Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 31 December 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Likebox, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kraichnan

Please find and add a cite to the obit, please. Bearian (talk)

Gōdel proof

Hi. I think you know a lot of things I would be happy to understand better. Do you have any idea if the Gödel incompleteness theorem might have anything to say about whether it is possible to construct a complete and finite set of laws of physics, or if it might provide an approach to the question of the possibility (or not) of constructing a finite and complete description of natural law? Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that reply was helpful. I came to this question thinking of axiomatic theories as the ideal for Hilbert's attempts to make mathematics more rigorous, and then by extension in my imagination, physics also. I see I have not paid sufficient attention to the relations and the differences between Nature and computational models. I'll have to let that simmer in my brain for a while I guess.

Are you working in string theory? I agree it looks to be the best hope for progress on the fundamental frontier, but I do seem to have mixed feelings about dreams of a final theory. Good luck, anyhow. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Halting Problem

Please discuss your edits on the Talk page for this article BEFORE you re-insert the text that I have now, twice reverted. Zero sharp (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Hi Ron, I'm not sure why you removed the expression for the proper distance I inserted. Perhaps you thought it was intended to contradict the inverse BH expression you added? I'm sure it doesn't. --Michael C. Price 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

String Theory

It would be great if you made your edits to String Theory in smaller pieces. Your contributions are for the most part positive, but deleting and re-writing large swaths of text in one go makes it tough to consider your changes, distinguish the good from the bad, and do anything but accept or revert it all. (I haven't yet decided which to do with your most recent edit.) Thanks PhysPhD (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Schrodinger quotes

I've added a couple to Schrodinger at Wikiquote which you might be find interesting. One is rather proto-Everett -- 'all is waves'.--Michael C. Price 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Following on from our discussion of Born I looked up his 1925/6 probability article (in Zurek & Wheeler's Quantum theory and measurement) to see his reasoning, thinking that he was probably inspired by ${\displaystyle {\frac {d}{dt}}\int \psi ^{*}\psi dx^{3}=0}$. Not a bit of it. Get this: he writes that the probability density is, in modern jargon, ${\displaystyle |\psi |\,}$. This is only corrected to ${\displaystyle \psi ^{*}\psi \,}$ in an "added in proof" footnote.--Michael C. Price 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find an online source for Born's article: I'm reading Zurek and Wheeler's translation "on the quantum mechanics of collisions" in "Quantum theory and measurement", ISBN 0-691-08316-9, which is a collection of the original articles relating to QM and measurement (it includes Everett's article). Born doesn't really give much direct insight into his reasoning -- except that it clearly wasn't mathematical! He implies that the radiative discontinuities in nature (and in particular those observed in scattering experiments) led him to conclude that the underlying processes are probabilistic.--Michael C. Price 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing cheetsheet at Ising Model

I am (with the help of others) building a cheatsheet that is essentially a checklist containing the most important elements of the MOSNUM and qualities of a well-written article (such as neutral point of view, no weasel words, etc...). It's on the Ising Model talk page right now, and I wondered if you could give it a try and give me some feedback. It takes about 5 minutes to fill if you focus on simply filling it up, up to 15 minutes if you edit the article as you fill it up.

Feedback on what's missing, what's useless, and what could be improved is what is particularly needed (you may of course decline if you want). Reply here, on my talk page, or at Projects of the Week at your discretion. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Magnetic monopole

FYI, please comment at Talk:Magnetic monopole. Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Generalised Continuum Hypothesis

Hi Ron, I've been interested in the axiom of choice and GCH for a long time, in a strictly amateur fashion. I won't pretend that I can follow much of the debate going on, but perhaps you can clear up something I mentioned awhile back on the CH talk page, which seems germane (although no one else seemed to think so). If A and B are arbitrary transfinite cardinals then, by Easton's theorem, we have:

${\displaystyle A<B\to 2^{A}\leq 2^{B}}$

i.e. we are permitted to construct schemes in which, say, ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{1}}=2^{\aleph _{2}}}$ The obvious way of excluding such counter-intuitive constructs is to adopt GCH. This permits our intuitive notion of the ordering of finites raised to powers to be extended to the infinite: i.e. we now have

${\displaystyle A<B\to 2^{A}<2^{B}\!}$.

This seems a pretty good reason for accepting the GCH (and necessarily AC) in the same way that we accept ZF. What do you think? --Michael C. Price 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah--- I remember your comment. It was interesting, I thought about it when I first saw it. I am more formalist than you regarding these infinite collections, so I don't consider the 2^\aleph1 = 2^\aleph2 as counterintuitive as you do, but it is an interesting observation.Likebox (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Linear no-threshold model

Excellent additions! Greatly added to the meaningfulness of the article. Simesa (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

radiation hormesis, please do not remove NPOV tag without using discussion

Hi, I added an NPOV tag to Radiation hormesis which you removed once here without an edit summary or any comment on the talk page and then again removed after i asked you to go to the talk page with this edit. I have added the tag back and I implore you: until we can agree on the article's POV, lets discuss the POV problem at the article's talk page. Pdbailey (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that you did start talking on the talk page. Thanks! For the reasons listed there (the Tiawan article alone!) I think the POV tag needs to stay on there. Pdbailey (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I would guess that my use of "redflag" refers to WP:REDFLAG. Pdbailey (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

leave consensus at top of Radiation hormesis

Likebox, As I have told you again and again, you are not the judge of what is right and wrong here at Misplaced Pages, the reliability of the source is. If all the reliable sources said that the world is flat, that would be what gets posted to the Misplaced Pages. The main point I am making is WP:UNDUE on this page. Do not mess with this page again until you think you have some command of WP:RS and WP:V. Pdbailey (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Likebox, just to be clear, what I am asking you to do is refer to WP:RS or WP:V in your next reply to me (what ever form that takes). Pdbailey (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, I'll be happy to take this back up with you when I get back from vacation in the beginning of October. Pdbailey (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Come to NY early. We can watch the debate together. Wify

ok (hubby).

Godel

You can assume whatever you like (and you will, as you have amply demonstrated time and time again). What's tragic is that you are so delusional that you cannot help but take this whole mess as some sort of personal attack.

> I half expected you to apologize,

I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. You on the other hand should be ashamed of your disruptive editing. >Great! It was really tragic the way you and others were blocking[REDACTED] from explaining Godel's work, so often tragically misunderstood.

This is the absolute stratospheric height of arrogance, and is so laughable I cannot even begin to imagine how to respond. You're crazy. Period. Don't post anything more on my talk page, it will be deleted. I'm done fighting with you, not because I think you're right, but because you've demonstrated that it's just. Not. Worth it. There was a LENGTHY RFC, there have been third opinions from other editors, there is a SWELLING CHORUS of other editors telling you that your proposed changes to the article are not appropriate on many grounds, but you will not give up. But, that's the tenacity of insanity, and if that means you get your way, that's too bad, but I'd rather be sane. Zero sharp (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it here again--- mathematics is difficult, and there are many ways to explain the same result. People can disagree on the clearest language and on the most fruitful approaches. This means that there is a lively debate. But the material is difficult, and requires careful attention to subtle details to make sure that stuff is right, or to find out that stuff is wrong.

Sanity has nothing to do with mathematical correctness. If an eerie voice in my head told me the proof to Godel's theorem, and it turned out to be right, then it is right. That's not what happened in this case--- I just read Godel's paper and tried to modernize the language, but it doesn't matter. The debate over inclusion is whether this is clear and unoriginal, which I think it is and others do not. It is no longer over whether the proof is correct, because the proof is correct.Likebox (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak hypercharge

Hi Ron, are weak hypercharge and B-L identical? If so (and it does seem plausible, but can't find a reference for it) I guess we should merge the articles? See the discussion at . --Michael C. Price 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ron, thinking about the explanation you gave, I still don't see the distinction between w-hypercharge and B-L. Perhaps it's just terminology, I'm not sure, but we talk about electric charge conservation and regard it as being enforced by its coupling to the photon. Seemingly we regard hypercharge likewise. I get the bit about weak hypercharge coupling to a mixture of the photon (A) and the Z, but don't see how that stops its identification with B-L. Why can't we say that B-L couples to the A/Z boson? It seems to me that the local weak hypercharge symmetry is what enforces the global B-L conservation. --Michael C. Price 03:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, okay Higgs shows that Y =/= B - L (or (B-L)/2)) since the Higgs is neither a baryon nor lepton but has a non-zero weak hypercharge (Y). So the identification I was trying to make breaks down.

I shall have to think more about the superconductor analogy, however, on the interesting subject of weak hypercharge conservation, my initial response is that I don't see how being immersed in a Higgs Dirac sea changes anything; surely the electroweak U(1) symmetry still generates the conserved Noether current? We just have to deal with an infinite background charge to renormalise away, but since are only interested in changes in Y that shouldn't present a problem. --Michael C. Price 09:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't responded for awhile whilst I'm trying to understand SU(5) -- my college notes say that SU(5) implies X + 2Y = 5(B-L) which looks very interesting (probably X + 4Y in your Y convention). X and Y are the charges associated with the new leptoquark bosons (I think). X and Y are separately conserved; Y is the weak hypercharge and what X is I'm not sure. I'll have a look at chirality on the standard model page, although I doubt that I can say anything sensible about the subject. (I agree that the gamma5 route is ugly, but I not sure if I have anything better.) --Michael C. Price 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm mostly through the SU(5) pain barrier now. I totally get what you were saying now about global symmetries etc. I'm happy with X + 2Y = 5(B-L); it even works for the right-handed particles as well (phew!). You're probably right that there is a very weak boson associated with global U(1) X conservation, since it is probably a local symmetry as well. Anyway, thanks for your patience on the subject. --Michael C. Price 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's gauged. I wanted to show it wan't gauged.Likebox (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

radiation hormesis

Hi, the article reads like the rantings of a mad person who is pro-hormesis. This does not serve informing readers OR the cause of the mad ranter (who looks like the same). Also, do not remove a POV tag without taking it to the talk page and being sure that there is agreement. PDBailey (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When I said that if you requested arbitration I would agree, I meant that if you made a request via the arbitration process. I have not looked into how this works, but from what I recall, there is a first step mediation and both parties have to agree to it. If you spend the time to figure out the process enought to initiate arbitration, I will participate. PDBailey (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dyson and de Sitter relativity

Thanks for mentioning the Dyson paper. I have now added a link to Dyson's paper to the article. Delaszk (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving the article, hopefully it won't get deleted though.

The quantum gravity paper describes modifying general relativity. I think the article should mention it.

Ignazio Licata says the Fantappié-Arcidiacono theory is the same but Fantappié-Arcidiacono use the phrase "Fantappié group" rather than "de sitter group". Do you know what the situation is ? Delaszk (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Awesome Color

A tag has been placed on Awesome Color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Woland (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review You Voted in Favor of Relisting/Overturn

FYI, you voted to either re-list or overturn this article after a 2nd AfD deletion. Unfortunately the article now, is incomplete with sources from the state when it was set for a 2nd AfD, many source links, found on this page, are now deleted. This is unfair and perhaps you can help get this straight and give Misplaced Pages a better name for what it once stood for. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I might do this if I knew who was asking. But I don't feel comfortable, because I　don't know anything about the guy. I voted to overturn because I am unhappy that an electronic encyclopedia is now considering it so much of an "honor" to be listed in its pages, that it excludes certain published authors from this "honor".Likebox (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Branch point

Hello. Please see my recent edits to branch point, bringing it into conformance to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (mathematics).

Note that

• You shouldn't capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading. Thus "Continuum of poles" is right; "Continuum of Poles" is wrong unless you mean a continuum of people from Poland.
• In non-TeX mathematical notation, one italicizes variables (but not digits, parentheses, etc.). This matches TeX style.
• In non-TeX mathematical notation, a space should precede and follow "=", "+", etc. I make these non-breakable with plus or minus signs or the like, but not always with "=". Also, this doesn't apply to things like "−5" where the minus sign is not a binary operator; there's no space there. This also matches TeX style.
• A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen:

-5 (wrong)

−5 (right)

3-5 (wrong)

3 - 5 (better but not yet right)

3 − 5 (right)

• Using \left( and \right) allows parentheses their proper sizes. Thus:

${\displaystyle ({z-1 \over z+1})}$

but

${\displaystyle \left({z-1 \over z+1}\right)}$

• A short space created by \, (a backslash followed by a comma) is normally placed between ƒ(x) and dx:

${\displaystyle \int f(x)\,dx}$

or

${\displaystyle y^{2}\,dx+x^{3}\,dy}$

etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job at non-standard calculus

Very fair and balanced. I am still curious about this 10-page practical guide, I can't find any reference to it anywhere but here on Misplaced Pages. If I could just get a publisher and date maybe I could ask the university library to track it down, I am doubtful this was directly a response to the book review. Anyways, I am off subject, nice job condensing the article. Thenub314 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You have commented on this AfD page (and your comment seems quite sensible to me). But there is a trivial matter: the formatting of your comment makes it look like it is in direct response to mine, which however seems not to be the case from the text itself. If I am interpreting correctly, could you fix this? Plclark (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove POV tag

Likebox, the POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I would ask you to heed this advice. In following with Misplaced Pages:Resolving_disputes, I requested help from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism. While I would much rather see see how that outside help plays out, I maintain that I would accept a formal request for third party intervention if you made such a request. PDBailey (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, I am not sure how much clearer I can be about this, the POV tag stays until the POV is gone. Please do not delete it. At a minimum, I would ask that you propose it's removal before you delete it. PDBailey (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, you asked for what is wrong with the article, I told you. Now stop removing the tag. Continuing to do this makes you a disruptive editor. When I edit the article you frequently undo my edits.

Here are some examples of your disruptive behavior. (1) removing a link we had agreed did not belong on the talk page (2) undoing my edit that brought the page inline with what I said should be on the page and you said you didn't want to do any writing. (3) unding a series of edits to change the wording and flow of the article. (4) then there several POV tag RVs. My point is that it is you who is stopping this tag from being removed. other editors agree] that there is a POV problem with is page, it is not just me. PDBailey (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

MOSMATH

Please. There is a difference between the following:

y=x

y = x

In the latter, italics and spacing are used.

There is a difference between the following:

1-x

1 − x

In the latter, x is italicized (and 1 is not), spacing is used, and a proper minus sign rather than a stubby little hyphen is used.

See my corrections to your edits to Archimedes' use of infinitesimals.

This and other matters are covered in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Radiation Hormesis

May I ask why the edits were reverted without so much as a peep on the discussion page? Djma12 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

I think you might have misread WP:UNDUE a little. Undue weight is used when two well-supported arguments exist, but only one side is overwhelmingly presented in an article. It does not apply in removing both sides when one side is lacking evidence. For more, please see the discussion under radiation hormesis.

Best regards, Djma12 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)