User talk:YohanN7/Archive 2

A timely judicious intervention barnstar
Followup. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That article would be harmless (and useless) except that it will deter readers from the real article. This is problematic. The subject might warrant an article of its own, but as it stands now, it's best to nominate it for deletion. It is just too bad. YohanN7 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Latest development. YohanN7 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

S-matrix in one dimension
Thanks for liking this new section.The form of short range potential is that,it is zero outside some finite region,inside that region it is some complicated single valued function.Then why the K vector is different for left and right side of that barrier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibyendum (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss this is the article talk page. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes (~) YohanN7 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * many many thanks for guiding me.Dibyendum (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * YW!
 * Cuzkatzimhut saw that it was okay and took time (that he didn't have he said) to go through it. YohanN7 (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But this convention is used in Eugen Merzbacher and Griffiths quantum mechanics book.Dibyendum (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know that you can "watch" pages and have a "watchlist". (Look for tabs up left and far up right.) I'm not missing anything. YohanN7 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Derivative of the exponential map has been accepted
 Derivative of the exponential map, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Cerebellum (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:YohanN7 help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Angstrom
Hey! Noticed you undid my revision. I'll be putting it back in and suggest we can chat about it in that page's talk page. It is actually highly appropriate in a page about the angstrom to comment on what is appropriate for SI, much like we don't use barleycorns or flagons for other measurements. I'd be willing of course to mold the sentence to one which is preferable, but just outright deleting of comments is, as you probably know, protectionism and really kind of lazy wiki. Looking forward to a good discussion though! Cpt ricard (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to understand what article talk pages are for. Or do you? Why do you bring it up here? YohanN7 (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rotation group SO(3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RHS. 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, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Internet archive and bookzz.org
Hi, in case you haven't come across internet archive before - they're often very good for old textbooks or papers which are fully viewable, readable online and even downloadable as pdf, as opposed to google books or amazon which only allow limited preview access.

There is also bookzz.org which I just discovered yesterday. It will allow a few books to be downloaded as PDF or DJVU (which can be converted to PDF using any online DJVU-to-PDF convertor), and viewed. Without an account, only about 7 are allowed per 24 hours. If you have an account (you only need an email, password, and nickname, no payments and no need for institutional membership), apparently you can get 100 per 24 hours. If you donate money, you get even more per 24 hours. It seems you can get almost everything there, so if you have an account, I think for verifying references this is far more superior to google books or JSTOR (based on the restrictions outlined by you on Quondum's talk page).

A good example for both sites is Gibb's vector analysis, at bookzz.org and at internet archive. You can also get the famous volumes of the Landau-Lifshitz (et al) Course of theoretical physics, Courant's classical works on Calculus and Analysis, a famous book on differential forms (I only recently discovered...) is Harold's Advanced Calculus: A Differential Forms Approach, and plenty of otherwise-unaffordable books published by Springer and Wiley.

Have fun! ^_^ M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you're watching Quondum's talk page, but I responded to the thread there and point to the discussion from here (for reference)... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

From the physics professor who writes on wikipedia
Hi - I just wanted to clarify a minor confusion. Your response on my talk page started with the question: '''Why not ask where you intend to edit? '. I could not process the question because I thought I had posted on the talk page to Average''. I hit the wrong "Talk" button on my Wikipedia browser. I thought you posted the response on my talk page because you were irritated that I even posted on the talk page for that article. Some of our colleagues are quite "odd", and I am glad to know you don't seem to be one of them.--guyvan52 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet more refs...
not from bookzz.org.

Have you seen



? Both seem good (certainly very detailed) for classical group theory and group representations. (I have Gilmore from dover since it was very cheap, not Barut & Rączka because the latter book is everywhere ludicrously expensive even for a 2nd hand copy (more than £100 or US $ 156.96)...). They don't seem to be in the references for Representation theory of the Lorentz group, maybe they'll fit in. Keep up the good work there! ^_^

M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, I have noticed that the more good references you have, the more relevant facts you can find that really belongs. I'm actually planning to do some major additions to the L rep article, answering the question; what does the infinite-dimensional reps look like when viewed as (infinite) matrices in a suitable basis? This Q can be answered concisely and has a meaningful answer. The answer lies partly in two Dirac papers (recently added as refs) and Harish-Chandra's 1947 paper and books elaborating on these. The other (complimentary) part of the answer lies in a new ref I got my hands on, fully described at an accessible level in The representations of the rotation and Lorentz groups for physicists by Shrinivasa Rao (not ref in article yet), together with the Russian papers involving Israel Gelfand. I have desperately tried to find translations of all the articles/books in foreign languages. They were added by User:mathsci, who wrote the original infinite-dimensional part, knowing what he was doing, now sadly involved in one of those little quarrels with some admin. Next is to do the tensor product decomposition rigorously (really Clebsch-Gordan decomposition). YohanN7 (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
I am thanking you here to avoid undue chatter elsewhere. I will study what you have kindly written for me.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I apologize for my tone. It just happens when I get irritated because I don't get my point through. By getting my point through, I do not mean convincing anyone that I am right. I mean just making myself understood. Then I am fully prepared to be corrected in case I am wrong. What happened here was that I (I'm sure) understood what you meant, but you probably didn't understand what I meant. Before this mutual understanding happens, it is extremely hard to make progress for any of us. YohanN7 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No apology from you called for. You were civil and patient and careful and polite and helpful. I will not detain you with too much comment here. But I can say that my concerns about configuration space are not my own invention. I did not give my sources, but they seem reliable and I think there is probably something there. I will not try to put the case now, but I will continue to investigate this. Your comments have been helpful and valuable. Perhaps it will turn out that my sources are misleading, or I might have misread them, but on the face of it they seem carefully researched, and are actually cited in Weinberg's 2013 quantum mechanics text. That is not to imply that I was not mistaken. I think I was mistaken at least in some important respects, though perhaps not in all important respects.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Something completely different: I am rereading the talk page now, and I notice that you have more than once reorganized posts. For one thing, you have - afterwards - inserted section headings (for readability). You have also intersected my posts, by copying my signature in order to reply point by point. (I'm 90% sure of this, apologies if I am mistaken.) I did the latter to your post once in revenge. Both of these changes, while the intention was good, are big no-no's. Posts don't read as they should for the later audience. For instance, User:Ancheta Wis response begins with the label Thank you. While that particular editor is always endlessly polite, the intention was not to label the post with a big fat thank you (considering Ancheta Wis has edited the article). YohanN7 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Back on track. Yes, I'd very much like to see the references for the configuration space issue. Could you throw in page number in the Weinberg text too? I have it, but I have only skimmed it briefly. YohanN7 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My sources are mixed and for your best convenience I think it good that I should check further before taking more of your time with this. As I said, the word 'fundamental' is dangerous. That is because it is almost religious in practice. I will need time to think this through. As I said, it has not occurred to me that I am wanting a different quantum mechanics. I think of myself as wanting a different 'application' of it. The words 'application' and 'specialization' are relevant here. Again, I need time. My main source is Preparata. I need to read and check his whole approach. Another main source is Tommasini. I don't think they are cited by Weinberg. The Weinberg one is Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, page 27 of Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Backing up them is Don Howard, whom I regard as reliable.


 * I don't want to occupy your time with this till I have looked at it more. Perhaps I am mistaken. But perhaps I might hint, with a 'don't take time on this' flag. I am now tentatively entertaining the idea that QFT rests on a Cartesian product of QM × STR. (Special theory of relativity) In my terms, that would be """"""fundamentally"""""" different from QM by itself. The foregoing is tentative and might be nonsense. What was that "Cartesian product" ? It was just a passing proto-thought. What does "rests on" mean? As I said, I need time.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology - task
I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier access
Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted changes to the page "Representation theory of the Lorentz group"
Hi. I edited that formula becomes it gives a parse error (to me at least):

Ggf4t (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strange. I use PNG rendering, and it works fine for me. I'll try MathJax and MathML and see. (You forgot to sign.) YohanN7 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I use MathML. By the way, debugging the formula the error seemed to stem from the use of nested \overline Ggf4t (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can confirm your observations, but PNG and MathJax work (the latter very slowly). YohanN7 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll leave it to you as I'm not expert in the subject anyway so I'd risk screwing up. Good luck (outstanding work with the page by the way!) Ggf4t (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * I have posted a bug report to the MathML people. YohanN7 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

urgent message
Please urgently look at Talk:Wave function.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier
Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks so much for helping out with the M-theory review. If you want to support the article for featured status, please remember to write the word "Support" in bold on the review page. That way the coordinators will see that your concerns have been addressed! Polytope24 (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gonna report you to the police
You insulted me several times and are not willing to take it back or excuse, so I'm gonna report you to the police now!! So I need your (real) name and adress now!! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 93.197.9.147 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yohan, feel free to ping me anytime this harassment via block evasion occurs in the future and I'll issue the necessary block(s) as quickly as possible. -- Kinu  t/c 17:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To be honest, I find this kind of amusing. YohanN7 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thomas, do you remember when I told you that you would regret getting yourself banned? What would you do to fill up your days? Before you did it you could occupy yourself with being a crank (which is allowed in Wikipedia). Now you have nothing. Also remember that I was the only one who defended your rights to be a lunatic, and asked them to not block you. YohanN7 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Lie algebra extension Victor Kac.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Lie algebra extension Victor Kac.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter Greiner
Hi! If you're interested, at long last we have an article on Greiner (which surprised me, thought we already had one). Best, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, he deserves one. Good job!
 * Now I'll have some author-linking to do. YohanN7 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lie Algebra Extension Miguel Ángel Virasoro.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Lie Algebra Extension Miguel Ángel Virasoro.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Otto Schreier.jpeg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Otto Schreier.jpeg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gilmore's book might have stuff
... of relevance to incubated article. The last ref in group contraction by Gilmore has a neat section on Group expansions , III EXPANSIONS, pp 477&mdash;492, if you could get your hands on it. He believes in lots of hands-on examples and exercises....    Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can get to a Google book copy. (I copied this to the drafts talk page.) YohanN7 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Avoid inline TeX
Thing is, that this page looks very untidy, to say the least, due to the mixed style (sometimes HTML-entities, sometimes TeX, sometimes UTF-8-chars and whatnot) for one and the same symbol.

I'd like to have this fixed in _one_ style, and one style that matches the displayed formulae. This, I think, would help the reader grasp the complex topic explained here.

Therefore, I will continue and re-revert my edits.--&#42;thing goes (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You have to bring this up at the talk page over there. Mixing DIPLAYED TeX with HTML for inline is acceptable. Inline TeX is never acceptable when possible at all to avoid. YohanN7 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did that. However, I strongly disapprove of the banishment on inline-TeX, since the technology for appropriate display is available for everyone to use. Also, without a unified notation, there is the semantic problem of not being able to identify mathematical notation automatically for maintenance operations in the future, and the problem of your suggested practice encouraging everyone to mix-and-match whatever else an editor might see fit for emulating proper notation.
 * This outdated practice is not content-driven, but induced by inferior technology of the past. Technology has moved on, and so should such outdated policies.--&#42;thing goes (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my joining the fray. I fear technology has not moved on, yet, the world over: WP is being read from sundry platforms on the planet, of varying stages of modernity, and not every reader is updating their machines relentlessly. Serving the broadest possible readership is the object. Converting to in-text TeX unleashes numerous problems in lots of platforms, and I trust you would spend some time to change your WP viewing preferences to each and every option to get an impression of how much of the world experiences the final product, using Help:Displaying_a_formula. You may have noticed agonized complaints in talk pages focussing on failing MathJax, and poor TeX parsing. (You might follow this theme in User_talk:Cuzkatzimhut, or User_talk:Cuzkatzimhut.) Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lie algebra extension has been accepted
 Lie algebra extension, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! —CraigyDavi (T∙C∙@) 20:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:YohanN7 help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

No DOI = no good
Why is the blog entry of a fields medalist "no good"? What does a published book help me if it is not available? For this very reason I find freely available sources very useful! I just don't get your motivation for deleting them. --Randomguess (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just posted on your talk page seconds ago explaining. Can we please continue there? YohanN7 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks we have a mid air collision. My point is that the lecture notes of professors at renowned universities are definitely reliable sources (at least for math/phys) and I usually want I freely available (which I think is what WP is about) source where I can read more. There are numerous articles linking to lecture notes and following your logic one would need to remove them all. Of course I agree that according to WP standards there should also be published references. --Randomguess (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, professors at renowned universities are usually reliable. They are also sources. That does not make them reliable sources. The logic is not mine, but I can easily see the rationale. The quality of the articles would deteriorate if 'professor' was enough for inclusion. If we had a committee of specialists keeping each article under surveillance, then it might work. But letting in lecture notes by random professors, or random blog posts, without surveillance does not work. The surveillance is provided for us by the peer-review process prior to publication.
 * In addition, most all of these lecture notes/blogs can be found within seconds anyway via an internet search. If these notes/blogs figure in the articles, it is as if we endorse them (in blanco).
 * Moreover, there is a lot of self-promotion going on at Wikipedia. Getting an entry in an article such as the Brouwer fixed-point theorem is an accolade. (Your name is right besides Poincarés.) When this happens, these people get undue credit for work done by someone else. YohanN7 (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are adding back these lecture notes. They are also being put into other articles. What part of the above do you not understand? That about self-promotion? It applies to promotion as well, if you happen to be Teschl's student instead of Teschl himself. YohanN7 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I was not even online and in particular made no further changes. In particular, such unfair accusations just cause frustration and decrease motivation to make changes here. I can only partly follow your arguments, but I see that you don't like my changes and as I am the novice user here I accept this.--Randomguess (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

You have mail
M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Velocity-addition formula, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages FRS and Aether. 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) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

lets have a talk on Minkowski space
Hi, I see you editing a lot on Minkowski space and it doesn't make the readability any better (nor makes it any worse either) Could we have a talk on the structure of the whole page, I tried to start a discussion of it some time ago on Talk:Minkowski space while maybe that is (still) a split to far, lets discuss the structure of the gage there or on a new section. minkowski space is a complicated subject on the intersection of two complicated subjects and i think the structure of the page needs carefull concideration. I was tempted to do some changes but will refrain for the moment (I was thinking about: move minkowski picture to history, and having a new main picture, not sure about the side bars, where did my link to minkowski plane go? and so on.)WillemienH (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place to discuss is Talk:Minkowski space. Not here. YohanN7 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That is just the place I wanted to discuss it :) WillemienH (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Flat'n sharp
Thank you for [this edit]. I don't store the complete unicode character tables stored in my memory, and actually anticipated your edit. (Normally I'd just have asked.) YohanN7 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And the point of mentioning a trivial edit on my talk is what? I hadn't noticed that that section had just been added so recently, since I was not looking at a diff.  —Quondum 14:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is to let you know that I am not mad at you for this. YohanN7 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You have a distinctly oblique way of communicating that; it could have been interpreted as an expression of irritation. Even Maschen has evidently grown guardedly neutral in these interactions.  —Quondum 15:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're correct Quondum, I have been neutral in these interactions by neglecting your lecturing authoritative tone, and never ever, not once at all, challenging what you say. In future I will not hold back challenging what other editors say when they make confident statements without sources. I will actually think, compose my answer, and back it up by sources. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to know; it's a pity if you felt thus constrained in the past. Though I would have appreciated knowing earlier about the apparent antipathy on your part.  Clearly my communication style leaves something to be desired.  —Quondum 16:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For one thing, it would help if you used less elaborate language and not ramble on talk pages especially talk:Thomas precession (hence your own principles of clarity and terseness when writing).
 * For another, the Thomas precession incident just highlights that you do write with an authority, and when others disagree because people "couldn't align the basics" with what you said, you just walked off. The fact you even made an accusation that we (YohanN7 and myself) were the ones doing OR despite the sources provided, while you made a statement without sources, was just hypocrisy. Surely you realize your dialogue throughout the incident started off authoritative but ultimately was rather childish/stroppy? This is not an insult, it is an honest criticism.
 * That said, I wasn't "feeling constrained" in the past. I just didn't make any effort to challenge in case I appeared forceful on my own ideas, and since your collaboration has long been positive I was willing to follow your lead. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Though I would have appreciated knowing earlier about the apparent antipathy on your part.
 * Would you? I am less polished than M (but probably more than IM) and have let you know. The result is just a more condescending tone from you.
 * The interesting observation is that the product of the level of superiority in your tone with the level of your actual knowledge of the subject at hand seems to be fairly constant, $sk = C$. I made this observation long ago. It makes it unbearable to discuss with you those times when you are almost totally lost and consult your intuition that you, evidently, hold higher than verifiability, and closer to the truth than what published scientists claim. YohanN7 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * M, yes, my interaction degenerated. I would hope that you consider me as a person who has an opinion, not someone who comes across as being authoritative.  My behaviour after that was all downhill, and my withdrawal was primarily due to my own excessive reaction and inability to comport myself.
 * Y, perhaps you are missing a nuance here: the difference between considering past actions and their impacts (as M is doing), and making characterisations and generalizations about a person (as you have done in your post above). —Quondum 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss it. And you aren't in a very good position to attack. I just said in the very same post that am less polished than M. Someone must tell you sooner or later I figured, rightly or wrongly. After all, you yourself wished that M had been blunt earlier about you tone, did I get that wrong too?. As for me, I honestly believe that you are a very valuable positive force at WP over all, and I'm perfectly willing to let this all be forgotten. We could probably discuss the issue further over email, the three of us if you want to. I have plenty more to say about your modus operandi (but I am not that unpolished that I'd say it here), and I'm sure you have things to say in return too. Time to clear the air. YohanN7 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Q, I still do find you a valuable editor because you express opinions. Nothing wrong with commenting or questioning if something does not make sense.
 * However, after looking through more of your interactions (including those with YN7), you are certainly not destructive or nasty, but do seem to latch onto your views, and if a discussion fails to head in the intended direction then you exit, sometimes with an unhappy remark as if the others involved should change their mind. I am not dwelling on past interactions for the sake of it, they are relevant because it seems like a behavioral pattern, and the very recent incident was no better. I have never seen you be as counterproductive as this.
 * My posts above were not to extract apologies or confessions, just to say what was needed to be said. That's all. As YN7 says time to move on. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Y, the email approach was an unmitigated disaster on the previous attempt, and you make it sound like you are seeking to pick up the hatchet rather than bury it.
 * M, I am trying to steer clear of the behaviour by early diagnosis of a degeneration of an interaction, but am clearly not so successful. Yes, time to move on, but not to clear the air.  —Quondum 20:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On WP it just boils down to what the references say. Remember I have admitted part of the incident was my fault too, I should have just clearly stated that in the original papers (by Mocanu and Ungar) the diagrams were based from, the space-like axes in the frames remain orthogonal, and that would have saved considerable time and energy. If you had no access to the sources, and wanted to verify anything, you could have just asked. If you had sources which supported your view then there's nothing wrong with pointing to them. None of this happened... Anyway this is my last post here today. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 20:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, time to move on, but not to clear the air.
 * Another attempt to regain authority and control by trying to make someone else inferior because he thinks he spotted a wiki no-no. Quondum is not interested in changing behavior by his interactions here.


 * He reserves his rights to say anything and remain unquestioned. Right M, you will not find any explicit rudeness in Q's posts. You'll just find the tone, like edit summaries, dripping of sarcasm, saying "really?", when he has dropped a boo-boo on a talk page. It is part of his well tuned mode of operation. He disqualifies me and my arguments because I have stood up to him in the past. Such things are not allowed in his world. He thinks he can get away with anything since any questioning of his behavior (and particularly his knowledge when he is on a spree) counts as a personal attack, and must therefore be disregarded. Perhaps true Q, you'll win the battle, but you'll not win the war. The real war you have to fight is against yourself. Do it! YohanN7 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I regard this as unwelcome and unnecessary harassment. Do not post in my user space again.  —Quondum 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet another attempt to regain authority and control by trying to make someone else inferior because he thinks he spotted a wiki no-no.
 * Unwelcome of course. Harassment? Perhaps. Necessary? Yes! YohanN7 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Field theoretic Poisson brackets?
I think some time ago you mentioned these are nowhere on WP. I started recently Hamiltonian field theory since there was also nowhere to find the field equations. The field Poisson brackets are in there.

Nice to see you active again! ^_^ M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! That article has a nice and clean appearance. We should also be aware that Hamiltonian field theory may refer to a huge and difficult topic (makes my head spin) on its own in mathematics (just like Lagrangian field theory does). The common denominator is Hamiltonian system. (Edit: Our article seems to focus exclusively on the classical mechanics case as opposed to its counterpart Lagrangian system that concentrates on field theory.) In both of these disciplines (Lagrange, Hamilton), relativity makes notable differences, not only in physics, and QM makes huge differences, geometric quantization and other topics pop up. "Geometric" means differential geometry. I'm not sure about official names of these topics. It may go under Hamiltonian formulation, etc, or whatever. YohanN7 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not set on the title, anyone is free to move as long as it clearly indicates field theory somewhere. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting a move at present because I wouldn't know what to call it This is a nice start for a perfectly general article on Hamiltonian field theory (or whatever it may be called), the super-abstract things can be introduced much later (if ever).


 * However, there is a gap in our articles, or at least in their names. Both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian typed in the search box should lead to two (or more, there is a quantum version as well) articles for each; One dealing with the function on configuration space/phase space, and the other to the functional on the corresponding thing for classical fields. Then there are operators and fields operators.


 * A poor sod who is looking for a small neat article on "Lagrangian", thinking about maybe a pendulum or something is now lead to the main article on a complete theory of classical mechanics (Lagrangian mechanics). The same applies (mutatis mutandis) to Hamiltonian. To be more precise, we should have these articles ideally,
 * Lagrangian (mechanics) &mdash; the function on configuration space
 * Lagrangian (field theory) &mdash; the functional on field theoretical configuration space
 * [Lagrangian (quantum mechanics) &mdash; operator - just maybe (yes, it exists)]
 * [Lagrangian (quantum field theory) &mdash; field operator - just maybe (yes, it exists)]
 * Hamiltonian (mechanics) &mdash; the function on phase space
 * Hamiltonian (field theory) &mdash; the functional on field theoretical phase space;
 * Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics)&mdash; the operator
 * Hamiltonian (quantum field theory)&mdash; the field operator,
 * where the rarest animals are disqualified at the outset. Then we should also have
 * Lagrangian mechanics
 * Lagrangian field theory
 * Hamiltonian mechanics
 * Hamiltonian field theory,
 * which we do have, except Lagrangian field theory which is yet to be written. YohanN7 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is good to list all these possibilities, now it will help sort out the mess the classical mechanics and field theory articles are in. We should keep this list somewhere. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Four-momentum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hamiltonian and Lagrangian. 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) 09:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit on Mathsci's talk page
I don't know any history between you and Mathsci, but this edit appears to be completely unhelpful and unnecessarily combative. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Trödel 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the article on "Unitary Representations"
Smooth vectors are dense in H by a classical argument of Lars Gårding, since convolution by smooth functions of compact support yields smooth vectors.

Can you explain (preferably within the article) how it is possible to convolve with functions when all we have is an abstract Hilbert space? What are the functions and how are they related to the vectors of the Hilbert space? 84.227.20.67 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll copy this to the relevant talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent reverts
Could you explain why you revert several citation tags for references, and state in your edit summary, "Reverting editor showing evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing.". If you look at many of those article talk pages you will see that readers have either trouble to understand them, or asking for references. Please read WP:Technical, a scope of Wikipefdia is to write articles for a broad audience, and content requires references, and those should be inline together with content. prokaryotes (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, YohanN7. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 17:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)prokaryotes (talk)


 * Are you just disappointed that your now 120 straight edits long spree have not established consensus for your POV? You should also note that other than Cuzkatzimhut and me have reverted your misinformed edits. YohanN7 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1
YohanN7, as far as I can tell this is your first GA review, and I'm not sure whether you understand the process, though we greatly appreciate you taking on a nomination on a technical subject like this one.

There are specific criteria that GA nominations must meet, and your review doesn't mention any of them, or if you specifically checked against them all. Further, you didn't follow the instructions on how to conclude (or possibly conduct) the review, as was noted by the nominator who has been left wondering what you intended. The instructions page has a section on Reviewing; Steps 1 and 3 are particularly germane here.

Since this is your first review, it would help if you showed your work, as it were: mention what you checked, from prose and grammar to coverage to sourcing to images and so on. It's extremely rare that an article has no grammatical errors (even down to spelling and punctuation) that need fixing. (If they're minor, you can always fix the errors yourself rather than waiting for

If you could return to the review and continue or conclude it, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, I do understand the process, but I pressed the wrong button (hoping to get to the review page), not realizing then I created it and "committed" myself to doing the review. Since then, I have not been present at Wiki at all. Best is if someone else can take over, since I will not be here much in the near future. YohanN7 (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

About Electromagnetic induction
Electromagnetic induction RakesSinghRajput (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What's your point?? 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wigner rotation
Hi YohanN7! I have started Wigner rotation and included Wigner's paper. It remains to cut duplication and rewrite Thomas precession. I am sorry to chop and change the content you wrote for that article and know you put lots of effort in, and have tried to preserve as much as what both of us have written. It now seems Wigner rotation flows much smoother.

Hope you have a nice Christmas break! ^_^ 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll have a look when I have more time. Happy NY! YohanN7 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have updated Thomas precession with the relevant context, more diagrams will be added.


 * Yes, happy new year to you also! ^_^ 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lorentz transformation
Re: your edits to the Lorentz transformation article... Not only isn't it the case that "From Einstein's second postulate of relativity follows immediately", but it doesn't follow at all! Rather, it follows from simple algebra (as I showed in the edit you deleted). Einstein's second postulate doesn't figure into it until later in the transformation. Ross Fraser (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You showed the interval is invariant for light signals. From this you cannot infer directly that it holds for all intervals. This is showed in my version of it in the linked article. You simply require (without proof) that it holds for all intervals. This is a standard undergraduate textbook shortcut. YohanN7 (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * B t w, I copied this into the article talk page. Respond there please. YohanN7 (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Klein–Gordon 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) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology
There seems to be some censorship going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cosmology. I posted a Request for Comment there and it has twice been removed - first by premature archiving and then by deletion. I think it is up to the reader to decide whether my post is relevant or not. Do you have a view on this? Biscuittin (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quasar's message
Hi, I left you a message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coherent_topology

quasar987


 * Dummy post with signature (to get this archived). YohanN7 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Group Structure and the Axiom of Choice
This is moved to User:YohanN7/Group Structure and the Axiom of Choice.


 * Dummy post with signature (to get this archived). YohanN7 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=704597648 your edit] to Dirac sea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 + \lambda E_p}U\end{matrix}\right)\frac{\exp[i(\mathbf p \cdot \mathbf x - \varepsilon t)/\hbar ]}{\sqrt{2\pi\hbar}^3},

Fortifying wikiquanta
Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I can do some sporadic editing aimed primarily at increasing accessibility, and, which is really the same thing (some would not agree), fleshing out on the math where it is too scarce. YohanN7 (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As an example, I think full understanding of the material in User:YohanN7/Bell's theorem is a minimal requirement (certainly not the only one) for understanding what Bell's theorem is trying to say. It is essentially the calculated QM quantity (or something very similar) that is to be compared to the corresponding HV quantity, that any hidden variable theory would predict, that is the flesh of Bell's theorem. Understanding or ability to carry through the calculation himself/herself of the QM expectation value is naturally expected from everybody having completed a QM 101 course. In reality, I think many people come to this page because they don't have the understanding and ability, and perhaps expect to acquire it here.


 * Feedback appreciated before I proceed to edit article/article talk page, not on the exact content of my sandbox, but on the general idea of what I mean by accessibility. YohanN7 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way: among the sources collected now on my talk page, the short text by Lucien Hardy, "Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms", could interest you, I guess. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Full reference for future use and for the benefit of passers by:
 * YohanN7 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * YohanN7 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request
Hello, I found you through Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam. Would you be able to help me verify something? I am looking for the content of this article to try and verify a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Selly Oak Park. Thanks in advance &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it appears as if my privileges have expired. YohanN7 (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Perhaps the template should have a parameter for an expiry date. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wavefunction
I just logged in for the first time in quite a while and saw that Chjoaygame has been topic banned. S/he has been a major reason I stopped or reduced my wikipedia editing in recent years, and in particular why I gave up on the wavefunction article. Rather than trying to clean up the mess there I'm considering wiping it all out by reverting back to before the bulk of Chjoaygame's edits, sometime around February 1st 2016, and then work on the lede and add that nice formula we discussed way back then on the talk page. However you did edit the article a few times in that period. So, before I do anything I wanted to check in if that's OK with you. If you'd prefer to take over yourself and do something like this that's perfectly fine with me. I'll wait a while to see if you reply. Thanks in advance!  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great to see you back.
 * I'm sure your edits will be for the better. I had "planned" an edit that would move the entire section Wave functions and function spaces to the bottom of the article, as a preparation for possibly getting rid of it all together – or possibly it could stay, but the reader should not have to parse through it before getting to plane waves. I was also thinking about going through Chjoaygames edits, one by one, but a rollback to a semi-decent version as you suggests seems quicker.
 * Now, at least, we have room to breath. YohanN7 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, in case the above is ambiguous. Go ahead! YohanN7 (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Done for the moment, please have a look and see what you think.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (I am positing here to prevent cluttering talk:wave function and to contact User:YohanN7 and user:Waleswatcher specifically and directly. If either of you prefer we can take it to that talk page). I don't want to interrupt edits to the wave function article, but was thinking of collapsing a lot of the article, especially where Dirac notation, general representations, units, and time dependence are concerned, to something like this. We can still keep the x/p representations and the relation between them for notability and concreteness, but the generalities must be collapsed and manipulations of the notation confined to the Dirac notation article, and all the repetition of specific cases for one/many, spin/spinless, 1d/3d etc. should be removed/reduced. Thanks for any feedback. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me, please go ahead. Also, a minor point - I notice the format of the lede looks different today from yesterday....  somehow the equation and the text below it is getting pushed down by the figure showing the harmonic oscillator states, which (oddly) wasn't the case when I first made the edits.  Maybe it's a browser issue?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try rewriting now. The formula in the lead is wide and falls below the animation leaving a large chunk of whitespace. While I appreciate most people like the formula, it is very long and the labels may be awkward/distracting for some readers, so for now I'll remove it from the lead. The addition in my sandbox has the same thing explained in words. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 13:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Done for now, article is slimmer (22,473 kB have been lost), but more could be trimmed. May try more later tonight but in the mean time see what you think. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 14:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, I have not read anything in any detail yet.
 * I actually miss the full-blown Maschen formula. It need not be in the lead imo, but it could well go into the first spot in a section called definition. (A formula says more than a thousand words. A formula with words in it says even more.) YohanN7 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I felt the same, and (before reading your comment here!) added it back in a new section just after the lead. If you want to change the title of that section (or anything else), please go ahead.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I have had the page off my watch list for obvious reasons. Continue there? YohanN7 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)