Prumpf |
Hello Prumpf,
= Spiritus Lenis entry. =
Greetings,
I am curious as to the source for the statement, Some think it signifies the glottal stop some languages use to avoid initial vowel sounds in the definition of Spiritus Lenis .
Thank you,
Tracey Lane 818.779.8421
:I couldn t find one. I think I read it in one of my Greek textbooks when I was in school, and I don t have those anymore, so it should probably be considered apocryphal information.
: 18:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
= Bohr compactification =
I reverted to what I had written earlier. The edits you made are simply not correct. I agree the article has to be a little more informative. I will try to add something useful later.
You said the canonical Bohr map always bijective, but need not be a homeomorphism. It certainly is injective for abelian groups, but injectivity is holds only for so-called almost periodic groups those which have a seprating family of finite dimensional unitary representations. non-compact semi-simple groups for instance SL(2,R) only have non-trivial representations which are infinite dimensional. 17:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:Let G_ch be G with the chaotic topology (i.e. only G_ch and the empty set are open in G_ch). The identity map f: G -> G_ch is a continuous homomorphism, and G_ch is compact, so by the universal property of the Bohr compactification there is a map from βG to G_ch that s the identity on the embedded copy of G. Thus, the map from G to βG is injective.
:Am I still confused about this We might want to clarify that the Bohr compactification need not be Hausdorff, but I think considering the Bohr topology as a topology on G that might just fail to be Hausdorff rather than a topology on a quotient of G that always is Hausdorff. 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:: OK, maybe one should say mappings into compact Hausdorff groups. The Bohr compactification in the sense of mappings into more general quasi-compact (i.e. compact but non-Hausdorff) topological groups is hardly useful. 19:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::: How is it not useful I seem to remember it as the more popular definition and it makes more sense to me (the Bohr compactification, in my sense, is an actual compactification of a topological group that is very similar to G, but has a potentially coarser topology. I m rather tempted to be bold on this, at least as far as restoring some of my edit is concerned. 07:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::: The Bohr compactification in the sense of being universal with respect to mappings into more general quasi-compact groups is not useful because it does not have a Haar measure! That s one of the main points of the Bohr-compactification: the mean value of almost periodic function f is exactly the integral of the extension. 16:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
= Cat:Math =
I did not appreciate your reversion of 22:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I saw the problem, sorry bout the inadvertent removal of interwiki links... 22:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:Let me explain. I did look at the diff, and it seemed to consist of two things: 1) moving the article into Category:Numbers, where it does not belong, since it s not about any number (this is my understanding of the plural naming convention for categories) 2) what appeared to be a removal of all interwiki links. I realised I was wrong about 2) since they got duplicated beforehand, which wasn t obvious from the diff, of course, so I removed it again.
:My apologies for reverting without explanation; as I just said, at the time it looked to me as though some of the reverted changes were borderline vandalistic. I still don t believe the article belongs in Category:Numbers (I suppose a table of mathematical constants might go there, but an article about what mathematical constants are shouldn t). I think the total Stiefel-Whitney class and similar constructions could reasonably be called constants without even being numbers.
:So my proposal would be that Mathematical constant is a non-formalised mathematical concept, like pathological (mathematics) and well-behaved. A new category for those, maybe
:Again, sorry for the hasty revert. I ll try to avoid doing that in the future.
: 22:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Argh, sorry for deleting your comment. I m not sure how I managed that, actually, since we had an edit conflict and I didn t get a conflict warning. 22:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
= more on Natural Units =
could you take a look at my page. but, in addition, more thought should be put into the concept of Natural Units and not simply equate them to Planck Units.
03:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
= Group algebras =
Could we break up the 16:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I m not sure whether the natural division would be group ring vs group algebra (with a topology) or group algebra of a discrete group (discrete or von Neumann) vs group algebra of a topological group. That we seem to have two definitions of the group von Neumann algebra of a discrete group now (and I don t think they coincide - unless the enveloping von Neumann algebras of the reduced group C* algebra is always isomorphic to that of the non-reduced one) doesn t really help.
:We really should make it very clear in the group ring article that a group ring can be considered over any ring, Z in particular. Undergraduates will most likely see group cohomology or (topological) cohomology with local coefficients at some point.
:So, my (new) suggestion is a fairly basic article at 00:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
= Lens space Cat. =
Hi. I was just wondering why you removed this from algebraic topology, but left it in differential such. 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:Hmm. I think it doesn t belong in category:differential topology either, but I m not sure. However, I don t see any connection to algebraic topology other than that lens spaces happen to be good examples for some phenomena there. 00:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::I don t really know, or in fact care about, the eligability criteria for being in a category. If you think this does not warrant an entry, that s fine by me. Infinite-dimensional lens spaces are K(mathbb Z_m,1)s though... 14:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::Hmm. I was just a bit worried about category:Algebraic topology growing too large, and I didn t notice that fact in the lens space article. I suppose category:Eilenberg-MacLane spaces would be a way to deal with those articles ... 14:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::I understand; I don t think anyone has got round to adding that fact yet. I certainly overlooked it when the article was created. Good suggestion though ;-$
= more on Natural Units =
hi Prumpf. just to let you know that there is a response to your last message on my 00:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
oh, feel free to delete this from your talk page, i just wanted to get your attention.
:Thanks. No need to worry, I m just a bit busy. I ll definitely get back to you once I ve worked out what exactly happens to Maxwell s equations in my proposed unit system. 03:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: cool. our differences regarding which form of Planck s constant (with or without the 1/(2*pi)) will make no difference on Maxwell s Eqs. (but it *will* make a difference on Schrödinger s equation) but you won t get Maxwell s Eqs. (and Lorentz):
div(E) = rho/epsilon_0 = c*Z_0*rho div(B) = 0 curl(E) = -(dB/dt)/c curl(B) = (dE/dt)/c + c*mu_0*J = (dE/dt)/c + Z_0*J = (dE/dt)/c + Z_0*rho*velocity F = q*(E + v/c x B)
:: as simple as:
div(E) = rho div(B) = 0 curl(E) = -dB/dt curl(B) = dE/dt + J = dE/dt + rho*velocity
F = q*(E + v x B)
:: without normalizing both epsilon_0 and mu_0 (or equivalently both c and Z_0). that means there is a 1/(4*pi*r^2) in the inverse-square laws such as Coulomb s and Newton s.
:: 03:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Who says curl and div are natural They re (usually) defined in coordinates, and in cleaner notation depend on the isomorphism of smooth functions on a manifold with volume forms, which should have an added factor of 4*pi in it somewhere.
:::My (current) idea of naturalness is to start with a natural set of measures on a (semi-)Riemannian manifold -- the Hausdorff measures will do just fine. I m willing to accept d/dt as a natural operator, since time is special. However, the same argument doesn t apply to d/dx aso, since that would mean choosing coordinates -- something I m (so far) trying to avoid.
:::I haven t lost interest in this, just really haven t found the time of sitting down and making a list of all the equations we want to naturalise, and where what kind of measure/unit comes in.
::: 18:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
=Bell curve=
I have redirected 23:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
= Article Licensing =
Hi, I ve Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the template into their user page, but there are other options at . The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
:Option 1 :I agree to all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to , county, or city article as described below: :
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace with . If you only prefer using the
=Notice=
Hey. What s the deal with the ad for cafe press under the fund drive message ISTR a policy of not running ads on wikipedia, and it s pretty annoying to boot. If there s a good reason for it (maybe cafe press is supporting us or something), it might be a good idea to at least link to an explanation rather than just alienating random editors. It s not even entirely clear (to me) who put that message there, but your user name (Eloquence) shows up on the cafe press page.
:Hello. This is not really an ads. The benefits of the sales get to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and in exchange editors get nice tee-shirts, mugs etc... with the wikipedia logo on it.
:The decision to put this comment was made by the CFO of the board, and as part of the board, I approve it. You may consider it as part of the fundraising.
:Eloquence gets no benefit of the sales, but his name is mentionned because he nicely set that shop for the Foundation possibly a year ago.
:Cheers. 19:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Vice-chair Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
::Thanks for the speedy reply. I do not see how this is not an advertisement, in that it tells users to purchase products from a for-profit company. In saying that the benefits of the sales go to the Wikimedia Foundation, are you saying that Cafe Press does not benefit from sales made through the link
::I did not want to imply that Eloquence profitted from the advertisement, or that it was added out of anything but the best intentions.
::I assume that s Daniel Mayer Thanks for telling me that, I will talk to him if this continues to be an issue.
::Thanks again. 19:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=tagesschau=
Look to the german wikipedia and tagesschau.de . I corrected the article. The ARD tagesschau is not capitalised. -- 04:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:tagesschau.de is not. Tagesschau is. The page title of tagesschau.de/index.html is Aktuelle Nachrichten - Inland Ausland Wirtschaft Kultur Sport - ARD Tagesschau . Note capitalisation. 15:32, August 21, 2005 Prumpf
You are wrong. I corrected the article, because the tagesschau of Germany (both) is not capitalised. -- 12:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Let s move this to the proper discussion page. 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)|
|