User talk:Tiphareth

Closure of Siberian Wikipedia
Oppose. Siberian Wikipedia is a marvellous creative endeavour, its destruction is a disgusting act of cowardice and vandalism. Especially so, because it is politically motivated. The fascistic crowd cheering destruction of this Wiki would be just as happy at Nazi rallies, burning books. -- Tiphareth 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Katyn censorship
Simply put, there is no need for a seperate section on 'Katyn denial' - it is discussed throughout the article. You are welcome to add information to it, particularly the last section which already mentions various attempts of denial, but adding a new section just with that example is not improving the overall style of the article. Also, you may want to be careful with accusing others of 'censorship' and 'bad faith', per WP:NPA and WP:AGF.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, thank you for your message. >Also, you may want to be careful >with accusing others of 'censorship' As I said to you, I am not going to go into deletion wars with you, so your threats lack a point. >Simply put, there is no need for a seperate section on >'Katyn denial' - it is discussed throughout the article. It's "separate". And you did not remove the section, you removed everything. Quote, unquote:  Russian dissident writer Yu.I. Mukhin (an editor of a radical newspaper Duel) wrote a book "Katyn Detective" ("Катынский детектив") purporting to show that all documents of Katyn massacre are in fact forgeries. This theory is refuted on the site КАТЫНЬ.  This is what you deleted. If that's not censorship, I don't know what is. Anyway, they do have the "Holocaust denial" section in Holocaust. Your attempt to expunge the mention of dissent in Katyn pages looks like someone would go and remove all mention of Holocaust denial from Holocaust pages. It makes your point a way less credible. Best regards Tiphareth 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Although you've been here 6 months, I see no one actually said "welcome" yet, so, belatedly:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! <...> You might also be interested in following the discussions that occur at WikiProject Mathematics. linas 15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tiphareth!
Hi, Tiphareth! Welcome to Wikipedia!

I just reviewed your article Hall's universal group. I made a few tiny changes related to English idiom. It's a good article. Thank you! DavidCBryant 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Effort on algebras
Hi - looks like there's a lot of work to do here, in getting the existing articles on certain algebras brought into a better form. Also, as you point out, we need to prepare them for future new articles. By the way, last year in July I rewrote the hypercomplex number article, and in doing some background investigation I came by the hypercomplex.ru group. It appears that some of your terminology and wording is similar to what is in use there. Related or not, I thank you for the heads-up on para-quaternionic geometry! Please don't hesitate to let me/us know if there's anything else to expect. You may want to have a look at the hypercomplex number article and update it if you feel like it. The article is currently a bit unordered (but contains good content), and it would be a good time to add more content to it (i.e. before restructuring it).

Just FYI - I've created a personal sandbox here, about the articles I'm interested in updating, and it surely is a long list. Oh well, the summer is long, I guess ... Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Subharmonic function
Hi Tiphareth. Thank you for adding a section on subharmonic functions on manifolds to Subharmonic function. I moved it to the bottom since I think that the case of the complex plane should be treated first, since it is simpler.

I have a note. It is good that you don't break lines of text when editing, but rather rely on the browser to do wrap lines around. If you insert newlines in text, the wikitext looks kind of odd on the screen of people who have an editing box of different width.

Also, by laplacian, did you mean the Laplace-DeRham operator in the section on manifolds? Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(Pseudo)science in Russia
Dear Tiphareth, could you please pay attention to Russian Academy of Sciences, Rosnanotekh, Mikhail Kovalchuk and others from time to time? As of now the articles are not very insightful, and the situation is getting worse, as there are likely to be many wikipedians trying hard to keep English Wiki as sterile as the Russian one. You seem to have a lot to say on the subject, so please get involved. Colchicum 12:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will try. Though it's not likely to help, I'm afraid - - the political lobbying and cronyism seems to be all-powerful in WP, especially in all issues related to Russia Tiphareth 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSMATH
Please:
 * ab=-1 (wrong!)
 * ab = &minus;1 (right)
 * ab = &minus;1 (right)
 * ab = &minus;1 (right)


 * A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen;
 * Neither is an ndash, as in "pp. 83–96;
 * Variables are italicized; digits and parentheses, etc., are NOT;
 * Spacing precedes and follows "=", "+", etc. (but not in things like "+5", where "+" is a purely unary operator;

This matches TeX style. And TeX can be avoided in many contexts where it fails to macth the surrounding text, either by being too high or too low, or by being four times the size of the surrounding letters. It's all in WP:MOSMATH. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Tiphareth (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Normal crossing divisor
You give an inductive definition of normal crossing divisors which I am having a hard time understanding. The definition I know is that the intersections of the irreducible components should (étale) locally look like an intersection of coordinate hyperplanes. In your definition, what happens if we have two conics in the plane intersecting each other in a tangent point? Sorry I am not that experienced with algebraic geometry, so my complaints may be trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masnevets (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The intersection of two conics which are tangential is a double point, hence it is not a reduced Cartier divisor. But anyway, please change the definition or add an equivalent one if you wish. The one that I gave is a textbook one, so it's standard. Tiphareth (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which textbook is this definition from? The article doesn't have any references. And I was asking about the union of the two conics intersecting tangentially. It seems that under your definition it is a normal crossing divisor: when we do the inductive step, the ambient variety is now a curve, so it seems to not notice the fact that they don't intersect transversally. Masnevets (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I run a search in Google and found out that this precise definition is found in the paper Semistable 3-fold flips by Alessio Corti (1995). It's fairly standard, I suspect in some of Miles Reid's textbooks you can find this very same definition. I don't remember whose lecture notes I took it from, sorry. Tiphareth (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * -- It seems that under your definition it is a normal crossing divisor -- No, it's not a normal crossing divisor, the restriction of the first divisor to the second is not reduced. Tiphareth (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584967277 your edit] to Mayer Brown may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * что в этой сети не бывает|url=http://newsru.com/russia/02aug2013/mizulina.html|newspaper=NEWSru.com |date=2 August 2013}} Also, Mizulina was quoted as saying that

need for a quantized space to support Poincare recurrence theorem
Tiphareth,

I am wondering why you deleted my entire addition to the Poincare recurrence theorem, if your only objection is the relevance of the Continuum Hypothesis. I think you are right in that respect. But despite my error, I think a quantized space is required for the theorem to be strictly true. As I am sure you are aware, a truly continuous space (described by real numbers) will allow for an infinite number of possible locations between any two points, no matter how closely chosen. This is the difference between a countable infinity and an uncountable one, as demonstrated so nicely by Cantor's diagonal argument. This seems to mean that a strict interpretation of the recurrence theorem requires a quantized space, or else the recurrence period for any given point would be arbitrarily large.

I would like to know your thoughts on the necessity for a quantized space for any strict interpretation of the recurrence theorem. Reference to a return "to a state very close to the initial state" seems to me to beg the entire point of the theorem, especially when the "sufficiently long but finite time" turns out to be infinite in a continuous space.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Odyssoma (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Odyssoma


 * I don't think that "quantized space" is a valid notion in mathematics, it sounds like a hippie-dippie wishwash. In any case, if you want to use this term, you should point out to its definition elsewhere (create a separate article with a definition and reference and refer to it, for instance; then this article would be deleted, too, most likely, because of No original research rule) Tiphareth (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tiphareth,

Thank you for your reply. You have given me some food for thought. Given your contributions to Wikipedia, I would like to continue this discussion, if you are willing. You are obviously free to terminate the exchange if you feel that I am becoming argumentative or proposing irrational edits. This exchange would be confined to the substance of the Poincare recurrence, so I guess it is appropriate for this forum. Or, if you prefer email, could you please provide one? Mine is jameslrj@sbcglobal.net. (As you can see from my stumbling through the Wikipedia procedures, I am new to Wikipedia edits and communication.)

Thanks again,

Odyssoma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyssoma (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bernstein–Kushnirenko theorem
Hello.

Lately it seems almost universal to find newly created articles having _no_ other articles linking to them. So it is with Bernstein–Kushnirenko theorem. That should hardly ever happen. If you know of other articles that should link to that one, could you add the links? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will add a link from Khovanskiy's page Tiphareth (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of James Havoc for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Havoc is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/James Havoc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)