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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Does fixing some trivial math typos require commenting?[edit]
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)[reply]
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. Sławomir Biały 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Left response on my talk page (did it automatically notify you of this?).Mgkrupa (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sławomir Biały. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page. Message added 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
The convolution of two complex-valued functions on Rd
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.
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.
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)[reply]
[1] No. You apparently do not understand the difference between the ring Z of integer numbers, which is a specific ring, and the ring of integersOK of a number field K, not a specific ring but a functor from fields(?) to commutative rings. Of course, the ring of integers ofp-adic numbers contains some extra elements which Z does not have. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics? Thanks. Armeria wiki (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [[2]]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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)[reply]
Hello, Sławomir Biały. You have new messages at Wcherowi's talk page. Message added 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
It makes no sense to define a Taylor series of a function on an arbitrary field.[edit]
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)[reply]
No, it most definitely does not make sense over finite fields! Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The derivative of the polynomial is . This is identically zero for the field of p elements. But as a function 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)[reply]
You are correct here, the first derivative is zero. Wildberger reviews 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)[reply]
The first derivative of the function , if it is well defined, is either zero or not zero. Which is it, then? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 field . So derivatives of polynomials and just don't have any choice but to be different, despite the annoying fact that as functions and are indistinguishable over field AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 and 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)[reply]
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) {bk: bk = (x − a)k}, – 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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: and are different polynomials, but the same function. Wildberger seems to gloss over this distinction. Perhaps he is unaware of it, as expressions like that he loves to write obviously make no sense as written if k ≥ 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)[reply]
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 , where k ≥ 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 here, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 and then letting . The integral
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 (likewise with sine) converge to the appropriate Fresnel integrals (in this case ) as . There is a slight trick to proving this last statement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The error term elimination I was trying was relying on the notion that . 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 scalar product should also be edited. D.Lazard (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Hello, Sławomir Biały. You have new messages at Dolphin51's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is not the right page for me to make any changes to.
Respectful regards Thepigdog (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
cool. makes sense. thanks! Mittgaurav (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Tensor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 April 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Tensor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation[edit]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see, yes. As the old joke goes, "Ah... It's trivial". :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember BLP applies to all content including essays[edit]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cut the sarcasm Barney. It's neither cool nor helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Viewfinder (talk·contribs) - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Sławomir Biały (talk·contribs), 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.
Viewfinder (talk·contribs) 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.
Viewfinder (talk·contribs) will delete any correspondence from you and pretend that you don't exist.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 30[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
Please see again, and please let me why you said that: I already voted?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here you go again - this time accompanied with a threat. Viewfinder (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's that meant to mean? Viewfinder (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known. The lack of reading comprehension is strong with this one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Moved here to usertalk from article-talk, per request.[8]75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Sławomir. The answer to your indirectquestion, is because User:Agricola44 asked me to: "please read the entire meta-text for this article."[9] 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)[reply]
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. Sławomir Biały 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – JBarta (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
We're all here to learn, after all. :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sławomir Biały. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your reply at the math reference desk proved particularly helpful. Took me a couple days to work out the rest of the details, but ultimately it solved my problem. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
![{\displaystyle (f*g_{N})[n]\equiv \sum _{m=0}^{N-1}\left(\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }{f}[m+kN]\right)g_{N}[n-m].\,}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/85512f0cc63fbdc3ecff2a1565b830297ec71bb7)
![{\displaystyle (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 ,}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/46ca67ae76bc1e6841511aa12fab10aed9cb970d)
![{\displaystyle (f*g)[n]\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[m]\,g[n-m]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/271b9c48087f01b626627a423d8e9003aa765728)
![{\displaystyle =\sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[n-m]\,g[m].}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f067498b1393be11cf4cecfb08f3096f14bdce59)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 
