "usual" axiomatization of various structures. —Quondum 14:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think assuming the existence of a right inverse is enough to conclude the existence of a left inverse. For that, don't  we need uniqueness as well? (Loops have uniqueness axioms for both inverses, don't they?)  We could, for instance, start with a group G and look at words in  G and a new variable k, modulo the relation xk=e for some x in G.  It seems to me that an easy way around this whole question is to leave out the Hypothesis from ring that x commute with any right additive inverse.  This is how it's done at vector space, and presumably it does lead to an independent set of axioms.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, existence of a left inverse does not imply existence of a right inverse. My illustration using a loop is poor, because it already has redundancy in its axioms. Rather use the statement in Quasigroup: "An associative quasigroup is either empty or is a group".  An associative quasigroup axiomatizes no identity element or inverses; only associativity and left and right division (i.e. existence and uniqueness for each left and right). The existence of an identity (if not empty), equality of left with right inverse, and commutativity of inverses are all theorems.
 * I guess it comes down to whether we want to state the axioms afresh (in which case we can choose to remove all redundant axioms, but which?), or build from other structures, in which case we allow redundancy. The latter allows simple, easily remembered definitions, such as "an abelian group under + and a monoid under ⋅, with ⋅ distributive over + on both sides". The point that the editor was presumably making is that we can drop the word "abelian", but I would argue that this would be confusing, nonstandard and only partially eliminating redundancy of axioms, despite being correct. I think the same argument applies to a vector space: use the standard definition as an abelian group with a field acting on it. Listing individual axioms should be an aid to the reader summarizing the inherited axioms, not the definition of the structure. —Quondum 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While it may be interesting to try to find minimal axioms for everything, I think that a good definition should, if possible without too much redundancy, manifestly capture the essence of what it defines. Defining a group as a set with an associative binary operation with left inverses and left identity works, but is just silly, even unnatural. (These sufficient (seemingly) weaker conditions are probably rarely unique. For groups there are at least 4-5 of them giving a group structure.) YohanN7 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of good points. I suppose it's best if we put one note on redundancy in each article. We probably shouldn't change the definitions, for, like YohanN7 said, independence is not necessarily the most important thing. The current dispute revolves around whether commutativity is redundant in a vector space, so I left a large proof of that on the relevant talk page. Once everyone agrees that it works, we can move on and decide how to note that in the article. Also, a note, as proved there, a right inverse IS actually always a left inverse, and, obviously then, vice versa, in any sort of semigroup where every element has a right inverse. That's an essential result for all this dependence of axioms stuff. The short version is, if x + y = 0, then y + x = y + x + y + z, where we suppose z to be a right inverse of y, and that's then y + 0 + z = y + z = 0, so a right inverse is a left inverse. In other words, elements summing to 0 commute. David815 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Aw, but I love it when people claim to have solved Millennium Prize problems!

PureRED (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 


 * I kan haz million?

That "mathematical conjectures are solved" guy
I don't pretend to understand higher math & conjectures & proofs but found this review of Prastaro's work here to be useful to my layman's mind: https://mixedmath.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/reviewing-goldbach/ as well as this column: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304. Thank you for wading into that particular AN/I discussion, I appreciate your expertise. Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment at ANI in which you pass along your own investigation. To avoid any misunderstanding, and given the difficulty of proving conscious deception, it would be better if you remove the word 'fraud' from your post. Also the idea of writing to journal editors (sensible though it might be) contains the idea of off-wiki consequences, which might be viewed as having a chilling effect on another person in the WP discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I leave it to the kitten-and-bunny brigade, if they think self-obsessed crackpots should be nurtured as valuable to our project. I don't really see that as a constructive use of my own energies. Surely the whole point of bringing up one's own crackpottery in public fora like this is to bring it to wider attention.  I'm fully entitled to bring this to the attention if the editorial board of Mathematical Analysis and its Applications.  This is a basic right of any scientist.  The only "chilling effecy" I see is you telling me not to be a part of peer review because something happened "on wiki".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Professor Krantz,

My name is Slawomir Bialy. I am a regular mathematics editor on the English language Wikipedia. I am writing to express concern over the editorial standards of the "Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications" on whose editorial board you serve. I would specifically like to ask: (1) what is the policy of the editorial board on the retraction of papers? (2) what is the editorial policy regarding claims to have solved longstanding conjectures (e.g., Millennium problems)? (3) does the editorial board stand behind the integrity and quality of papers published in the aforementioned journal?

This inquest relates specifically to a recent case involving someone claiming to have settled the well-known Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness in an article published in the aforementioned journal (MR2386488):

Prástaro, Agostino Geometry of PDE's. IV. Navier-Stokes equation and integral bordism groups. (English summary) J. Math. Anal. Appl. 338 (2008), no. 2, 1140–1151.

This article makes a number of claims that should have flagged it for special editorial review. In particular, it claims to characterize existence and smoothness of global solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations. In fact, the author of this paper further affirms at the following Wikipedia "talk" page to have "completely solved" the Navier-Stokes problem in this paper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&oldid=562819747#NS_Existence_and_Smoothness:_An_Algebraic_Topologic_Proof

This same author has, on the Arxiv and elsewhere, claimed to have applied similar "integral bordism" methods to solve a number of outstanding problems in mathematics, such as the Goldbach conjecture, Landau's problems, the Riemann hypothesis, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, and the smooth Poincare conjecture.

While the quality of his work on the Navier-Stokes equation is difficult for me to judge, the basic pattern in this author's contributions is rather clear: create an elaborate enough formalism to conceal the fact that nothing of substance is actually being done. This suggests a deliberate act of fraudulent research, violating basic principles of academic integrity.

I am deeply concerned that the journal has not done due diligence in investigating the quality of this purported research, and as such is negligent (if not complicit) in what seems to be a violation of basic principles. Since you are a world-renowned and respected academic, I am certain you will give this matter your full attention.

Best regards,

Slawomir Bialy, PhD Wikipeida

Profession?
I have questions, one weak and one strong. First, do you have a PhD in Mathematics? Second, do you focus on editing articles relating to STEM? That way I can ask you questions regarding mathematical articles on Wikipedia, if you consent. Thank you. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

edit by user:isambard kingdom
yo slaw,

check out tensor, isambard added the SAME source he tried to insert in vector space

thoughts?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Riemannian manifolds
Hi Sławomir,

haven't heard back from you on this point. I'm curious what you were referring to when you said semi-Riemannian manifolds were metric spaces and didn't have metric tensors. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty confident that I learned the term as synonymous with what you are calling pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, and I haven't been able to find any reference to the notion you cite as semi-Riemannian manifolds. --Trovatore (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Decent function?
Hi there, Sławomir. I noticed that you were the editor who wrote the first version of the Radial function article, in which you used the expression "decent function". Can you clarify what "decent" means in this context? Thanks, Waldir talk 12:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Limit and Modulo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cauchy–Riemann equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Streamlines. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sig
Hello, I'm Pigsonthewing. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because the drop shadow. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The policy you pointed to does not mention drop shadows. Many editors have drop shadows in their signatures.  I have for about six years now.  They are not forbidden by any policy or guideline.  The tutorial referred to at WP:SIGAPP has several examples of signatures with drop shadows, for example.  If the issue is that you personally have trouble with custom signatures, there are instructions at WP:SIGAPP on how to override them.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy I pointed to is headed "Make sure that your signature is easily readable and does not cause disruption to other editors" It then continues: "Your signature must not... cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors." (emboldening in original). You appear to labour under the erroneous belief that it only concerns the specific examples that it then lists. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, only one of us is causing inconvenience and annoying other editors. I find your request disrespectful and rude.  If you believe that I have violated policy, go ahead and indefinitely block me.  I have no intention of changing my signature, given such a combative and disrespectful request.  You're just being a bully, and that is absolutely not acceptable behavior.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cauchy–Riemann equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex structure. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ratio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fraction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert
'Consequently works better in the context here.' - please argue why this should be the case. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. First, and most obviously, it is not the case that "its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern" is equivalent to the statement "$\pi$ cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction, although fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate π."  Indeed, numbers with non-terminating decimals are not "commonly" approximated by "fractions such as 22/7".  However, it is true that having a non-repeating decimal does follow from the irrationality of &pi;, so "consequently" would seem to be the correct logical connective.  The fallacy in using "equivalently" is that the first sentence is two independent clauses, only one of which is equivalent to the conclusion.
 * The second reason has to do with the overall structure of the first three sentences of the paragraph: "A is true.  Consequently, B.  Because B, C might be true."  It is a chain of modal implications.  I think adding an unnecessary equivalence to that chain is not clarifying, especially when the last sentence is not a strict implication (the normality of &pi; only might be true).   S ławomir  Biały  12:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, point registered. What about the following version?


 * Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction. Equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern. Still, fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate π. The digits appear to be randomly distributed; however, to date, no proof of this has been discovered. Also, π is a transcendental number – a number that is not the root of any non-zero polynomial having rational coefficients. This transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.


 * I would prefer at least a slight change as indicated above since the equivalence is an interesting fact and would enrich the article IMO. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps even better:


 * Since π is an irrational number, the decimal representation of π never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern. Equivalently, π cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction. Still, fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate π. The digits appear to be randomly distributed; however, to date, no proof of this has been discovered. Also, π is a transcendental number – a number that is not the root of any non-zero polynomial having rational coefficients. This transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.


 * --Mathmensch (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first revision is an improvement.  I don't like the second alternative as much, because it reverses the logical order (an irrational number by definition is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction), and also does not segue into the next sentence.  I would support the first proposed text.  S ławomir  Biały  14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On a slight side note here, I wonder if "common fraction" is really the best choice of words. It's not a very common expression, at least in the US, and some readers may interpret it as "proper fraction" (a fraction where the numerator is less than the denominator).  Note that the link is not particularly helpful.  Can't we say "ratio of integers" instead? --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Slight update: Hmm, sometimes the link goes to the right section, sometimes not.  Don't know why.  Maybe an issue with my local browser setup or something.  Still, we shouldn't rely on links to make the text clear.  I am not convinced "common fraction" is in wide use, and would prefer the unambiguous "ratio of integers".  For that matter, I think even just "fraction" would be an improvement, without the "common". --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the following third proposal meets all criteria:


 * Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction (equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern). Still, fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate π. The digits appear to be randomly distributed; however, to date, no proof of this has been discovered. Also, π is a transcendental number – a number that is not the root of any non-zero polynomial having rational coefficients. This transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.


 * --Mathmensch (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the "equivalently" part should be a separate sentence, as it appears in the first revision above, since the digits of &pi; are emphasized later.  S ławomir  Biały  18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But then the 'Still, ...' sentence seems to refer to the "equivalently" part. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Convenient vector space
Why put the calculus template at the end of the article? That's weird. Lbertolotti (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The template doesn't really make much sense for the article, whatever its placement.  I've removed it.   S ławomir  Biały  19:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this issue? Lbertolotti (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have invited additional eyeballs to the talkpage, to peruse my own behavior
My apologies for the template, per WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilbert space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex modulus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Complex coordinate space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Gunning and Holomorphic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Complex affine space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Scriptstyle
You say  is for subscripts and superscripts, not inline maths. I'm not aware of this guideline. Could you point it out? If you ask me, the regular, being so large, looks hideous inline. Jimp 09:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Scriptstyle does not render correctly in the various automatic conversions employed by Wikimedia software. In particular, the mathjax extension, which we hope one day to be made the default for all users, will not render correctly in mathjax.  Many users have the rendering method set to generate PNG images.  On desktop interfaces, these can appear larger than the surrounding text.  But on mobile interfaces, they appear smaller, and scriptstyle is almost indecipherable.  S ławomir  Biały  16:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough but it would be nice if something could be done, ay? Jimp 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been time to get math working for a very long while, but unfortunately it isn't a priority for the devs (who are volunteers), and the WMF just wants to throw money at useless things like visual editor, media viewer, and flow. There have been reams of discussion about this at WT:WPM.   S ławomir  Biały  11:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Inefficiency at Wikipedia; what's new? Jimp 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say (Pig)TeX is not for inline math at all as things stand. Appearance is random. The randomizing factors are individual settings and hardware. I personally "display" more equations than I'd do normally, and use HTML math templates for the remaining inline math in the articles I care about. YohanN7 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, with the rise of mobile I can confidently say that math rendering has actually gotten worse for this very reason. Once upon a time, the default was for the server at least to try to render displayed math as html.  But that was removed with the promise of mathjax support.  For a time, mathjax was around, but now it's been removed.  At this point, MathML actually looks pretty good.  I'm guessing it's not the default yet because of lack of universal support of MathML.  But hopefully that will change in time.   S ławomir  Biały  11:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, MathML looks decent on my setup too (big screen), even inline. I switch between PNG and MathML because of the bugs/missing features in MathML. YohanN7 (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Integral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Hi Guy, I'm sorry, but I don't see the editing there as disruptive, and this template honestly doesn't seem to me like a constructive way forward. If you want to engage on why you think the edits are unnecessary, then by all means please comment at WT:RS, or here.  In fact, I remain thoroughly confused about what your exact objection is, and it would be most helpful if you clarified it.  Your first edit summary suggests that reversion is a default action on your part to any edit to guidelines.  This is apparently contradicted by your very next action, which is to reinstate another edit.  So, needless to say, I am a little puzzled by your reasons for reverting the one edit and not the other.  I have tried to clarify the guideline in a way that merely reiterates Wikipedia's best practices codified at WP:MEDRS.  I believe your insinuation in the next edit summary is flawed.  The statement I added there was Ctrl-C copied directly out of WP:MEDRS.  To make the attribution clearer, I have now cited the relevant section, and placed the statement in quotation marks.  I hope this satisfies your objection over the content.  But I can't be sure unless you engage in a substantial and meaningful way.  Threats of blocks don't seem likely to lead to constructive progress.   S ławomir  Biały  02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion after carefully examining the article talk page, the edit that I re-instated is fully supported by consensus and your edits are not. This should be obvious to you from all of the comments disagreeing with you.


 * I am sorry to hear that you think that threats of blocks don't seem likely to lead to constructive progress. That leaves me with the choice of letting you change a guideline against consensus or seeking to have you blocked. I have chosen the latter. Further discussion on this should be at ANI, where an uninvolved administrator will decide what to do about this situation. See notice below. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy, this is still not a clear explanation of your position on that edit. The issue seems to be that the added content did not faithfully capture what is in WP:MEDRS.  So, I have now included a direct quotation from that guideline.  (The passage in question has been a part of that guideline since at least 2011.)  There does seem to be support on the talk page that standards of science journalism have slipped, and that many news sources no longer engage in fact checking.  This appears to be especially true of science journalism.  So, there seems to be broad agreement on that.  I think we could even get agreement that news sources are fine as primary sources, but not secondary sources.  It already says as much at WP:MEDRS, and this was the thrust of my more substantial edit that you reverted.  I'm sorry that you are unwilling to engage substantively on this issue.   S ławomir  Biały  03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not going to discuss there here. ANI is over that way. Unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Slawekb / User:Sławomir Biały keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia wonderfully democratic? Here every crackpot can drag you to the jury for anything they chose, using authoritative language. They seek opportunities to do it and love it. They love "rules" more than anything else. It isn't particularly important what the rules actually say, but the important thing is that there are "rules" that someone may break. That said, of course, Guy might not be one of those, don't know. YohanN7 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Formula test
Hi User:Slawekb,

One of the new devs is working on an expanded LaTeX-based tool in VisualEditor. Would you mind helping her with some testing work? I want to give her the benefit of hearing from a couple of editors who aren't very familiar with VisualEditor. All you need to do is to click here: http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Equation?veaction=edit and see if you can figure out how to change a formula that's there and/or add a new one. I'm specifically interested in your thoughts about the formula editor. If you want to see the current version of the math tool, then you can click here to edit my sandbox on the English Wikipedia. VisualEditor in general isn't difficult to use; it basically works like a typical word processor.

(That first link takes you to a test wiki, so if you want to save something and don't want your IP address exposed, then you'll need to create a new account. Please use a unique password.  It doesn't have to be a strong password, but it should be a password that is not used on any other website, including your Wikipedia password.  This is the Beta Cluster, aka where the devs upload their new patches first, which means there's a very small but real chance that something involving basic security could break at any second.  Thus it's important that you not re-use a password that is used on any real site.  There's no connection between your account there and anywhere else; it's not in the WP:SUL system.)

You can leave feedback at WP:VEF (about anything, including the formula tool), and feedback specifically about the formula tool directly at the dev's talk page at mw:User talk:TChan (WMF), or in T118616 and related tasks, if you'd rather post directly to Phab. You can also reply on my talk page, and I'll forward it. Thanks for considering my request. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
 * Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#3. Arbs...
 * A: should not be an admin
 * B: should preferably not be an admin
 * C: can be but need not be an admin
 * D: should preferably be an admin
 * E: must be or have been an admin
 * F: must currently be an admin
 * Your Single-Letter Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you support this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
 * Your Comments:


 * The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:


 * Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now?  Who?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections?  In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
 * A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
 * B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
 * C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
 * D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
 * E: working on policies/guidelines
 * F: working on essays/helpdocs
 * G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
 * H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
 * I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
 * J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
 * K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
 * L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with or informally
 * M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
 * N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
 * O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
 * Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
 * continued : F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
 * continued : K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
 * continued : P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
 * continued : U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
 * continued : 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
 * continued : 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
 * continued : Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
 * Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
 * Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
 * Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):


 * The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72.  Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia.  GamerPro64  14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
 * If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Exponentiation and Commutative Groups
You wrote: "Please don't change inline latex into html. See WP:MOSMATH"

Don't you mean don't change inline HTML into LaTeX? I call your attention to

"both are acceptable and widely used ... One should not change formatting boldly from LaTeX to HTML, nor from non-LaTeX to LaTeX without a clear improvement. Proposed changes should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article before implementation."

Perhaps this is worthy of discussion on the Exponentiation article talk page. I see a clear improvement versus the clumsy inline HTML of the embedded sequences of exponents in this instance.

As for exponentiation "sometimes" being commutative, that indeed is the point being corrected with my edit. Exponentiation is sometimes commutative, which is the essence of the special cases in which it does in fact form commutative groups, or in the general case where a large exponent is factored. The commutative law of multiplication applies to the exponents when exponentiation is factored, but only to the order in which the exponentiation is performed not in terms of the base and exponents changing places, which is why Diffie-Hellman key exchange works. Are you willing to consider an edit to make my contribution more clear, or do you insist that nothing at all about exponentiation ever possesses a commutative property? RiskNerd (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant don't change html to latex. Latex is not a good choice for very simple inline formulae.  I disagree that exponentiation is commutative.  Commutativity would mean that $$b^a=a^b$$.  This is not true in the situation of a "commutative group" (for example, take a and b to be positive real numbers; that's a commutative group, but exponentiation is not commutative).  What is true is that (a^b)^c = (a^c)^b. But that's not the same thing as commutativity of a binary operation.   S ławomir  Biały  12:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Delta Epsilon Iota
I'm interested in "Completing" to at least stub level the Greek Letter Organizations that are part of the Professional Fraternity Association. One of those is Delta Epsilon Iota. Since you are the editor who did started the Articles for deletion/Delta Epsilon Iota, I'd like to see if I can create a stub that would be appropriate. I'm a fairly experienced editor who is a member of WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities.Naraht (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If Delta Epsilon Iota is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, and that is considered a sufficient condition for notability, then a brief and neutral stub is acceptable. I would recommend watching the article for COI.  The deleted version was much more than a stub, and was sourced entirely to promotional material and press releases.  We were unable to find any independent reliable sources on the subject, and the article had been exclusively edited by COI editors.  Obviously, such sources would be highly desirable if the article is recreated.   S ławomir  Biały  12:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Annabelle (Doll) page
Hey, I just put in a request for comment about the "legend" section. I didn't even know there was deleted content that covered it, until after I put it in. However I still think my version covered the section sufficiently better than the original did and was more clear about the dubious nature of it. I would ask that maybe you could look over the section again and chime in. I feel that you might of saw the content reapear and just of had a knee jerk reaction against it but I do feel it is an improvement over the old one. Regardless, I'll wait and see what the consensus says about it. --Deathawk (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hilbert spaces
In this edit you wrote "I think a rather enlightening perspective is that in quantum mechanics it isn't really the Hilbert space itself that one sees, but rather its dual."

If you have time, would you very kindly be willing to expand a little on that, or perhaps give me a reference for it?Chjoaygame (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The point I was making there was that, while elements of $$L^2$$ are usually thought of as "functions", that isn't really true. One needs to identify two measurable functions if they are equal almost everywhere.  In quantum mechanics, this isn't necessary because all measurements that can be made rely on the dual space.  That is, whenever we get a number out of a quantum measurement, we are in some way invoking the duality between bras and kets.  But the dual of the space of square integrable functions is already a Hilbert space, so there is no need to identify things that are equal almost everywhere.  It happens for free.   S ławomir  Biały  16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that helpful commentary. If you have a little more time, would you perhaps give a reference for it, if such is to be found? I already have Dirac 1926:


 * In order to be able to get results comparable with experiment from our theory, we must have some way of representing q-numbers by means of c-numbers, so that we can compare these c-numbers with experimental values.


 * and Messiah on page 247 of volume 1:


 * In order to introduce a metric in the vector space we have just defined, we make the hypothesis that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the vectors of this space and those of the dual space. Bra and ket thus associated by this one-to-one correspondence are said to be conjugates of each other and are labelled by the same letter (or the same indices). Thus the bra conjugate to the ket $|$u$\rangle$ is represented by the symbol $\langle$u$|$.


 * One or two more would make it more secure.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Chjoaygame, please don't even think about you trying to explain this in you-know-which-article. YohanN7 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that elements of $L^{2}$ are equivalence classes is contained in footnote #10. Already that is overkill to put in the main text. YohanN7 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

what d'you know
In May 2012 you told me (in WP:RD/Math, i guess)
 * For a course on matrices specifically, I would recommend Gilbert Strang's "Linear algebra and its applications", followed by Horne and Johnson's "Matrix analysis".

And now, unpacking some boxes with an eye to getting rid of excess books, I find that I somehow have a secondhand Strang. It must have been in a box since 2009 if not before. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

tried alert you
responded to your post on incompleteness theorem..was trying to figure out how to alert you in case you wanted to respond again...I think I did it wrong, and just inserted your logo...so maybe go fix that if it's wrong and needs to be removed...but tried a bunch of things in the code...but nothing else I tried including the pinging template seemed to work... people seemed to be using Username:  but that didn't seem to work....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Slawekb
If you are going to use this user account to edit, could you not redirect that account's user pages to this account? It's very confusing for editors who might want to get in touch with you. Since this account has been inactive for over a year, I'm not sure if you are even reading this talk page. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have already given good reasons for doing things this way. Please check see my user talk page, and the archives, thanks.  The moniker "slawekb" is a familiar diminutive, which would not normally be acceptable to individuals just "want[ing] to get in touch with [me]".  They should use my formal, official name Sławomir Biały.  The sock account is because diacritics in my official account are harder to type on some terminals.  I use primarily the Slawekb account because it seemed less confusing to use one account for my edits instead of two.  If you would prefer that I jump around between the two accounts because you think two accounts is less confusing than one, that can be arranged.  <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir  Biały  00:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And here is proof that the old account is still active. So we're done here, right?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your reversion of my contribution to tensors
You undid my revision. What was written before my edit was too general. The example was about a specific type of linear transformation, namely an endomorphic one. That is an important aspect because of the change of basis matrices which are used in the example. So now it is less accurate. If accuracy does not matter then we could also write 'function' instead of 'linear transformation' which is even more general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadzia2341 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The word "endomorphic" is not in wide use (even in pure mathematics), so should be avoided here. You could say "endomorphism" (a word which is slightly more common), but many authors by "linear transformation" already mean a linear endomorphism, as we do here.  That is clear from the context.  <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir  Biały  12:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kundu equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamiltonian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

pi's edit
So I disagreed your revert,consensus is neither adding template nor making link in the text.And that's just your rule.And you are not semiretired.--Takahiro4 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:BRD. Take it to Talk:Pi.  <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir  Biały  16:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You,take it to Talk:Pi.--Takahiro4 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heisenberg group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central extension. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

edit back and forth
do you honestly think in good faith that my improvement to your improvement isn't an improvement?? particularly the final sentence I added to the paragraph?? any "bias" would be stating "often" as "often" has a connotation other than "universal" or "almost always" etc etc which is inline with reality..do we really need to start a new talk page thread on this????68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Nearly universal" is just wrong. It implies that "area of a disk" is almost never used.  Even a crude Google books search shows that this is not the case.  Google scholar, for "area of the disk" versus "area of the circle" shows almost an equal number of uses.  The Google books hits for "area of the circle" only outnumber those for "area of the disk" by a factor of 5.  That's pretty clearly not as "universal" as you believe.  <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir  Biały  16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the helpful paragraph you added is about the very phenomenon that the phrase "area of a circle" is predominately used...the connotation of "often" here is something other than the phenomenon being discussed....I'm going to go at least put back in that final sentence I added and perhaps change "often" to something along the lines of "usually" or "most usually"....though I think the word "universally" is more accurate and more encyclopedic sounding...also, you shouldn't just do a blanket revert if there are improvements...but revert more specific things...If you want to revert this again, I'll start a talk thread, which is just going to be annoying to people but will be necessary if you insist on blocking improvements...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * But it's not universal at all. That's just wrong.  <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir  Biały  17:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

phrase
"Since curves of finite length have zero breadth.." is this accurate/best way of stating things?? does it imply curves of infinite length are somehow different? couldn't find anything via google along these lines...you tell me; I have no idea...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There exist nonrectifiable curves of nonzero 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure. <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir Biały  15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * does this somehow have to do with finite vs infinite as the phrase suggests?? again, I have no idea...the phrase seems jarring to someone not highly advanced to this technical degree (ie me)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, curves with infinite length can have positive area. <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt"> S ławomir Biały  15:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, I'll take your word for it..I can't personally imagine how an infinite length can affect the breadth of a curved line...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked a question about this looking for an intuitive explanation on the reference desk, simply out of my own personal curiousity...I quote from your statements but don't name you...in case you want to/have the time to make an attempt at explaining....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#how_can_lines.2Fcurves_of_infinite_length_have_positive_area.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Paul Adamson The Processionist (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)== Just a thank you. ==

Your depiction of the spinor helped me to correlate a phenomenon, in my physics model, with the standard model. This correlation will end up being part of my description of the xion particle, which gets its name from the modification of the Lorentz contraction, by the inclusion of the Xi variable (The LorentzXi contraction.) So, thank you. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.34.76 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you found it stimulating.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pole (mathematics). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Relativity spaces
I apologize for failing to notice your response at WP:RD/Math for several days; I had checked back after a while, and then was distracted. Given that the thread has been archived, I'm not sure where best to respond. Briefly, I'm interested in finding a simple geometric intuition that I can use to explain a geometric visualization of Galilean relativity, special relativity and then hopefully the closely related de Sitter and anti-de Sitter alternatives to a young person. My tendency is to explore a larger class of related objects to seek broadly applicable ideas, hence a brief exploration into complex numbers. Feel free to move this as you feel appropriate. —Quondum 05:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Quaternions
Hi there. Did you accidentally revert the wrong edit? The quaternion book published by Birkhäuser doesn't sound as if it's fringe. Did you mean the bioinformatics reference instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems very dubious in light of this edit by the same editor.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

primes/recurrence relation
Hi,

I added a comment to the talk page re your deletion of the example of a recursively defined function listing all the primes (not only a subset, as the published and referenced example does). Isn't there a theorem in logic that says this had to be possible anyway because primes are a such-and-such set (recursive, recursively enumerable, primitive recursive or whatever the correct def'n is) and a suitable reference? I'm probably not going to go further with this, but it is strange having a published example that lists a subset of the primes when anyone can write down a similar example which lists them all in the correct order.Createangelos (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I just had a go myself, using an encyclopedia. The idea seems to be that any recursive set is recursively enumerable. A computer program to list them also can be encoded as a recursive function.Createangelos (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Belt trick 2.gif
Noting here I've just copied the upload history over to Commons, so the F8 tag can be reinstated.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics
If you have sufficient knowledge to wriote an article on this subject, please feel free to do so, but the "article" that I replaced with a re-direct is not that article. Please do not revert the redirect again. BMK (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental problems with Wikipedia
Thanks for your recent edits on Infinite monkey theorem.

I read your userpage quotes with interest. You'll probably appreciate the essay on my userpage, especially the conclusion. ··gracefool &#128172; 06:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Vote on Category talk:Violence against men
Notice: I edited your comment in the RFC to make your vote explicit. Apologies if I erred in doing so. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Others' Edits
Please do not revert my edits on other pages, because of changes I am proposing on Hillary Clinton's change. If you disagree with the changes I make to other changes, then discuss it on those pages. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems like ample reason has been given on the other page, including references. I will note my agreement there.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Faith
Your comment suggesting that I should learn some political knowledge is in bad faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's WP:CIR.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say 'You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. But under WP:CIR there is generally an expectation that editors writing articles about American History should know something about American History.  And if they don't, they should at least be willing to read sources, rather than making uninformed edits and arguments on the talk page.  Do you disagree with this?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Material on 0.999...
Sorry, could not email you. The following is copied from the book by W. Mückenheim: "Mathematik für die ersten Semester", 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin 2015, p. 194f ISBN 978-3-11-037733-0 20.1 Zur Dezimaldarstellung von Zahlen [...] Ausdrücke wie a1 + a2 + a3 + ... oder 0,111 ... werden in der Literatur gewöhnlich nicht als Reihen, sondern stillschweigend als deren Grenzwerte aufgefasst, so dass eine korrekte Bezeichnung wie 0,111 ... → 1/9 kurz als 0,111 ...= 1/9 notiert wird. Diese vereinfachende Konvention ist darauf zurückzuführen, dass ein Ausdruck wie 0,111 ...sowohl zur Berechnung des Grenzwertes und jeder Partialsumme dienen kann, als auch zur Kennzeichnung der unendlichen Reihe, also der Folge der Partialsummen selbst. Sie führt weder beim Rechnen, noch in der Mathematik des potentiell Unendlichen zu Irrtümern, weil von den Gliedern einer unendlichen Reihe ohnehin niemals Vollständigkeit erwartet werden kann. Wird dagegen diese Vollständigkeit axiomatisch oder mit anderer Begründung gefordert oder vorausgesetzt, so muss zwischen der Reihe, d. h. der Partialsummenfolge oder Ziffernfolge, und ihrem Grenzwert unterschieden werden. Denn es ist mit mathematischer Strenge unvereinbar, die unendliche Folge aller Endziffern von Näherungen, die für jeden noch so großen Index den Grenzwert verfehlen, mit eben diesem zu identifizieren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.82.109.251 (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * His view is somewhat debatable that positional notation refers to sequences rather than numbers, but it does not contradict the assertion that the real number denoted by the infinite repeating decimal 0.999... is equal to the real number 1. By 0.999..., he means not a real number but a sequence of partial sums.  No one would argue that the sequence of partial sums is the real number 1.  In any case, there is no mention of Euler having been incorrect, nor of those using positional notation in the usual way as having "sloppy minds", which is what the proposed edit contained.  I would not object if you would like to try again to formulate an edit that is actually consistent with what is presented in that source, but I do not think it should be added to the lead of the article in any case.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mückenheim seems to have radical foundational views &mdash; see de:Wolfgang Mückenheim. As an aside, I don't see how they make sense even internally &mdash; if the set of all digits of a number is finite, then how do you take a limit?  But that's not important right now.  For the purposes of the article, it seems to me that Mückenheim might be worked into the "Ultrafinitism" section. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please know that I'm not trying to vandalize any page, I'm just trying to remove the unappropriate content from Hillary Clinton's page. Cenationfan (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Cenationfan

Edit warring at Jacob Barnett
Please allow me to point out that you have summarily removed material added to this article three times in the last 24 hours. If you do this again I will report you for breach of WP:3RR. Viewfinder (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP removals are explicitly exempted from 3RR. If you want to restore the material, you will have to find a reliable source for it.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me that your reverts are exempted under BLP. There are many sources in support of the prodigy claim and none that specifically refute it. In any case, I reaffirm my view that you are edit warring and think there may be a case for raising the matter at WP:BLPN. Viewfinder (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Positive consensus is required at BLP. Obviously, you may not accept the reasons that the sources are not reliable for the factual claims that they make, but there is definitely no consensus.  Furthermore, your recent edits to the talk page suggest a misunderstanding of basic scholarship like peer review.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceaușescu/regime
I have re-opened the conversation at Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu. I've answered to your point from FRINGE and tried as best I could to restate your assertion. Apologies if I have misrepresented anything you mentioned. Either way, I more than welcome your thoughts. --OJ (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unverified claim of deletion
Regarding this revert with the summary of “Verifiability is not temporary”… what are you talking about? If it’s verifiable that the series of videos were deleted, then great, let’s verify that. Or was the dead link to a video about the deletion of those other videos? Either way, we still need a way to actually verify the claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Theremin
Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in citations. That said, thanks for providing an additional citation, which not only establishes the use of the theremin but that it was considered significant in some manner, per WP:IPCV. Happy New Year! DonIago (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ok, good to know. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

manifold
How is that statement I added to manifold wrong? Rather than remove it, can you correct it? I suspect it might be wrong from omission of finer points rather than anything else. --ssd (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not every manifold is a surface, for one thing. Immersions of manifolds are permitted to have self-intersections, for another.  Surface meshes can have self-intersections at points other than edges as well, so this is not a sufficient condition for a surface mesh to arise from an embedded manifold (nor an immersed manifold).  Finally, a pair of surfaces joined at a vertex will satisfy your condition, but in general is neither an embedded nor immersed manifold.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll conceed all but the last point which I think is pedantic. A pair of surfaces joined at a vertex still can be a pair of manifold surfaces even if it isn't a single manifold surface.   However, I think the intro to manifold is overly technical and a simplified definition like what I was trying to put in would help a lot. --ssd (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to a simplified definition, but it must actually be the definition of a (topological) manifold. In particular, there is nothing in the definition of a manifold that discusses polyhedral meshes or embeddings (or immersions) into Euclidean spaces.  Manifolds which are covered by meshes are known as piecewise linear manifolds.  They are defined differently from the usual (topological) manifolds, and are actually the subject of a completely different article.  In fact, not every topological manifold can be given a piecewise linear structure!  They are also defined differently from manifolds that admit a triangulation.  So, while it's good to want to write a simpler definition, one needs first to grasp what the definition actually is that one is simplifying.  There are important differences between the classes of manifolds that need to be clearly understood.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerned
Hi. I just noticed this past revision of yours, which strikes me as a POV attempt to discredit the subject of the paragraph from the very first sentence. While that’s not necessarily wrong (I’m frankly surprised there aren’t more sources that do), it makes me wonder if you’re getting too emotionally invested in this, for any reason. Feel free to delete and disregard this message if I’m way off base, but remember there is no deadline. Take care. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please think before reverting edits
The previous writing was barely comprehensible English, though the math was reasonable though somewhat tedious. I was tempted to note that the "problem" points are all countable and be done with it. However, I thought it was illuminating enough that I tried to save as much as possible.

In the previous version some obvious/basic statements or arguments (like how to compose the tangent function with a linear function) were made again and again, while the crux of the problem was obfuscated with poor explanation, in part hindered by lack of command of English. I made it readable. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Your revision is not an improvement. The terminology $$0.111_{(2)}$$ is not explained.  Composite function, tangent function, the cardinality of the continuum, all are no longer linked or explained.  Notation $$\aleph_0$$ and $$\mathfrak c$$ are used but not explained.  Things are stated in symbols but not words, in violation of norms for writing mathematics articles.  Try to write things with words rather than symbols please, and remember that the readers of this article may not be mathematicians.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The notation used in the previous version was also not explained. I don't think the reader of this article needs to see the term tangent or composition function defined. I will restore cardinality of the continuum. I also explained that $$0.111_{(2)}$$ is a binary expansion. Again, please read before criticizing.

I have now made the changes piecewise. None of these are unreasonable edits. These are either: defining things that are not defined or making the English grammatically correct or idiomatic. As you can see, these are not much different from my original edits (except I wasted my time doing them again). I guess I understand if you do not like LaTeX in a HTML, but I personally find it more readable.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passacaglia for orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not refactor my comments again
If those comments trigger you so much, take it to ANI.  freshacconci  (✉) 01:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have presented your offtopic personal attacks for the review of the administrators.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not feel that "After comparing himself to Einstein and Newton" is accurate. No where does he say "I am just like these people." I think it is a little disparaging and will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OMG why are you following me to other pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're adding references to The Daily Mail and other unreliable sources to physics articles, with the apparent aim of calling general relativity into question in favor of a fringe theory.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * hehe, and we all know how that turned out. Subuey (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Total Derivative Error
I see, the author wanted to pack into the line the constraint y = x as well. For a different constraint there might be a very little chance that 2*x=y ? But then then the outcome 2*x would be also different. Anyway I thought seeing 2*x and y side by side is enough, but you are right 2*x ≠ x is better. Well we would need x ≠ 0 as well. Proofs are hairy. Oki Doki. (Its about rollback of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_derivative&type=revision&diff=775758114&oldid=770029041 ) Jan Burse (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it should probably be clarified, since it is manifestly confusing.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup on manifolds
Hey, thanks for the cleanup on manifolds! I'm not an expert, but I'm learning. I still think that article could use some work, but I appreciate your thoughtful contributions.

Right now, that article makes it difficult to get a general notion of what a manifold is without dropping back to special cases, such as the topological case. I don't really understand how Hausdorff fits in there. It's confusing whether it's applicable to general manifolds or topological ones. Not obvious to me whether topological and Hausdorff manifolds are one and the same, or whether Hausdorff is an extra condition against topological manifolds (most likely). I have similar difficulty with the section on manifolds with boundary. I assume that those are a special case of topological manifolds, but the article doesn't seem to contextualize them well. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. The article definitely should be improved, but I don't have a clear idea how.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm employing one of my general strategies, which is to refactor into general discussion topics. Think it still needs some softening between the novice and technical perspectives, and to integrate the history, but I think the overall discussion is more or less in place now, even if I don't understand the distinctions mentioned above.  My feeling is that that article wanders too much into the weeds, getting distracted with a technical discussion of circles and curves in general, when there are already articles for those.  If you know how to delegate that into those articles, that might help.  I've also added some additional tags for clarifications where I think the article isn't using exposition, or has major oversights.  You could check those out if you like.


 * Anyway, thanks again. It's not every day that my comments are taken thoughtfully here (I've run into some nasty folks), so I definitely appreciate the exceptions.  Hope I get a chance to run into you again; looks like we have some similar interests (physics/programming/etc.). 47.32.217.164 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the overall article structure of this revision from 2006 is actually better than what is in the article now. The example of the circle is sufficient to motivate the formal definition.  I think the example of the globe should come first, since this justifies the terminology of "chart, atlas", etc.  The more sophisticated examples, discussions of connectivity and orientability, certainly belong much further down in the article than where they are now.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I basically agree. An early introduction of simple examples helps a lot with clarity.  Personally, I don't care for having "motivation" sections.  It feels both boring and POV.  I usually like to see "motivation" explained by history, as that often solves both of those issues by making it relatable and contextualized.


 * As the article currently stands, it feels "stretched". It seems like the proper foundation is missing for a simple introduction, and I'm not sure why.  Maybe it's because the "pacing" is off.  It seems like it is trying to do too much explaining that could be done in other articles.  The choice of circle as the first example forces weird assumptions on the article, I guess.  In a sense, the context for that example is "simple curves", but I don't think that's explicit, and the focus on the circle means that intuitive examples of lines don't get good coverage, even though they are easier to explain as manifolds.


 * So, the article ends up with:


 * simple topic: lines (minimal coverage)
 * simple topic: circle (extensive coverage and somewhat relatable)
 * simple topic: surfaces (extensive text, but poorly related to reader)
 * advanced topics: advanced examples (extensive)
 * concept topics: orientability, boundaries, special cases, generalizations (extensive, but poorly organized coverage)


 * That seems really uneven to me.


 * What makes more sense to me is for there to be more development of concepts on the simple topics, and light explanation, once the concepts are introduced, for the advanced topics. Details of advanced topics can be delegated to their respective pages, with light overviews on the main page.  That seems reversed in this case.


 * I don't really like the idea of scattering examples throughout the article, even though moving them all to the front isn't a real solution either. It seems that there needs to be some "progression" that is followed to regulate development of the article, but it's not clear whether it should be from simple to general or earliest developments to more recent developments.  I'm not sure there is a current logic, and I remain completely in the dark about the general notion of a manifold versus the topological notion; wish I had a heuristic way to differentiate those by "progression", as it feels funny not knowing which of the concepts is more "fundamental" in any obvious sense.  I probably haven't solved anything with all this, but just wanted to get some thoughts out, for what they're worth. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * After some more thought, I realized that the simple, relatable concept that the article should build upon is that of surfaces. That's much more natural, as it explains the terminology, and can provide intuition into the generalized concepts; this could be done in a background section.  While it isn't the simplest, it is still intuitive, and once the ideas are introduced, a progression can be established within an examples section that captures everything from lines to advanced manifolds, keeping it together, while explaining how the general principles apply. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the circle should be presented as the simplest example of a manifold, followed by the example of a sphere. That is more or less the current structure of the motivation section.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean for presentation's sake, since simpler examples can surely be found, like the line I mentioned above. If that's the approach, can you think of a way of intuitively introducing the terminology in parallel, which primarily derives from surface-oriented concepts?  47.32.217.164 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the section on circles introduces the relevant terminology of charts and atlases. Is this what you mean? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I believe you had pointed out earlier, there is a mismatch between terminology (chart, atlas, etc.) which are intuitive and applicable to 2-manifolds and the introductory example, which is given as a 1-manifold. I agree that's confusing for beginners, and I'd like to see a smooth intro that doesn't break continuity (since breaking it isn't required) by switching contexts implicitly.  It pulls the rug out from under an unfamiliar reader's intuition, undermining trust in the article, and generally makes the article harder to read. That's how I came to the conclusion that an intuitive example of 2-manifolds would be more effective as an introduction.  47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I need a break from this for a little while. I didn't realize you had made a number of changes to the article since we began this discussion; I thought we were just discussing in general, trying to reach a consensus, so I think we're on different pages, and I need some time to re-read and reset my expectations. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2-manifolds aren't really more intuitive. It is considerably more difficult to describe the charts and atlases.  Instead of real functions of a real variable, you have to deal instead with vector-valued functions of two variables to give the patching relations (i.e., vector fields).  I don't think there's any reason to think readers will be more comfortable with vector fields than functions of a single variable.  I also see that most of my cleanup consisted of actually undoing some of the recent edits.  For example, discussion of orientability should not appear before the definition of a manifold.  The first section is intended only to motivate the definition.  Also, the paragraph on manifolds being locally but not globally homeomorphic to Euclidean space was moved from the lead to a separate section, which I do not think makes sense.  Overall, the original structure of the article seemed much more thought-out and considered.
 * I am very reluctant to say that it would be softer on the reader to introduce stereographic coordinate charts on the 2-sphere as motivation, let alone describing coordinate charts on other 2-manifolds which require a treatment of markings and the associated Teichmuller space. If you think that would be helpful, I would be happy to discuss it here, but I doubt you will find it suitable for a general article.
 * The stereographic coordinate charts on the unit sphere in $$\mathbb R^3$$ are given by
 * $$(x,y,z)\mapsto \left(\frac{x}{1-z},\frac{y}{1-z}\right)$$
 * which is the chart omitting the North pole $$(0,0,1)$$, and the chart
 * $$(x,y,z)\mapsto\left(\frac{x}{1+z},\frac{y}{1+z}\right)$$
 * which is the chart omitting the South pole $$(0,0,-1)$$. The transition from one chart to another is given by
 * $$(x,y)\mapsto \left(\frac{x}{x^2+y^2},\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}\right).$$
 * Although the formulas are easy enough to write down, I believe you will likely find it significantly harder to interpret these charts than the charts on the circle that the motivating example currently discusses. For example, it is not immediately apparent that the transition function should be what it is; this requires finding the inverse stereographic map into the unit sphere in $$\mathbb R^3$$ and composing with the other chart.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm starting to lose interest. It seems that you undid a number of the changes I made without really discussing it with me, despite the fact that we had an ongoing conversation.  It's not necessary to include all of the detail in introductory overview, which it seems like you are using to rationalize the decision not to use 2-manifolds.  You also seem to be behaving as if you own the article, so I no longer feel like my thoughts are really welcome, I'm sorry to say.  I'll be moving on.  Have to say I'm a little disappointed, as I thought we had started out so well. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like many of the problems I noticed with the article were those caused by your edits, such as moving discussions of orientability to before the definition of manifolds, which to me makes no sense whatsoever. I would suggest that, in the future, before making major changes to an article it might be good to gain some familiarity with the subject matter first.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

...
this edit summary was very sneaky of you, since it was your edit that included the primary source. NeilN Subuey (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sławomir Biały, you don't think phys.org is a reliable source? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it does not met WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is well-known for promoting fringe theories like the one under discussion. My edit added the source, but for a different statement. Subuey then strengthened it to say something that would have required a reliable secondary source.  None was given. This discussion is moot anyway since a much better discussion already appears in the article, although that too has only marginally better sources.  So I'm unclear why we're having it at all.  If you hadn't commented, I simply would have ignored this as unconstructive.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This timeline is completely contradicted by my diffs. Subuey (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You replaced the statement that they claimed to verify the theory with the much stronger statement that they tested the theory with positive results. That is sourced to a primary source, the research paper itself, without a scholarly secondary source to support it.  Phys.org is not a reliable secondary source, being somewhat notorious for its sensationalistic coverage of every claimed disproof of established physics, however far-fetched.  The (currently cited) New Scientist source is actually even worse, with the clickbait headline  "First test of rival to Einstein's gravity kills off dark matter", which is very highly questionable.  In any case, is there a point to this inquest?  Or is it just trolling for its own sake?  If the latter, I plan to archive this thread.  If you have questions related to the content of the entropic gravity article, that you should ask them at the science reference desk rather than bothering me personally with these questions.   And if you wish to discuss your proposed edits to the article itself, you should raise those at Talk:Entropic gravity rather than here.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Luckily, it is not up to you to unilaterally decide whether phys.org is reliable or not. Subuey (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's up to editors to discuss the matter at... wait for it... the article talk page, a thread I started in response to this edit over a month ago detailing my reasons for finding the source and statement questionable.. If you have further things to discuss, then you may do so there.  Please do not post further messages on this matter to my talk page.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Inadvertent revert on Infinite monkey theorem
I accidentally reverted your edit at Infinite monkey theorem. Sorry, about that, I'm not what happened. Paul August &#9742; 17:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. I figured it was a mistake.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Favor asked for
I hate asking for favors, but would you let me know whether the, from the top of my head, newly and hastily written unreferenced Representation theory of the Lorentz group is mumbo-jumbo? YohanN7 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the $$i$$ in formula (G2), or in formula (G6) from the previous section. It seems like some conventions for writing the Lie algebra may have been incorrectly synthesized.  You should probably explicitly assume that $$\pi$$ is one-to-one, since you want to study the faithfulness of $$\Pi$$.  Something seems a little misleading still because (G2) doesn't actually define a representation, even in the simply connected case (the exponential map is neither surjective nor injective), and I think the accompanying figure is also problematic for the same reason.  A correct statement would be that, for any Lie algebra homomorphism $$\pi:\mathfrak g\to\mathfrak{gl}(V)$$, there is a unique homomorphism of Lie groups $$\Pi:G\to GL(V)$$, where G is the simply connected Lie group corresponding to G, such that the tangent to &Pi; at the identity is π.  (The proof that I know for this constructs the graph of &Pi; in $$G\times H$$, and does not rely on the exponential mapping and Campbell-Hausdorff-Baker formula.)  Whether this &Pi; descends to a quotient group is then settled by whether the fundamental group of the quotient is in the kernel of &Pi;.  Finally, for consistency with the notation elsewhere in the article, $$SO^+(3,1)$$ should probably be $$SO(3,1)^+$$, although I personally would actually prefer $$SO^+$$ applied throughout the article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these comments. I have a follow-up question, but I need to think a bit first. YohanN7 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm now sure it will come out right in the end. YohanN7 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Factor $i$: This is a physicist convention for Lie algebras – albeit an unusual one (mentioned in the Hall ref). It is usually a factor of $–i$. I think this is unfortunate, but harmless, and I'll look it over in a comprehensive edit.
 * I am sure formula (G2) is satisfied by a unique representation of $G$ in the simply connected case (theorem 5.6 in Hall 2:nd ed.). But you have spotted a flaw in my formulation (since $exp$ is not always onto).
 * ... settled by whether the fundamental group of the quotient is in the kernel of &Pi; ... Not sure I understand. I know there's and induced (from homomorphisms) map $$\Pi_*$$ on the fundamental group. This is probably in Lee's Intro to topological manifolds. Will brush up on it.
 * Using the universal covering group $G_{c}$ with covering map $p$ and considering a representation $Π_{c}$. If $ker p ⊂ ker Π_{c}$, then there is a representation $Π$ of (the possibly non-simply connected) $G$. Is this correct? (I am thinking about a generalization of the first isomorphism theorem.)
 * Agree on notation. Will make an overhaul if I get the time.
 * I disagree that the i is harmless, particularly in equation (G6), since the meaning of the derivative is unambiguous: if there is an i on one side, there should be an i on the other side too. But I am suspicious that physicists would include a factor of i for the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group.  For compact groups, that is a different matter.
 * Yes (G2) is satisfied by a unique representation of the simply connected group G, but one cannot define a representation by setting $$\Pi(e^X)=e^{\pi(X)}$$ because of non-surjectivity. Non-injectivity however is a bigger problem though, because nothing guarantees (even in the simply connected case) that this formula is actually well-defined.  So it cannot be used, even tentatively, to define anything.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error in (G6). It has been there for years.
 * Some physicists (e.g. Weinberg), and I'd guess it is the majority, use the $−i$ convention, both for compact and non-compact groups. I have never seen anyone using $−i$ or $i$ for complact groups only.
 * I have now explicitly addressed non-surjectivity, and I have provided a (very brief) outline (BCH formula + exp is one-to-one near identity) with references showing the formula actually is well-defined for simply connected groups.
 * I also excluded all reference to the fundamental group of the image of $Π$. That was too ambitious and would, if complete and error-free, probably lead to an out-of-place discussion on hierarchies of covering spaces.
 * The treatment in the article on (G2) used to be much more detailed, essentially complete, but poplar vote (actually including mine) said it had to go. This is why I struggle now to get it right in a shorter exposition. YohanN7 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Linguistics
I asked about colon versus semicolon here. (No really decisive reply yet, but my bet is on the semicolon unless the next letter is capitalized ) YohanN7 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett
--<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism
I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads up
See here. They want to ban an editor for improving policy. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Equivalent definition of continuity for distributions
Hi, you undid my edit to the Distributions page with the reason that the original text is easier to read. Unfortunately, the original definition is wrong (and not equivalent to my edit). One way to see this is that in the original definition, the number NK would be superfluous, since satisfaction of the inequality with NK>0 would always imply satisfaction of the inequality with NK=0. See also the reference given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, you're right. I'll revert myself.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Partial derivative unusualness
Hi! Thanks four reply at WP:RD/MA re the missing context for the notation used in case of taking the partial derivative with respect to $$x_2$$ in such a way as to keep the ratio $$x_1/x_3$$ fixed in order to give the equations a precise meaning.

The context of this nonstandard partial derivative variable to be held constant refers to the representations in ternary plot of variables of composition - mole fractions in this case - that add up to a constant in the field of thermodynamics.

How do you consider the inclusion of these aspects at Partial derivative article?--82.137.15.34 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The ternary plot seems like a good example to me.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there is something a bit frustrating reaction from the part of user:Deacon Vorbis, who, when asked to indicate specific parts from formulae, remains at the level of vague, general allegations of wonky, nonsensical notation even after you have explained the part involving constant ratios like (x1/x3) to held constant as a composite variable requested by the ternary plot representation and forming of ternary mixtures by mixing binary ones with known mixing ratios. Please talk to him in order to drop this reaction of unhelpful, vague statements. Thanks.--82.137.11.191 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Pi box
Your recent edit of Pi box made the appearance of the infobox in the article Pi much too large, because of the animated image that appeared only in Pi. As, in any case, this image were misplaced in the infobox, I have removed it. D.Lazard (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the size issue. The animation belongs in the lead of the article because it is a simple illustration of the subject.  There is lots of discussion on this point in the archives of Talk:Pi.  It was a featured image, etc.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

$e$
$$ \int_{1/e}^{1} \frac{1}{t} \, dt = 1$$

In fact, for all $$a$$, $$b > 0$$ s.t. $$\frac{a}{b}=e$$

$$ \int_{b}^{a} \frac{1}{t} \, dt = 1$$

So $$e$$ is not the unique number that yields an area under the curve of 1. That statement is true only if the lower bound of the interval of integration is 1. That was not specified in the original text. If you don't like my correction, please correct the text as you see fit rather than revert to an incorrect statement.Vincent (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, errr no. It wasn't better before because it wasn't true before. I'll revert later, but if you want to correct it yourself be my guest. Vincent (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussions relating to article content belong on the talk page of the article in question, should be polite and free from sarcasm. If you had corrected the text without changing the intended meaning, that would have been one thing, but your edit changed the intended meaning, rendering the graphic rather useless.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And you justified your revert simply by saying the original was better. My modification was well described; your later revert was an uncalled for value judgment: 'better', but by whose standard? Do you think that a value judgment is polite or constructive? No, it isn't. Further, the statement as stated was not strictly true. Purgy Purgatory's correction is, however. If math isn't about rigor, what is it about? Vincent (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You just cited the revert of a different editor, and continue this discussion in a combative, uncivil, and non-constructive tone.
 * To me, it was clear from the context that 1 is fixed, and the number e is to the right. Of course,  Purgy's edit lays all possible confusion to rest.  Mathematics articles are not "about rigor"; they are about communicating ideas.  If some ideas can be communicated in a clearer way, that's certainly a worthwhile discussion.  In the future, please be sure that the edits you make communicate the same intended ideas.  If you are unsure what is intended, you can post a note on the discussion page of the article.
 * I ask that you now cease posting here, if you cannot be appropriately respectful. Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   13:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Slawomir, cheer up! Brownhaired Girl was mistaken in her analysis of the RfC. Going over the whole RfC, it is readily apparent that there is no consensus established to delete any of the portals, and certainly not outside of the MfD process. Also, if/when the RFC proposal fails, there should be no mass deletions of portals allowed for a good duration. MfDs of lots of portals immediately after the the RfC closes as no consensus should be speedy closed. By the way, the clean up effort I would like to see is the upgrading of features, to give editors flexibility in automating portals. And rather than tagging, make passes with AWB to bring all portals to a non-deletable state. Come join in on the tasks and discussions. It may help to cheer you up. -TT


 * Thanks for the invitation, but I don't really have strong opinions about the outcome of the Portal namespace. I was simply supplying a rather disinterested view of the RfC, which I feel was way over the top with WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, and extremely thin on substance for the scope of the changes being proposed.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You should not have reverted that edit
I am asking you to self-revert this edit because an obvious local consensus supported not restoring it after my initial challenged removal. (12 support removal to 8 includes). I also said on the TP why I removed the material. It appears that you forgot I had challenged that material right after it was added per NOTNEWS on April 17th. I'm not sure when it was replaced in part, don't have time to search it, but it never should have been added back, especially while there was an ongoing survey to restore. I actually have 2 reasons that support my position regarding your noncompliant edit. I am pinging since he has been overseeing that article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, as far as I can tell, you are participating in the discussion and determining what is consensus. Which is not good. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Atsme was also a participant in that discussion, and I explicitly contest that there was any such consensus for removal. I agree.  Not good.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The addition was immediately challenged two weeks ago. Therefore the addition needs consensus. Please self-revert. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the page and thought that needs to be restored - just as Sławomir. Then I stumbled in this discussion and self-reverted. This is really really really misleading restriction. Who knows if two weeks old content was "long-standing" or not and what had happen on the page two weeks ago. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, and everyone else here, what makes this confusing is that we're actually talking about two different versions of content. A much shorter, long-standing, version was not contested, but a much larger version was contested and the subject of edit warring. I explained this, but my comment is still the last one in the thread, and no one has responded. While the long, contested, version was deleted and being discussed, I restored the much shorter original, long-standing, version. Now people are confusing the two and more edit warring is occurring. The original, much shorter, version should remain until this dispute is settled. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * BR - no, it's not confusing. It's about the McClatchy edit I challenged per NOTNEWS. Melanie also pointed out that it was cited to a single source and it's unverified. No part of McClatchey's allegation about Cohen belongs in the article, long or short.  While I agree there should be a better way to determine what is or isn't a long standing edit, this particular edit was never in question - common sense tells us it is recent; therefore not long-standing. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncommon notation for PDEs
You removed my edit to Partial differential equation stating it is "Extremely uncommon notation". I am not a mathematician so I do not have an opinion on this but my motivation for including it was that I came across this notation on the Encyclopedia of Math website.

See also |this discussion.

To save other's confusion, I suggest we should either
 * Revise www.encyclopediaofmath.org page (could be difficult)
 * Include this notation with a suitable footnote statement as "uncommon or not-recommended notation"

What do you think?

Billtubbs (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. I'd include a citation to the EoM for good measure.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note
--<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

wiki hounding
Why are you doing this? You are suppose to state why you are undoing edits. Plus you revert all the them on a page not just the parts you feel are wrong. BernardZ (talk)


 * Your corrections employ English idioms wrongly, in some cases are grammatically nonsensical, and in other cases actually change the meaning. If you're not competent in English, please stop copy editing.  It is considered disruptive and may result in sanctions.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this was true you are supposed to say exactly what is wrong with them.

BernardZ (talk)


 * I just did.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think you are right about this either, "Missiology" for example is despite what you said not a direct quote. BernardZ (talk)
 * If it's not a direct quote, the passage you altered should not begin with a quotation mark and end with a reference.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A direct quote my friend has "" around it BernardZ (talk)
 * Ehm, it does.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Gravitational lens what do you dislike with *about*, I think it reads much better then what was there. BernardZ (talk)
 * It is glaringly and obviously not the proper English idiom. What "reads much better" to you is clearly not proper English.  That's why you shouldn't be copy editing an English encyclopedia.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about this too. Clearly English is not your native tongue.

BernardZ (talk)

What is the difference now between *absolute infinite* and *infinite* to you BernardZ (talk)
 * If you had read the article, you would know the answer to this.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did since it objects the "absolute infinite" and "infinite" are the same. Absolute is either wrong or superfluous in this context, it would be different if say you were talking in dollars which can be negative. BernardZ (talk)
 * Absolute infinity is a specific technical term, as explained in the article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please specify where in the article you feell that Absolute infinity is specified

BernardZ (talk)

Explain what is Ungrammatical about this statement? Caesar could claim personal ties to the gods, both by descent and the office BernardZ (talk)


 * "by descent and the office" is not correct. It should be "by descent and by office".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * he does not inherit "by office" by definition.

BernardZ (talk)

Why do you consider after a date in a sentence, a comma is wrong. BernardZ (talk)

PS Thanks for putting in exactly what you do not like about it as it least we can address your concerns now. BernardZ (talk)

Limit of a function - generalization
Hi, Sławek, you are the author of the section Limit of a function, added in May 2015 (Special:Diff/664195051). Can you, please, add some reference to it?

I can see such general definition is useful, e.g. in higher dimensions you can sometimes find different subsets of the domain with the same limit point S, each subset easily implying its own limit at S, then conclude the 'general' limit at S does not exist. For example axes OX and OY are such subsets of R2 to show the limit of xy doesn't exist at (0, 0).

But is it actually formally defined in any book...? --CiaPan (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Scalarfield.jpg


The file File:Scalarfield.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Topologies on the set of positive integers


A tag has been placed on Category:Topologies on the set of positive integers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)