It's easier to live that way.
26,000+ |
1,400+ |
10,000+ |
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to more than 500 articles in math and physics topics. The first 423 of them are listed at User:Linas/Articles. The list below, of more than 100 articles, were edits made anonymously. Some of these edits were made under different IP's, including Special:Contributions/67.100.217.179, Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179 and Special:Contributions/67.198.37.17 and Special:Contributions/162.204.250.21 - my IP address and geographical location changes from time to time.
The first 24 edits were mostly under Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179
Probabilistic logic - Compact closed category - Pregroup grammar - Hom functor - Simply typed lambda calculus - Presheaf (category theory) - Powerset - Type theory - Dependent type - Universal quantification - Curry–Howard correspondence - Stability criterion - No-communication theorem - Quantum teleportation - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - No-deleting theorem - Quantum information - Quantum operation - Dagger compact category - Quantum noise - Quantum amplifier - Optical phase space - Quantum finite automata
These are mostly under the current IP addr.
Multiplication theorem - Valuation (logic) - Quantum finite automata - Quantum Turing machine - Affine Lie algebra - Dedekind eta function - Current algebra - Vertex operator algebra - Charge (physics) - Operator product expansion - Product (mathematics) - Blancmange curve - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - Ladder operator - Huygens–Fresnel principle - Baire space (set theory) - Static spacetime - Mass - Vertical and horizontal bundles - Exterior covariant derivative - Gauge covariant derivative - Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state - Wigner's friend
Kaluza–Klein theory - Bundle metric - Contorsion tensor - Christoffel symbols - Lense–Thirring precession - Quasi-quotation - String group - Pullback - Classifying space - Witt vector - Sum - T1 space - Currying - Mapping cone (topology) - Puppe sequence - Fibration - Cofibration - Hopf algebra - Structure constants - Tensor algebra - Exterior algebra - Universal enveloping algebra - Poisson algebra - Casimir element
Bol loop - Grassman number - Poincaré group - Super-Poincaré algebra - Supermanifold - Superspace - Spin group - List of rules of inference - Connection form - Metric connection - Moving frame - Connection (vector bundle) - Quantum pseudo-telepathy - Skyrmion - Jacobi operator - Hessenberg matrix - Composition operator - Diagonal functor - Necklace polynomial - Yoneda lemma - Circle bundle - Eilenberg–MacLane space - Mutual information - Tensor product
Turnstile (symbol) - Natural deduction - Nome (mathematics) - Integrable system - Tautological one-form - Configuration space (physics) - Linear fractional transformation - Stable manifold - Roman pot - Spherically symmetric spacetime - Frame fields in general relativity - Kerr–Newman metric - Vacuum solution (general relativity) - Boyer–Lindquist coordinates - Spin connection - Fubini–Study metric - Gravitational instanton - Spinor - Weyl equation - Ginzburg–Landau theory - Spin glass - Conservative system - Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem - Manley–Rowe relations
Resonant interaction - Perturbation theory - Measure-preserving dynamical system - Bernoulli scheme - Markov odometer - Bernoulli process - Dyadic transformation - Riemann integral - Cantor function - Minkowski's question-mark function - Quadratic irrational number - Three-wave equation - Center manifold - Lebesgue covering dimension - Carathéodory's extension theorem - Commutator collecting process - Hall word - Free monoid - Monoid factorisation - Lyndon word - Free Lie algebra - Mixing (mathematics) - Nonlinear resonance - Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula
Sigma model - Lagrangian (field theory) - Hodge star operator - Divergence - Tetrad formalism - Dirichlet energy - Solder form - Ergodicity - n-vector model - Coalgebra - Symmetric space - Killing vector field - Isometry - Simple Lie group - Symplectic group - Lie group - C-symmetry - Higher-dimensional gamma matrices - Dirac spinor - Bispinor - Exterior calculus identities - Dirac operator - Tangloids - Dirac algebra
Gamma matrices - Majorana equation - Dirac equation - Helicity (particle physics) - Indefinite orthogonal group - Lorentz group - Sesquilinear form - Clutching construction - Chiral anomaly - T-symmetry - On Numbers and Games - Actual infinity - Near-rectilinear halo orbit - Lemaître coordinates - Cohomotopy set - Direct integral - Group action - Lusin's theorem - de Rham curve - Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) - Hankel matrix - Borel measure - Capacity of a set - Analytic capacity
Of the above, I'm particularly proud the ones that were major rewrites or even complete rewrites, either doubling or tripling the size of the article - anyway changes where more than about 5K or 10K bytes were added. These are listed above but repeated here:
Some major rewrites are just-plain-old hack jobs, without any particular elegance. Sometimes very ugly hack jobs. Notable only because they are large re-writes. Like the above, these are changes were more than about 5K or 10K bytes, sometimes doubling the size of the article.
Edits of 500 bytes or more were made to these non-math articles:
Removed AI-generated content from:
Due to the recent AfD of Draft:Mass dimension one fermions I started an attempt to describe the problem from first principles, here: Draft:ELKO Theory. This is hard, because existing literature is sloppy. This forced a major expansion of Majorana equation which ... is unsatisfying, because the existing literature on the Majorana equation is sloppy. There is not one single adequate review that does not do hand-waving at critical junctures. In particular, explanations of CPT symmetry of the Majorana eqn are a horrible mess.
Move to user-space: User talk:67.198.37.16/Draft:ELKO Theory
I am breaking my own rules about TODO-lists, namely, that they should never be created, because they will never be done. That said, the following red-links could be interesting and fun to write:
Things worth doing:
Things worth doing that someone should do, probably not me:
OMG:
Banned users: User:Hillman - User:Likebox - User:Silly rabbit - User:Incnis Mrsi - User:Dcoetzee
A big list (but not all are banned users?): Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- {{ Remember the lost}} -- oh my, that template has become a red link. Such deletions are just ... shameful.
Harassed users: User:Michael Hardy
Unhappy users: User:Deltahedron
See Talk:Conformal_bootstrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Link grammar, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV
20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Link grammar, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Hello, I'm
DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mass, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
DVdm (
talk)
19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility? Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear 67.198.37.16, thank you for your mature, wise and significative approach. I think I've learned a lot on this specific issue and on several others. Best regard. PS I would suggest to go to SAO/NASA-ADS: it is more complete and trustable than Google Scholar. It allows also to cope with the self-citations issue through the tori and the riq indexes. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. ( talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please create an account. If you do that I can give the account permission to edit the locked article. It is not technically possible to do that for an unregistered IP address. Spinning Spark 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
On self-promotion, the position is quite simple. We expect the person with a conflict of interest to leave it to neutral editors to decide whether to use the material, modify it, or leave it out altogether. If they do not, and continue to fight in-article, they risk being hounded off the project. As someone not connected with Iorio and scientifically knowledgeable you are in an ideal position to make that call. Spinning Spark 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andrea Insinga. I write you to ask your help about one of your contributions to the page Structure constants. In order to continue my research I really need a good reference for the following statement:
Can you suggest me a book or scientific paper where I can find a more detailed explanation about this statement? That would really help me a lot!
Best regards, Andrea Insinga 17 August 2017
Thank you so much! I will try looking in the book you suggested. Best, Andrea —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
About your comment on the talk page - I think you might like to read WP:NOT. You will see that WP is aimed to be clear and concise about facts of relevance, not a collection of all possible knowledge. Of course, each particular case is different. In the future, if you think something relevant is missing, find it first perhaps on the web and link to your comment on the talk page. If it's really hard to find, it is more likely than not that this info is not all that notable and best be omitted in the article. Happy editing! Mhym ( talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Judgment (mathematical logic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please explain why exactly the content you were removing is "junk" please.
Kirbanzo (
talk)
21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Judgment (mathematical logic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Philipnelson99 (
talk)
21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
Are you the same person who
screw up the product notation some three years ago?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply (although the question wasn’t answered explicitly). Now also here. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe pings don't work with IP addresses; this is to let you know that I have responded on my talk page. -- JBL ( talk) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Please respond to the allegations here before you next edit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ST47 (
talk)
04:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)67.198.37.16 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock; there is no stated reason for the block; from what I can tell, this is part of a long-running harassment campaign. If there is some specific edit that was objectionable, or some specific behavior pattern that is is disturbing someone in some way, then please articulate it, bring it out in the open, for all to see. Let's not machinate behind closed doors, OK? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 05:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not explained the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas. You will not be unblocked until you do that. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
67.198.37.16 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock. (1) I cannot reply to the sockpuppet accusation because it has been archived. (2) The reason, presented below, is quite clear. I have made 5000 edits in the course of five years; until now, no one noticed. I then made a political edit, this one, to an official high up in the WP hierarchy, and within hours was accused of being a sockpuppet - an accusation that could have been made at any time over the last 5 years, but wasn't. An accusation that no one bothered to make until I made a post that rubbed someone the wrong way. I then made a second post, this one, in which I attempted to bring into much sharper relief the core issue with regards to user-blocking, user-banning. Then I was immediately blocked. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to notice that the silencing of political dissent on Wikipedia is commonplace and wide-spread. It's abundantly clear that ya'll really, really don't like it when non-admins talk about blocking policy, or raise objections about the the community process. This particular block is a shining, brilliant example of this. Made-to-order, even. I am being blocked to prevent me from expressing political views about the nature of adminship in WP. Now, I could have been accused of sock-puppetry or any number of other blockable offenses (incivility, 3RR, etc.) at any time over the course of these five years -- but I wasn't. Until just the last few days, very little of my activity was of an overtly political nature. My subversive activity did not rise above the threshold of noticeability. Triggered no alarms. But once I began to talk about the politics of blocking and banning users, I was blocked. The block arrives just in time, as if to intentionally prove my point: WP faces a deep and fundamental problem with regards to the use of blocks. Y'all don't like hearing about this problem, or addressing it, or taking the steps needed to reform adminship and administration in WP. You would much rather silence critics, such as I, when we get outspoken. I hope that this conversation stands out as a shinning, clear-cut beacon, shedding light on the fundamental organizational problems of adminship on Wikipedia. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You can respond to the sockpuppet accusations here, that's what this page is for. It's not okay to be "subversive" even if it isn't noticed immediately. I am declining this request. 331dot ( talk) 17:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Why would you bother writing an unblock request like this that obviously would never be accepted by anyone? You should retract it. Ping me if you would like advice about filing unblock requests with a positive probability of success. -- JBL ( talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Conservative system, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me
13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
For your contributions on mathematics articles. Hope to see more of your contributions. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hello,
I have reverted some edits on Conservative system that concern style of writing, and MOS:STYLERET tells not to change between accepted styles, unless other main editors agree.
As you are the main editor of that page, feel free to revert my latest edit if you agree with the italicizing of greek letters.
Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 08:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Look, it's clear you want to contribute, and that's great, but you're going to have an increasingly hard time doing so while evading a block. If you really want to do this right, log into your main account and post an unblock request. This is an unusual case, and if you can swallow your pride and demonstrate that you want to make the effort to avoid what led to your block in the first place, it has a reasonable shot at succeeding. Your continued evasion will be an issue, but I'm sure something can be worked out. Multiple people have offered their support at various points. If you want, you can ping them from your talk page and see if they're willing to add to any discussion. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times. (So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article, and I reverted, and we got into a revert war. As it happens, he was an admin, so he banned me, and soon as that ban expired, all of his buddies banned me again for varying periods of time. I do recall trying to appeal, more than a few times, but was told that it was impossible, that the block had to be permanent due to "higher powers", and that I should either create a new account, or edit anonymously. So that's what I did. I'm just doing what I was told to do, I don't really want to get underneath someone's spot-light again. The spot-lights are painful. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'm throwing you another one. It is up to you to get on the line and hop back to the boat, or get drowned on the endless ocean of blocked users. Cheer up, and do the right thing. Declare you ownership to the Linas account, and appeal. After you get yourself a nice new account, declare that Linas is your account.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It might be helpful to ask forgiveness to people that you have personally attacked. You might ping them here, or else. This is just an advice. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have added a note on User talk:Linas about getting an appeal set up, which I'll take the lead on - the basic gist is that this all ancient history and if we are actually here to write and improve an encyclopedia instead of being a glorified social network, we should probably think about an unblock. (In light of the above comments - I've basically been mulling this over for about four years) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The appeal is up : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review : Linas Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As one of the mathematical community I would like to find a way to have you back editing under a proper username. There is a process for this called the Wikipedia:Standard offer. This basically involves you not editing for six months without any attempts at trying to edit under an alternate username or as an IP. You then need make a commitment to avoid the behaviour that led to the initial ban.
In you case avoid the problematic behaviour would take a bit of work. You need to try and keep a lid on your anger. Statements like "Asking for forgiveness from a bully is inviting a punch to the stomach." unfortunately does you no favors. I get that you feel there has been some injustice in the past, and maybe there was, but in many cases its they way people respond to the issues rather than the issues themselves which cause the problems. The more users to prove their innocence the worse it gets. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I was looking through old contributions and noticed this comment was the last one you made before the account was blocked. Speaking personally and cycnically, Aspect-oriented programming is a buzzword designed to sell seminars and books, and is simply a fancy way of making old code call new code without modification, which pretty much any decent programming language in the last 50 years can do, more or less. And as you said, there's no particular difference between this and callbacks as used in X11 or the WNDCLASSEX::lpfnWndProc signature on Windows. Just avoid function pointers in C++ otherwise your head may explode. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Cheer up!
Regards,
Jeromi Mikhael (
marhata)
12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience at the AFD. Based on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_971#Disgrace_by_J._M._Koetze, I'm concerned that Dr. Ahluwalia fundamentally doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for your tireless work on math and physics articles Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
Slykos. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Dirac equation that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Calling a user's work "nonsense"
Slykos (
talk)
22:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Slykos (
talk)
16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Slykos (
talk)
17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Dirac equation, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -
DVdm (
talk)
12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Although I have kind of reverted much of your edits, I think they are interesting and important; they just weren't added in the right article. I'll try to explain.
T-symmetry is a term used mainly in particle physics to describe symmetry to the reversal of the time direction. Your edits refer to (and put emphasis on) what is known as "the origin of the arrow of time"; which can also be stated as the origin of the second law of thermodynamics. There are several different Wikipedia articles about this issue (such as the second law of thermodynamics and arrow of time). I think that your edits, after adding sources, may be added to these articles, up to some remarks I have about the content.
As for the content of your edits, I see several strong points but also some weaknesses:
I hope to see you continuing with your contributions, just please source your material and make sure it is in the correct place/article.
Thanks, Dan Gluck ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm intrigued that you find it plausible:
— Quondum 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16. I think you read my comment on the section limiting behavior of the polylogarithm and wrote your reply to it a bit too fast. I have written a detailed reply on the talk page. Best, Malparti ( talk) 09:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:ELKO Theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On the page about Lorentz group, I found a very interesting sentence which was added on December 4th, 2020 in relation to adding a new subjection about homomorphisms and isomorphisms. It is written: "The symplectic group Sp(2,C) is isomorphic to SL(2,C); it is used to construct Weyl spinors, as well as to explain how spinors can have a mass." In particular, I am interested in knowing where the last statement, i.e., the explanation of the mass of spinors, is found in literature. Stefan Groote ( talk) 05:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
From the way that you are writing about this, it seems that you need a much stronger background in representation theory. For this task, Fulton & Harris, "Representation Theory". It is another math book. It covers SU(2) and SL(2,C) and so on. If you are not finding this in Bjorken & Drell, it is because you are skimming too quick, and not paying attention. Let me quickly sketch the general idea.
First, there is the famous double-covering of SO(3) by SU(2), given by
I hope this is familiar. Here, is a vector in 3D space, R is a 3x3 rotation matrix, S is a matrix in SU(2) and are the three Pauli matrices.
Something very similar to this holds for the Lorentz group SL(2,C). 4D vectors transform under 4x4 Lorentz matrices L. 4D derivatives transform at the *inverse* of L. Spinors transform under S, which is now a 2x2 complex matrix. Mass terms m transform as scalars: i.e. they don't transform at all. If you try to write down the Weyl eqn as and then apply Lorentz transformations to it, the only way to get a Lorentz-covariant eqn is to set m=0. Otherwise it is just not covariant. This is in Bjorken & Drell, somewhere.
However, there is a trick! Write where is a 4-component Dirac spinor, and is a two-component Weyl spinor and is another Weyl spinor, but this time the complex conjugate, so that it transforms under instead of . The is the direct sum. If the direct sum notation is not familiar to you, be sure to include a few weeks of reviewing tensor algebras in addition to representation theory. Anyway, this allows you to write two coupled Weyl equations. If you do it correctly, the Dirac equation becomes this:
and
or something similar: I may have slipped in one too many stars, daggers and/or minus signs into above. I'm doing this from memory. (note the sign flip in front of the m -- this is NOT a mistake!) Anyway, this pair of coupled equations are Lorentz-covariant even when m is not zero. This pair of equations is the Dirac eqn, written out two components at a time!
The above is so fundamental to the idea of massive Dirac spinors that it is covered in Bjorken&Drell, and in Itzykson&Zuber, and in Jost, and possibly in a footnote in Fulton&Harris (not sure about this last).
Reading Fulton&Harris will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand Lorentz and SU(3) and SO(10) and all those things that theoretical physics people talk about. Reading the first 3 chapters of Jost will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand curvature and covariant derivatives and geodesics, which you need to understand general relativity. There are a number of modern, very good books on general relativity, and almost all of them will cover this same material. Although sadly, one that I looked at recently was filled with misprints and typos, so that is a shame. Otherwise a great book. Oh well. You will also need a good book on fiber bundles, but I don't know of any. You'll need horizontal and vertical connections, spin connections, solder forms. Go for Abraham & Marsden, "Classical Mechanics" It's old but good. It will take you another 3-6 months to read. So you have several years of reading material in front of you, and all of it is mandatory, required reading! Do not attempt to run past this material; stop and smell the roses. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " ELKO Theory".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Materialscientist (
talk)
01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " ELKO Theory".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16, would you mind re-assessing the article about Fair pie-cutting? Replacing "Mathematics" by "Economics" seems wrong to me. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 01:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I reverted your change special:diff/1211130730 to Poincaré disk model based on your edit summary, "the last one with the log is clearly wrong", which is inaccurate. These formulas are in fact equivalent, as is not hard to show with a bit of algebra. If you want empirical validation of that, I made a Desmos plot showing how this quantity compares when computed in these various ways: https://www.desmos.com/geometry/wdazt75lac – drag the blue points around and watch the computed numbers change in tandem. I'm sure there are published sources for these expressions, but I haven't looked to hard for them.
Whether we should include all of these equivalent expressions is a separate question; arguably they aren't the most important thing to emphasize. (Frankly this whole article is kind of crap and should be substantially rewritten.)
Personally I think another measure should be included in this context: the (hyperbolic) half-tangent of hyperbolic angle measure. For two points and represented by (Euclidean) vectors from the origin of magnitude , with hyperbolic angle measure between the points they represent, this stereographic distance (sometimes called in complex analysis literature the "pseudo-chordal distance") is:
where is the geometric product and means the magnitude of a multivector, defined by with being the "reverse" of .
This is just the length of the vector whose end is the point where the point represented by gets sent if you rotate hyperbolic space to put the the point represented by at the origin.
In the context of points on a sphere, I find this one often more practically useful than the chord-based distance. (I don't actually have much practical use for points in hyperbolic space; but a "chord" here means the extrinsic straight-line distance between points on a a 2-sheeted hyperboloid under a metric with signature , the "hyperboloid model"):
Cheers, – jacobolus (t) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
More than a metaphor: search engines for "theta function heat equation" give numerous hits. The primary ingredients are these:
But when does this all become known?
So we have three famous mathematicians studying heat the same year.
Speculation on my part:
Things that don't happen until later:
Some geometry only happens later:
Timelines I don't understand:
My general understanding but I've never plumbed the depths:
Well, that was fun. This is how I procrastinate. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Quantum speed limit theorems, you may be
blocked from editing.
Banana ezWIN (
talk)
15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed you're rapidly removing a part of talk pages, I'm wondering why is the change needed... Also I did create 2 redirects that you listed. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Adam Black GB. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Hawking radiation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Adam Black
t •
c
03:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, this is weird. I've had a look at Linas' block review at AN in 2020 and it's not entirely clear if the account should have been unblocked by consensus. I'll take this to WP:AN instead of blocking. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 07:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Soni:, This article requires either an admin of a request-for-move. Or discussion. So, look at the version from only a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Topological_defect&oldid=1150558991 and it is clear that this article used to have the title of topological soliton. This is absolutely the correct title for the article; someone inadvisably moved it to topological defect, which is a terrible decision: defects are a special case of solitons. Also, topological excitations are a special case of solitons. As far as I know, all solitons are in fact topological solitons! ... and so one could make a case for merging these articles into one. The primary issue here is the "write it as if it were for a high-school student" vs the "write it as if it were for a grad student" issue that WP has never entirely resolved. The article soliton provides the "easy intro for anyone" article. The topological soliton provides a "short survey for academics" article. Neither of these articles provide any overview of the math behind it, which is deep and wide. The stub version of topological excitations tried the "screw-the-intro-for-the-common-man, here's the math", but it's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. I'm going to now stick merge-to tags on these articles, and let the convo continue on the article pages. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
User:67.100.217.179 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 2 § User:67.100.217.179 until a consensus is reached.
Nickps (
talk)
11:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16. Thank you for your work on ELKO theory. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
The page relies upon reference 1, which according to Google Scholar has been cited 4 times. I cannot find anything to support a notability claim. ref 2 is well cited, but is an aside. Unless this is rapidly improved it should be AfD'd.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ELKO theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
It's easier to live that way.
26,000+ |
1,400+ |
10,000+ |
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to more than 500 articles in math and physics topics. The first 423 of them are listed at User:Linas/Articles. The list below, of more than 100 articles, were edits made anonymously. Some of these edits were made under different IP's, including Special:Contributions/67.100.217.179, Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179 and Special:Contributions/67.198.37.17 and Special:Contributions/162.204.250.21 - my IP address and geographical location changes from time to time.
The first 24 edits were mostly under Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179
Probabilistic logic - Compact closed category - Pregroup grammar - Hom functor - Simply typed lambda calculus - Presheaf (category theory) - Powerset - Type theory - Dependent type - Universal quantification - Curry–Howard correspondence - Stability criterion - No-communication theorem - Quantum teleportation - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - No-deleting theorem - Quantum information - Quantum operation - Dagger compact category - Quantum noise - Quantum amplifier - Optical phase space - Quantum finite automata
These are mostly under the current IP addr.
Multiplication theorem - Valuation (logic) - Quantum finite automata - Quantum Turing machine - Affine Lie algebra - Dedekind eta function - Current algebra - Vertex operator algebra - Charge (physics) - Operator product expansion - Product (mathematics) - Blancmange curve - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - Ladder operator - Huygens–Fresnel principle - Baire space (set theory) - Static spacetime - Mass - Vertical and horizontal bundles - Exterior covariant derivative - Gauge covariant derivative - Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state - Wigner's friend
Kaluza–Klein theory - Bundle metric - Contorsion tensor - Christoffel symbols - Lense–Thirring precession - Quasi-quotation - String group - Pullback - Classifying space - Witt vector - Sum - T1 space - Currying - Mapping cone (topology) - Puppe sequence - Fibration - Cofibration - Hopf algebra - Structure constants - Tensor algebra - Exterior algebra - Universal enveloping algebra - Poisson algebra - Casimir element
Bol loop - Grassman number - Poincaré group - Super-Poincaré algebra - Supermanifold - Superspace - Spin group - List of rules of inference - Connection form - Metric connection - Moving frame - Connection (vector bundle) - Quantum pseudo-telepathy - Skyrmion - Jacobi operator - Hessenberg matrix - Composition operator - Diagonal functor - Necklace polynomial - Yoneda lemma - Circle bundle - Eilenberg–MacLane space - Mutual information - Tensor product
Turnstile (symbol) - Natural deduction - Nome (mathematics) - Integrable system - Tautological one-form - Configuration space (physics) - Linear fractional transformation - Stable manifold - Roman pot - Spherically symmetric spacetime - Frame fields in general relativity - Kerr–Newman metric - Vacuum solution (general relativity) - Boyer–Lindquist coordinates - Spin connection - Fubini–Study metric - Gravitational instanton - Spinor - Weyl equation - Ginzburg–Landau theory - Spin glass - Conservative system - Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem - Manley–Rowe relations
Resonant interaction - Perturbation theory - Measure-preserving dynamical system - Bernoulli scheme - Markov odometer - Bernoulli process - Dyadic transformation - Riemann integral - Cantor function - Minkowski's question-mark function - Quadratic irrational number - Three-wave equation - Center manifold - Lebesgue covering dimension - Carathéodory's extension theorem - Commutator collecting process - Hall word - Free monoid - Monoid factorisation - Lyndon word - Free Lie algebra - Mixing (mathematics) - Nonlinear resonance - Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula
Sigma model - Lagrangian (field theory) - Hodge star operator - Divergence - Tetrad formalism - Dirichlet energy - Solder form - Ergodicity - n-vector model - Coalgebra - Symmetric space - Killing vector field - Isometry - Simple Lie group - Symplectic group - Lie group - C-symmetry - Higher-dimensional gamma matrices - Dirac spinor - Bispinor - Exterior calculus identities - Dirac operator - Tangloids - Dirac algebra
Gamma matrices - Majorana equation - Dirac equation - Helicity (particle physics) - Indefinite orthogonal group - Lorentz group - Sesquilinear form - Clutching construction - Chiral anomaly - T-symmetry - On Numbers and Games - Actual infinity - Near-rectilinear halo orbit - Lemaître coordinates - Cohomotopy set - Direct integral - Group action - Lusin's theorem - de Rham curve - Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) - Hankel matrix - Borel measure - Capacity of a set - Analytic capacity
Of the above, I'm particularly proud the ones that were major rewrites or even complete rewrites, either doubling or tripling the size of the article - anyway changes where more than about 5K or 10K bytes were added. These are listed above but repeated here:
Some major rewrites are just-plain-old hack jobs, without any particular elegance. Sometimes very ugly hack jobs. Notable only because they are large re-writes. Like the above, these are changes were more than about 5K or 10K bytes, sometimes doubling the size of the article.
Edits of 500 bytes or more were made to these non-math articles:
Removed AI-generated content from:
Due to the recent AfD of Draft:Mass dimension one fermions I started an attempt to describe the problem from first principles, here: Draft:ELKO Theory. This is hard, because existing literature is sloppy. This forced a major expansion of Majorana equation which ... is unsatisfying, because the existing literature on the Majorana equation is sloppy. There is not one single adequate review that does not do hand-waving at critical junctures. In particular, explanations of CPT symmetry of the Majorana eqn are a horrible mess.
Move to user-space: User talk:67.198.37.16/Draft:ELKO Theory
I am breaking my own rules about TODO-lists, namely, that they should never be created, because they will never be done. That said, the following red-links could be interesting and fun to write:
Things worth doing:
Things worth doing that someone should do, probably not me:
OMG:
Banned users: User:Hillman - User:Likebox - User:Silly rabbit - User:Incnis Mrsi - User:Dcoetzee
A big list (but not all are banned users?): Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- {{ Remember the lost}} -- oh my, that template has become a red link. Such deletions are just ... shameful.
Harassed users: User:Michael Hardy
Unhappy users: User:Deltahedron
See Talk:Conformal_bootstrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Link grammar, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV
20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Link grammar, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Hello, I'm
DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mass, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
DVdm (
talk)
19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility? Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear 67.198.37.16, thank you for your mature, wise and significative approach. I think I've learned a lot on this specific issue and on several others. Best regard. PS I would suggest to go to SAO/NASA-ADS: it is more complete and trustable than Google Scholar. It allows also to cope with the self-citations issue through the tori and the riq indexes. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. ( talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please create an account. If you do that I can give the account permission to edit the locked article. It is not technically possible to do that for an unregistered IP address. Spinning Spark 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
On self-promotion, the position is quite simple. We expect the person with a conflict of interest to leave it to neutral editors to decide whether to use the material, modify it, or leave it out altogether. If they do not, and continue to fight in-article, they risk being hounded off the project. As someone not connected with Iorio and scientifically knowledgeable you are in an ideal position to make that call. Spinning Spark 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andrea Insinga. I write you to ask your help about one of your contributions to the page Structure constants. In order to continue my research I really need a good reference for the following statement:
Can you suggest me a book or scientific paper where I can find a more detailed explanation about this statement? That would really help me a lot!
Best regards, Andrea Insinga 17 August 2017
Thank you so much! I will try looking in the book you suggested. Best, Andrea —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
About your comment on the talk page - I think you might like to read WP:NOT. You will see that WP is aimed to be clear and concise about facts of relevance, not a collection of all possible knowledge. Of course, each particular case is different. In the future, if you think something relevant is missing, find it first perhaps on the web and link to your comment on the talk page. If it's really hard to find, it is more likely than not that this info is not all that notable and best be omitted in the article. Happy editing! Mhym ( talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Judgment (mathematical logic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please explain why exactly the content you were removing is "junk" please.
Kirbanzo (
talk)
21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Judgment (mathematical logic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Philipnelson99 (
talk)
21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
Are you the same person who
screw up the product notation some three years ago?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply (although the question wasn’t answered explicitly). Now also here. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe pings don't work with IP addresses; this is to let you know that I have responded on my talk page. -- JBL ( talk) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Please respond to the allegations here before you next edit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ST47 (
talk)
04:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)67.198.37.16 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock; there is no stated reason for the block; from what I can tell, this is part of a long-running harassment campaign. If there is some specific edit that was objectionable, or some specific behavior pattern that is is disturbing someone in some way, then please articulate it, bring it out in the open, for all to see. Let's not machinate behind closed doors, OK? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 05:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not explained the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas. You will not be unblocked until you do that. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
67.198.37.16 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock. (1) I cannot reply to the sockpuppet accusation because it has been archived. (2) The reason, presented below, is quite clear. I have made 5000 edits in the course of five years; until now, no one noticed. I then made a political edit, this one, to an official high up in the WP hierarchy, and within hours was accused of being a sockpuppet - an accusation that could have been made at any time over the last 5 years, but wasn't. An accusation that no one bothered to make until I made a post that rubbed someone the wrong way. I then made a second post, this one, in which I attempted to bring into much sharper relief the core issue with regards to user-blocking, user-banning. Then I was immediately blocked. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to notice that the silencing of political dissent on Wikipedia is commonplace and wide-spread. It's abundantly clear that ya'll really, really don't like it when non-admins talk about blocking policy, or raise objections about the the community process. This particular block is a shining, brilliant example of this. Made-to-order, even. I am being blocked to prevent me from expressing political views about the nature of adminship in WP. Now, I could have been accused of sock-puppetry or any number of other blockable offenses (incivility, 3RR, etc.) at any time over the course of these five years -- but I wasn't. Until just the last few days, very little of my activity was of an overtly political nature. My subversive activity did not rise above the threshold of noticeability. Triggered no alarms. But once I began to talk about the politics of blocking and banning users, I was blocked. The block arrives just in time, as if to intentionally prove my point: WP faces a deep and fundamental problem with regards to the use of blocks. Y'all don't like hearing about this problem, or addressing it, or taking the steps needed to reform adminship and administration in WP. You would much rather silence critics, such as I, when we get outspoken. I hope that this conversation stands out as a shinning, clear-cut beacon, shedding light on the fundamental organizational problems of adminship on Wikipedia. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You can respond to the sockpuppet accusations here, that's what this page is for. It's not okay to be "subversive" even if it isn't noticed immediately. I am declining this request. 331dot ( talk) 17:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Why would you bother writing an unblock request like this that obviously would never be accepted by anyone? You should retract it. Ping me if you would like advice about filing unblock requests with a positive probability of success. -- JBL ( talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Conservative system, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me
13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
For your contributions on mathematics articles. Hope to see more of your contributions. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hello,
I have reverted some edits on Conservative system that concern style of writing, and MOS:STYLERET tells not to change between accepted styles, unless other main editors agree.
As you are the main editor of that page, feel free to revert my latest edit if you agree with the italicizing of greek letters.
Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 08:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Look, it's clear you want to contribute, and that's great, but you're going to have an increasingly hard time doing so while evading a block. If you really want to do this right, log into your main account and post an unblock request. This is an unusual case, and if you can swallow your pride and demonstrate that you want to make the effort to avoid what led to your block in the first place, it has a reasonable shot at succeeding. Your continued evasion will be an issue, but I'm sure something can be worked out. Multiple people have offered their support at various points. If you want, you can ping them from your talk page and see if they're willing to add to any discussion. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times. (So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article, and I reverted, and we got into a revert war. As it happens, he was an admin, so he banned me, and soon as that ban expired, all of his buddies banned me again for varying periods of time. I do recall trying to appeal, more than a few times, but was told that it was impossible, that the block had to be permanent due to "higher powers", and that I should either create a new account, or edit anonymously. So that's what I did. I'm just doing what I was told to do, I don't really want to get underneath someone's spot-light again. The spot-lights are painful. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'm throwing you another one. It is up to you to get on the line and hop back to the boat, or get drowned on the endless ocean of blocked users. Cheer up, and do the right thing. Declare you ownership to the Linas account, and appeal. After you get yourself a nice new account, declare that Linas is your account.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It might be helpful to ask forgiveness to people that you have personally attacked. You might ping them here, or else. This is just an advice. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ( marhata) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have added a note on User talk:Linas about getting an appeal set up, which I'll take the lead on - the basic gist is that this all ancient history and if we are actually here to write and improve an encyclopedia instead of being a glorified social network, we should probably think about an unblock. (In light of the above comments - I've basically been mulling this over for about four years) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The appeal is up : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review : Linas Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As one of the mathematical community I would like to find a way to have you back editing under a proper username. There is a process for this called the Wikipedia:Standard offer. This basically involves you not editing for six months without any attempts at trying to edit under an alternate username or as an IP. You then need make a commitment to avoid the behaviour that led to the initial ban.
In you case avoid the problematic behaviour would take a bit of work. You need to try and keep a lid on your anger. Statements like "Asking for forgiveness from a bully is inviting a punch to the stomach." unfortunately does you no favors. I get that you feel there has been some injustice in the past, and maybe there was, but in many cases its they way people respond to the issues rather than the issues themselves which cause the problems. The more users to prove their innocence the worse it gets. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I was looking through old contributions and noticed this comment was the last one you made before the account was blocked. Speaking personally and cycnically, Aspect-oriented programming is a buzzword designed to sell seminars and books, and is simply a fancy way of making old code call new code without modification, which pretty much any decent programming language in the last 50 years can do, more or less. And as you said, there's no particular difference between this and callbacks as used in X11 or the WNDCLASSEX::lpfnWndProc signature on Windows. Just avoid function pointers in C++ otherwise your head may explode. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Cheer up!
Regards,
Jeromi Mikhael (
marhata)
12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience at the AFD. Based on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_971#Disgrace_by_J._M._Koetze, I'm concerned that Dr. Ahluwalia fundamentally doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for your tireless work on math and physics articles Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
Slykos. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Dirac equation that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Calling a user's work "nonsense"
Slykos (
talk)
22:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Slykos (
talk)
16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Slykos (
talk)
17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Dirac equation, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -
DVdm (
talk)
12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Although I have kind of reverted much of your edits, I think they are interesting and important; they just weren't added in the right article. I'll try to explain.
T-symmetry is a term used mainly in particle physics to describe symmetry to the reversal of the time direction. Your edits refer to (and put emphasis on) what is known as "the origin of the arrow of time"; which can also be stated as the origin of the second law of thermodynamics. There are several different Wikipedia articles about this issue (such as the second law of thermodynamics and arrow of time). I think that your edits, after adding sources, may be added to these articles, up to some remarks I have about the content.
As for the content of your edits, I see several strong points but also some weaknesses:
I hope to see you continuing with your contributions, just please source your material and make sure it is in the correct place/article.
Thanks, Dan Gluck ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm intrigued that you find it plausible:
— Quondum 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16. I think you read my comment on the section limiting behavior of the polylogarithm and wrote your reply to it a bit too fast. I have written a detailed reply on the talk page. Best, Malparti ( talk) 09:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:ELKO Theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On the page about Lorentz group, I found a very interesting sentence which was added on December 4th, 2020 in relation to adding a new subjection about homomorphisms and isomorphisms. It is written: "The symplectic group Sp(2,C) is isomorphic to SL(2,C); it is used to construct Weyl spinors, as well as to explain how spinors can have a mass." In particular, I am interested in knowing where the last statement, i.e., the explanation of the mass of spinors, is found in literature. Stefan Groote ( talk) 05:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
From the way that you are writing about this, it seems that you need a much stronger background in representation theory. For this task, Fulton & Harris, "Representation Theory". It is another math book. It covers SU(2) and SL(2,C) and so on. If you are not finding this in Bjorken & Drell, it is because you are skimming too quick, and not paying attention. Let me quickly sketch the general idea.
First, there is the famous double-covering of SO(3) by SU(2), given by
I hope this is familiar. Here, is a vector in 3D space, R is a 3x3 rotation matrix, S is a matrix in SU(2) and are the three Pauli matrices.
Something very similar to this holds for the Lorentz group SL(2,C). 4D vectors transform under 4x4 Lorentz matrices L. 4D derivatives transform at the *inverse* of L. Spinors transform under S, which is now a 2x2 complex matrix. Mass terms m transform as scalars: i.e. they don't transform at all. If you try to write down the Weyl eqn as and then apply Lorentz transformations to it, the only way to get a Lorentz-covariant eqn is to set m=0. Otherwise it is just not covariant. This is in Bjorken & Drell, somewhere.
However, there is a trick! Write where is a 4-component Dirac spinor, and is a two-component Weyl spinor and is another Weyl spinor, but this time the complex conjugate, so that it transforms under instead of . The is the direct sum. If the direct sum notation is not familiar to you, be sure to include a few weeks of reviewing tensor algebras in addition to representation theory. Anyway, this allows you to write two coupled Weyl equations. If you do it correctly, the Dirac equation becomes this:
and
or something similar: I may have slipped in one too many stars, daggers and/or minus signs into above. I'm doing this from memory. (note the sign flip in front of the m -- this is NOT a mistake!) Anyway, this pair of coupled equations are Lorentz-covariant even when m is not zero. This pair of equations is the Dirac eqn, written out two components at a time!
The above is so fundamental to the idea of massive Dirac spinors that it is covered in Bjorken&Drell, and in Itzykson&Zuber, and in Jost, and possibly in a footnote in Fulton&Harris (not sure about this last).
Reading Fulton&Harris will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand Lorentz and SU(3) and SO(10) and all those things that theoretical physics people talk about. Reading the first 3 chapters of Jost will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand curvature and covariant derivatives and geodesics, which you need to understand general relativity. There are a number of modern, very good books on general relativity, and almost all of them will cover this same material. Although sadly, one that I looked at recently was filled with misprints and typos, so that is a shame. Otherwise a great book. Oh well. You will also need a good book on fiber bundles, but I don't know of any. You'll need horizontal and vertical connections, spin connections, solder forms. Go for Abraham & Marsden, "Classical Mechanics" It's old but good. It will take you another 3-6 months to read. So you have several years of reading material in front of you, and all of it is mandatory, required reading! Do not attempt to run past this material; stop and smell the roses. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " ELKO Theory".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Materialscientist (
talk)
01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " ELKO Theory".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16, would you mind re-assessing the article about Fair pie-cutting? Replacing "Mathematics" by "Economics" seems wrong to me. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 01:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I reverted your change special:diff/1211130730 to Poincaré disk model based on your edit summary, "the last one with the log is clearly wrong", which is inaccurate. These formulas are in fact equivalent, as is not hard to show with a bit of algebra. If you want empirical validation of that, I made a Desmos plot showing how this quantity compares when computed in these various ways: https://www.desmos.com/geometry/wdazt75lac – drag the blue points around and watch the computed numbers change in tandem. I'm sure there are published sources for these expressions, but I haven't looked to hard for them.
Whether we should include all of these equivalent expressions is a separate question; arguably they aren't the most important thing to emphasize. (Frankly this whole article is kind of crap and should be substantially rewritten.)
Personally I think another measure should be included in this context: the (hyperbolic) half-tangent of hyperbolic angle measure. For two points and represented by (Euclidean) vectors from the origin of magnitude , with hyperbolic angle measure between the points they represent, this stereographic distance (sometimes called in complex analysis literature the "pseudo-chordal distance") is:
where is the geometric product and means the magnitude of a multivector, defined by with being the "reverse" of .
This is just the length of the vector whose end is the point where the point represented by gets sent if you rotate hyperbolic space to put the the point represented by at the origin.
In the context of points on a sphere, I find this one often more practically useful than the chord-based distance. (I don't actually have much practical use for points in hyperbolic space; but a "chord" here means the extrinsic straight-line distance between points on a a 2-sheeted hyperboloid under a metric with signature , the "hyperboloid model"):
Cheers, – jacobolus (t) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
More than a metaphor: search engines for "theta function heat equation" give numerous hits. The primary ingredients are these:
But when does this all become known?
So we have three famous mathematicians studying heat the same year.
Speculation on my part:
Things that don't happen until later:
Some geometry only happens later:
Timelines I don't understand:
My general understanding but I've never plumbed the depths:
Well, that was fun. This is how I procrastinate. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Quantum speed limit theorems, you may be
blocked from editing.
Banana ezWIN (
talk)
15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed you're rapidly removing a part of talk pages, I'm wondering why is the change needed... Also I did create 2 redirects that you listed. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Adam Black GB. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Hawking radiation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Adam Black
t •
c
03:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, this is weird. I've had a look at Linas' block review at AN in 2020 and it's not entirely clear if the account should have been unblocked by consensus. I'll take this to WP:AN instead of blocking. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 07:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Soni:, This article requires either an admin of a request-for-move. Or discussion. So, look at the version from only a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Topological_defect&oldid=1150558991 and it is clear that this article used to have the title of topological soliton. This is absolutely the correct title for the article; someone inadvisably moved it to topological defect, which is a terrible decision: defects are a special case of solitons. Also, topological excitations are a special case of solitons. As far as I know, all solitons are in fact topological solitons! ... and so one could make a case for merging these articles into one. The primary issue here is the "write it as if it were for a high-school student" vs the "write it as if it were for a grad student" issue that WP has never entirely resolved. The article soliton provides the "easy intro for anyone" article. The topological soliton provides a "short survey for academics" article. Neither of these articles provide any overview of the math behind it, which is deep and wide. The stub version of topological excitations tried the "screw-the-intro-for-the-common-man, here's the math", but it's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. I'm going to now stick merge-to tags on these articles, and let the convo continue on the article pages. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
User:67.100.217.179 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 2 § User:67.100.217.179 until a consensus is reached.
Nickps (
talk)
11:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16. Thank you for your work on ELKO theory. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
The page relies upon reference 1, which according to Google Scholar has been cited 4 times. I cannot find anything to support a notability claim. ref 2 is well cited, but is an aside. Unless this is rapidly improved it should be AfD'd.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ELKO theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |