|
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 |
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Inspiring brilliance Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
Truly great work |
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
Einstein would admire you Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
We appreciate your effort Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Your efforts motivate us Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Dear Cuzkatzimhut, please accept this barnstar in recognition of making over 1,000 edits to articles on English Wikipedia, and for your amazing contributions to math and science related content.
Thank you so much for all your hard work! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Biography Barnstar | |
For all the effort you put into fixing factual and translation errors, and making the article better overall. Splendid work! M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Good idea with this edit: Exponential of a Pauli vector Brent Perreault ( talk) 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC) |
Dear Cuzkatzimhut, I'm very sorry for some mistakes in the page Perturbation theory but I think the original purpose is rather correct: I wish to specify that these ones are applications of analytical perturbation methods to QM, while many other fields have seen perturbation methods like neutronics basing on linear Boltzmann equation, viscoelasticity and so on. That is also the reason I have just suggested in the discussion of [Mathematical] Perturbation Theory page to solve the ambiguity on one hand by inverting the redirect with perturbation methods, and on the other hand to rename the Perturbation Theory (QM) page into Quantum perturbation Theories, (since there are more than one). Please let me know what do you think about my suggestion! 95.238.49.157 ( talk) 18:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuzkatzimhut! I see you have been working on the BCH article. I have a couple of questions, and you might be the one to ask? I have made a few small additions (let me know if they are bad). One addition is a note box on convergence, I placed it at the first appropriate place I could see. It turned out to be the "existence" section. But as I read it more carefully, it seems that convergence is not an issue there at all. Is this guess correct?
Another thing, when I rewrote classical group, there was an addition by you that got lost. I couldn't at that moment find a place for it in the new version because I din't understand it. I meant to ask you about how to fit it in, but I forgot all about it. Do you remember what it was? Something with Moyal algebra? YohanN7 ( talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, such an example would probably help! (If you were ambitious, you might also finesse Stone–von Neumann theorem which utilizes BCH, essentially for â and â†.) The Bologna IP might well be used by more than one person. The Laguna Verde edits, however, might not be inappropriate, since the upscaling of power units by 3 orders of magnitude seems to be bringing that plant up to standard power generation rates of nuclear plants in general. But what do I know... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it is not worth fussing things too much. I gather we have a problem of language: What most physicists have in mind, once they hear BCH, is most certainly not Dynkin's infinite expansion, but, usually something compact like the ψ expression of section 2.1 (Magnus, Miller, etc...), whatever method one employs in evaluating it (admittedly, often series expansions). Very often, they cut corners, without losing track of the controlling essence of the problem, and take logical leaps harder to justify than to explain, on the way to a correct answer, then proven and justified in several ways. The fact is that many of these expressions are solutions to operator differential equations, and series and combinatorics need never enter, for some applications. So, typically, a derivative operator d/dx may easily be plugged into these expressions, act on fancy functions f(x), and lead to correct results, regardless of presumed intermediate steps failing or not, and fussbudgets in the audience agonizing over square integrability of the relevant expressions or not. But we are talking about hypotheticals. If you had a cogent example illustrating the need of caution and the grim consequences of insouciance, why, it would certainly be useful. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Just to make sure we are on the same page: When I say that log(A) doesn't exist, I do not mean that there is no matrix X(whether in the Lie algebra or not) such that eX = A. One could interpret your last post such that you were under the impression that I meant that. Also, the article Logarithm of a matrix (I din't read it until now) puts this a bit loosely, and doesn't even give the formula below. The definition of log is
It is this formula that enters into the formulas involving BCH. It is, in general, divergent when
Surely you agree that formulas based on this can't be expected to have general validity, at least not a priori, and not without proof or reference? YohanN7 ( talk) 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry, I'm new here and still learning wikipedian conventions) Why's the TeX problematic? I thought it was much more readable than the makeshift caret-as-a-hat. Twilightrook ( talk) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we go for a (condensed) full proof of BCH (Dynkins formula)? It would take two more regular-sized sections. One for the differential of exp and one for the proof. YohanN7 ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I found this in a paper "Lie algebra" (almost a complete book) by Shlomo Sternberg that I'm reading right now:
It seems well-referenced enough to deserve mention. Still, it isn't present in the typical literature. YohanN7 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
PS. I see my favorite version in (1.2) of Sternberg's notes (also possibly worth linking in the article?). You might be interested to know that in Varadarajan's book, the formula comes out of lectures by Bargmann he attended at PU. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The baby proof is in place. It should be put in a note box, but this is problematic for me to test since I have this popup problem when i work in my user-space. YohanN7 ( talk) 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Derivative of the exponential map Thank you so much for all inspiration, guidance and hands on editing. Getting so much help from someone truly brilliant in the field, and other fields too, I strongly suspect on good grounds, the result can't become any other than good. But I am overwhelmed over that kind of caliber barnstar. Thank you again. I hope the year of the wine is right. Chateau Cheval Blanc 1996 YohanN7 ( talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks. But, having checked on the internet the price a bottle of this fetches at auction, I am obliged to confess I have found clearance discount bin "poor cousins" of it for $4.99 on occasion (luck; Chile, Portugal, Romania) which were actually good--with food. So, then, arguably the price equivalent of 50 bottles of those: At the rate of a bottle a week, that would amount to a year's supply... a heady supply, no? To think that my extremely distant (if not imagined) ancestors would trade wine to (alcoholic) Etruscan kings for slaves... getting heady already without the wine, there! Thanks again, Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 01:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I tried, and failed, to imagine alternate titles that some WP reader would try to find this type of stuff through, in a search, so as to fashion Redirects to this page... But with no luck... I cannot replicate the language one would use to search for it. In the past, I have seen things like that referred to as "Feynman's identity", which is a terrible cop-out... Perhaps Rossmann has pithy expressions on such? Anyway, I also stuck wikilinks to it in far-flung articles with clear conceptual links, but with no obvious handles to steer interested readers there. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The talk about different Hilbert spaces for in and out states has been nagging me for some time. The QFT texts I have seen never expresses the possibility, and Weinberg's volume 1 (I have that one) is very clear, and emphasizes that all states inhabit the same Hilbert space.
I don't mean to burden you with anything here, but cold you at least say yes/no/maybe? YohanN7 ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The persistent attacks at this article by an anonymous guy from MIT started from Marco Frasca's blog and now is reiterating here. You can check the IP address to verify it comes from MIT. I think a better way to stop them is to stop the IP itself as this guy does not seem to be too much skilled on computer science.-- Pra1998 ( talk) 20:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to write educational physics materials on Wikiversity, something I'm sure you appreciate, given all the well-intentioned efforts to insert mini-tutorials into Wikipedia. One issue that comes up on Wikipedia is the use of inline-TEX, which I use to compensate for the fact that equation numbers don't work well in wikitext (i.e., since I can't refer to previous equations by number I must describe them with words). In-line TEX is also fast to write, an important consideration for the highly underdeveloped Wikiversity. In other words, rough looking (but accurate) prose on Wikiversity is better than no prose. I understand from a recent comment you made, that some browsers poorly display inline-TEX. So I have two questions:
-- guyvan52 ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No argument there! I am a great fan of inline formulas. Indeed, for wikimedia my preferences of Math rendering were set to PNG, which made your page look Terrible, indeed, distracting (on a Yosemite OS Safari browser), but MLL etc makes it look tasteful. In that sense the future will improve compatibility. But doesn't Wikiversity support WP math templates? PS: I just checked it does! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
ƒ̂ , f̂ , f̂, , , ƒ̂ , and sundry reminders i have jumbled in my sandbox.... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
BUT look at what happens to the above under continuous magnification, positive And negative.... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC) There is also the world of stuff ... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To let you know, the "last resort" regarding VB didn't respond. (The first two were very helpful and quick to respond.) As a parenthetical remark, I find some copyright laws around pretty absurd. It isn't exactly like VB himself is allowed to object to having his picture giving glory our articles. YohanN7 ( talk) 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
They did answer now, equally politely, after having searched through the boxes with VB's papers where it conceivably could have been found. Maybe I should make this my life mission? Legally obtain a photo that a 9-year old could arrange in a split-second. Sigh! YohanN7 ( talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I think an article without a good history section and a picture or two of the most prominent persons involved is lacking something. Preferably, there should be an anecdote or two as well. Just a naked publication date of the seminal paper in question feels rather dry. I have fairly recently gained access (through WP) to the natural sciences publications of the Royal Society (it's great, lots from the 30's, 40's and 50's is directly relevant for what I mostly have been writing about here), and I'll get full access to JSTOR in the days to come (and hopefully Elsevier's physical sciences later on). But I failed to apply for access to the history of science publications. I regret that. YohanN7 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify your reason for this edit? Of course linearity is essential to the subject of the article, but why is it relevant to the use of "powers" in reference to iterative application of the operator? I am at a loss to see any connection. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Another query. This one I can't figure out: Rotation matrix What is the (vector?) A in section Exponential map? Also (unrelated but related) is there a half-angle version of Rodrigues' rotation formula on matrix form? YohanN7 ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert this edit? The reversion wasn't given a summary. To my knowledge, my edit was correct and added significant information to the page. (Sorry, I don't know how to sign this comment, I'll look back here to see if there's a reply.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.4.162 ( talk) 19:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I could not find anywhere in Wikipedia the fact I mentioned, where one could have , for example, in , and I wanted to reference it from another site. As for the content and tone of the rest of your remark, do you really want to discourage occasional contributions from professional mathematicians? 24.12.4.162 ( talk)
Hi, excuse the favour, but user:YohanN7 and myself have had a discussion on how to clarify wave functions for particles with spin; particularly on domains and codomains, and the decomposition into a product of a space function and spin function (when possible). It seems badly covered in the literature, but it's no reason for the WP article to be just as unclear.
We have reached a conclusion, and intend to edit the actual article, but before we do a third opinion and your expertise would be valuable. I ask here given your collaboration with Yohan and because of your activity on the Pauli matrices article.
Thanks! ^_^ M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dear, as I said, I am very bad in replicating what others thought, when, etc.. in a convoluted appeals case! I seem to be agreeing with everyone, which might mean that I am missing a point, or not... In any case, I completely agree with the "sloppy"
above, and hardly imagine it could confuse anyone. I am completely confused about any (presumed??) practical difference (skipping t) between (x,i) ↦ c and x ↦ (c1, c2) for i a bimodal variable, =1,2 and c's complex numbers... Is there any? Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Trip cancelled. Thanks to Maschen for move of higher spin matrices. To my surprise (well, perhaps not really, given the caliber of the guy...), Willard Gibbs was teaching the Pauli vector composition formula to his students in 1884, "essentially", before Pauli matrices, before Engø, of course, and without the benefit of quaternions, even... I added the ref, but not the link to the free copy of the IInd volume of his collected works on Google books. The things one learns at the end of the day... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 20:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I have an issue with a number of images pertaining to Compton scattering. If you think you have any insights, please visit:
commons:User_talk:Guy_vandegrift#A_physics_question_about_compton_scattering_images
Thanks - -- guyvan52 ( talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you please add some references to Scalar field theory, where they belong. That would be great, thanks. And maybe expand here Solutions of the Einstein field equations. prokaryotes ( talk) 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that your edit here, does not conform with WP standards. If you want to improve reference please add them at the correct place, and add proper references. prokaryotes ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Cuzkatzimhut (Result: ). Your post doesn't follow the usual rules, in that it doesn't specify an article where you believe that edit warring has taken place. Please expand your report. You should include the names of one or more articles that show either a 3RR violation, or a pattern of long-term edit warring. A general complaint about the behavior of an editor belongs in some other place. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Ed, I am not sure what to propose: In my mind, your board has grossly failed its mission. If there is another venue to address this destructive hounding, please do transfer the case there.
I originally invited you to identify the highly personalized rampage of Aug 13, UT 15:05 - 27:10, and the unwarranted gratuitous acrimony that followed, and to collectively restore the damaged pages, Adjugate matrix, Fermi's golden rule, scale invariance, special unitary group, non-linear sigma model, De Sitter special relativity, Rotation formalisms in three dimensions, canonical commutation relation, wave packet, Polynomial Wigner–Ville distribution, wave packet, pauli matrices, etc, all edited by me last, and that the livid rampager decided to "fix" in a breathtaking spasm of bullying petulance (can only email privately on this). I was hoping you'd realize than when references are summary deleted only to be supplanted by request for references templates, that should be an open-and-shut case.
After the "I don't know what you are talking about" treatment, I am giving up on your report board, and will try to redress the damage, by myself and with conscientious collaborators, laboriously, by hand. However, I should think WP deserves a better way of defending itself against such vicious rampages. It is not about me, and I ask for nothing myself. It is about stanching runaway loose-canon damage. You are aware, I assume, of lots of these little dramas that never reach you, but which routinely result to rather nasty damage to perfectly fine WP pages, negating lots of volunteer work---all wasted.
But if you investigated and failed to see the pattern, and wanted me to build up a lawyerly case for the obvious, I have no stomach for it. I will try to fight the good fight away from that disappointing board. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prokaryotes ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
prokaryotes (
talk)
17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that your edits are in good faith, and so are many of the other editor's. I linked this at WP:ANI but I am not sure if you and YohanN7 read it. You might want to read Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge since it seems to pertain to your case. I am not qualified enough to judge how applicable it is to your case, but you might want to keep this in mind. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frank Kenneth Goward, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.goward.com/Frank%20Kenneth%20Goward.htm.
It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Frank Kenneth Goward requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.goward.com/Frank%20Kenneth%20Goward.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qpalzmmzlapq ( talk to me) 20:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been editing the table at Green's function with some more edits planned. I noticed you have been editing fundamental solution. The two articles don't seem very different to me, apart from the greater development of the Green's function article. The first few sentences of the two articles mention that boundary conditions are the difference, which is somewhat weak of a difference given that you would usually integrate/convolve a Green's function or fundamental solution over some boundary, use the method of images, or do something like that in either case. Is there some historical distinction that's important? Or is it worth merging these articles? There's also the throw-away article method of fundamental solutions.
By the way, please check my work in the table. I had been mostly inspired by equation 16 of [2] while solving the 2D version for a ballistic+diffusive model that I needed. I tried to adjust the prefactors of the deltas in the solutions to the parabolic and hyperbolic equations integrate to 1 in each time slice following the example. For the Klein–Gordon equation, this is maybe weird because you usually want the integral of the square to be 1. Teply ( talk) 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello - I added a section to Microstate (statistical mechanics) entitled "the microstate in phase space" subsection "Classical mechanics". I have been concentrating on classical thermodynamics lately, and I am not ready to describe the microstate in quantum phase space. If you are so inclined, I think it would be a good addition to the article. PAR ( talk) 23:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi-You should go to the editorial assistance/request noticeboard; an IP user mentioned some edits you reverted. This would be under the heading of Predatory behavior towards IP user. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked them the obvious question: if consensus is the central pillar of WP, how do you achieve consensus with anonymous figures who refuse to talk to you?. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
To whom it may concern. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
03:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you recently reverted my edit to the Jacobi's formula page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jacobi's_formula&type=revision&diff=758456249&oldid=758394601 .
You are right, the special case does appear in the proof; I admit I did not read the proof. How do you feel about calling out the special case somewhere, so lazy people don't have to search for it in the two page proof of the general formula?
I just added the special case to the intro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jacobi's_formula&oldid=758489423 ,
Does that seem reasonable?
And why do I think this special case is important? I need it because it comes up when you take the gradient w.r.t. the matrix elements of formula involving the determinant of that matrix. This comes up when try to use gradient ascent to optimize such a matrix formula. For example (not my question or answer, but the ntc2 comment is mine):
In my case, I need to optimize the likelihood of a multivariate normal:
/info/en/?search=Multivariate_normal_distribution#Likelihood_function .
Enoksrd ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see here [3], thanks M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cuzkatzimhut, I noted a recent article on using the Born–Jordan quantization in place of Weyl quantization, and on a redefinition of phase space quantum mechanics, in which the Wigner distribution is replaced with another quasi-distribution associated with Born–Jordan quantization ( The Angular Momentum Dilemma and Born–Jordan Quantization). It's an article by Maurice A. de Gosson, and certainly to be taken seriously. I was wondering whether you see something of value for the Wikipedia article on phase space formulation? I am out of my waters here and was thinking you may see more clearly on this, or might know about it already. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thx for your reply, I have a few questions to the subject of strong and weak interaction:
I don't quite get the difference of g (coupling constant), g (coupling strenght), g (coupling parameter), g (colour charge), g (gauge coupling parameter), g'(???). The equations I read seem contradictory to my understanding.
For myself I use different notations for every quantity:
Please could you explain if g(charge) has units of Coulomb or isn't it rather a different dimension (colour charge)? g' should be the weak charge (??) which is usually denoted Y_W, but I found: g'=Y_W*e, which makes units of Coulomb. Ra-raisch ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
About the intuitive geometric significances of Split-complex number and Pauli matrices in a plane. I think it is worthy to add them. Would you please think about it? Lily Lily ( talk) 12:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You reverted one of my recent edits, with edit summary:
(Reverted good faith edits by Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk): Conversion to inline TeX deprecated, due to platform inflexibility: be considerate to other users! (TW))
I don't understand what the problem is. My edit used markup similar to that already in use in that article to present several variables and functions more self-consistently, and that was motivated by being "considerate to other users!" Many readers fail to connect two occurrences of the same entity when they're presented in different typefaces or styles, and that's what I thought I was fixing.
Is it simply that some hardware devices and software platforms don't understand the markup we use? And if so, surely we're not writing for the lowest common denominator hardware and software imaginable, e.g. an Apple II, TRS-80 or Commodore 4!
Earlier on your talk page I noticed a long history of discussion (and confusion!) over using Tex. Could you please point me to a concise statement, whether in Wikipedia policies, guidelines or even essays, that will clarify:
Thanks for your attention! yoyo ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, long time no see! I also -luckily- did not encounter that Prokariotes since then. ;)
I'm just here to report that, while wading through disambiguations, I perceived some urge not to select the mathematical article about involuting something, but the philosophical one, instead. I cannot precisely recall my motivation to do so, but for now I want to thank you for your correction. Please, assume I know about the mathy meaning of involution, too. In case some convincing argument for philosophy overcomes me, I'll leave an extensive edit summary. :)
With the best seasonal wishes, Purgy ( talk) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Section transfered to footnote: much better in my opinion. Thanks for compromising. Herbmuell ( talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I am going thru pages and just fixing the grammar up and not taking info out. I think its important as many people who know much on a subject do not know English grammar well. If you have any pages that you want me to look at please let me know. BernardZ ( talk)
Respected Cuzkatzimhut, I ask for your pardon for undoing your revision without having a talk with you at first. I think that even the 'bra-ket' notation is a bit clumsy or superfluous, it still represents an easier way for the derivation. This notation does not involve the integration picture, and hence, one need not to know about the Leibniz's rule for differentiation under the integral sign, which states about the interchange of the integral and differential operators under certaion conditions. I request you to explain me that why do you think that the notation is cumbersome. -- PratikDasIndia695 ( talk) 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Evangelinos Apostolides Sophocles, 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.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)
10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
|
@Jovanmilic97 OK, I linked inline all the extant refs supporting the dates, etc, as advised on the online chat. But, for crying out loud, the stub consists of only two sentences and the rest is links. I condensed the German WP article precisely so I would not have to fight a tendentious uphill battle proving the earth is not flat on every step. I wonder if you could just release it for general consumption, with the appropriate sour templates malefactors litter WP with, so some Harvard type could notice it and improve it. I may have run out of gumption running in circles. I am growing to understand why the English WP has been failing to cover the subject unlike the German and Greek ones... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Please see the sentence "It is an important part of Dirac's development of Hamiltonian mechanics to elegantly handle more general Lagrangians, when constraints and thus more apparent than dynamical variables are at hand" in the page on Dirac bracket in the very beginning.
Do you think there is no typing mistake involved here? Unsigned comment by User:Sashwattanay
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong ( talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Hi Cuzkatzimhut, I think you were incorrect to remove [6] my sentence "The truncated Wigner approximation is a semiclassical approximation to the dynamics obtained by replacing Moyal's equation with the classical Liouville's equation." from the page Wigner quasiprobability distribution. Your only explanation was "Write article before redlinking!", but Wikipedia's page on red links [7] says " It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable....Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." (My emphasis.) The truncated Wigner approximation is a widely used dynamical approximation and certainly should have a page of its own, but I don't have time to create one now. (Even if, counterfactually, the red link was inappropriate, it would be much more respectful for you to simply remove the link rather than revert my entire edit.) Jess_Riedel ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite confident. Sensible realistic pleas by readers wishing for more information could be inserted into the Talk page of the article, rather than spatchcocked in the article; now that is the constructive thing to do, instead of a "write me an article on this" demand. You may imagine the redlinking ploy has not been abused, but I beg to strongly differ, and I distinctly do not wish to enter into a good faith exegesis. As you may ascertain, truncation works in both their equations and their solutions, in tandem. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have received your email. May I include your comments on the draft talk page?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. If is not the quantum state for the quark content, then what is it? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant ( talk) 06:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by your edit in the Wigner distribution page. I'm fine with moving the section and the grammar fixes, but what's the problem with the collapsible section? Doesn't it make the text flow better? Especially if other examples are added to the section (I think it would be useful to have some such examples listed for reference). Also, how is adding a reference to a textbook presenting the proof bad? Luca ( talk) 13:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, done. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with the article Yang–Mills existence and mass gap. Some anonymous editing is going on citing the same article you removed from the QCD page that is rather crackpottery. Please, could you check? Thanks.-- Pra1998 ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Haha, when did you invent that kind of terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
and a boom too :) Ricardogpn ( talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I am following with interest your publications as a Wikipedia editor, in particular with regard to the Wigner function and general properties of quantum mechanics. You can be interested to know that paragraph 7 of Mathematical properties of the article
/info/en/?search=Wigner_quasiprobability_distribution
contradicts to the footnote 19 on page 71 of the monograph Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students (Student Mathematical Library) L. D. Faddeev and O. A. Yakubovskii (American Mathematical Society, 2009)
which can be downloaded from
https://en.ru1lib.org/book/1209526/591310.
Here
/info/en/?search=Talk:Method_of_quantum_characteristics
it is argued that paragraph 7 of Mathematical properties is correct. Indeed, when calculating the average, star product can be replaced with ordinary product. -- Edehdu ( talk) 08:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think so: in phase space, not optical phase space, the Glauber-ordering Cohen function (which is the inverse of the Husimi such function, also doomed) and resulting star product are both a mess; in short, I've never heard of that. Secondly, I insist the article you link to is generic and should not fall into the rabbit hole of alternate ordering prescriptions. You might consider making accurate narrow statements in the Glauber–Sudarshan P representation article, but make sure they convey an accurate, mainstream-referenced (such as Schleich's or Cohen's books) principle. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, re your revert of today, in case you wish to see the point of the abuse charged, note the math MOS lack of spacing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Explanation of symbols in formulae. Surely the manual is not intended to proffer the bad example. This is how embedded formulas are meant to render in mainstream platforms; I cannot vouch for cell-phones. With extra lines, the cornerstone principle of math typesetting "math is text" is completely subverted and the formal discussion is forced to stumble. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 22:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
<math display=block>...</math>
, but I find that the display=block
version is rendered with excessive whitespace above and below and sometimes generates superfluous scroll bars, so I don’t bother trying to change those. –
jacobolus
(t)
00:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Aha, I figured out what happens. When using math display=block
if there's no blank line after, the resulting markup is incorrect. when ("improperly") using a definition list for block math it makes no difference whatsoever to the result. Example:
If we have the beginning of a sentence, then put a display=block
formula,
then continue with the sentence, this part after the block math will not be correctly put into a paragraph tag. Check the resulting HTML on the page using 'view source' to see how.
If we use a blank line between,
then the resulting markup works as expected (albeit renders with more vertical whitespace than my preference).
If we use :<math>
it makes no difference,
we get the exact same resulting HTML without (above) or with (below) blank lines,
as you can see.
Cheers, jacobolus (t) 02:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to BASIC (institute). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 03:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:BASIC (institute), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " BASIC".
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! 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
|
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 |
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Inspiring brilliance Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
Truly great work |
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
Einstein would admire you Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
We appreciate your effort Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Your efforts motivate us Dick Chu ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Zohanmesser ( talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Dear Cuzkatzimhut, please accept this barnstar in recognition of making over 1,000 edits to articles on English Wikipedia, and for your amazing contributions to math and science related content.
Thank you so much for all your hard work! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Biography Barnstar | |
For all the effort you put into fixing factual and translation errors, and making the article better overall. Splendid work! M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Good idea with this edit: Exponential of a Pauli vector Brent Perreault ( talk) 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC) |
Dear Cuzkatzimhut, I'm very sorry for some mistakes in the page Perturbation theory but I think the original purpose is rather correct: I wish to specify that these ones are applications of analytical perturbation methods to QM, while many other fields have seen perturbation methods like neutronics basing on linear Boltzmann equation, viscoelasticity and so on. That is also the reason I have just suggested in the discussion of [Mathematical] Perturbation Theory page to solve the ambiguity on one hand by inverting the redirect with perturbation methods, and on the other hand to rename the Perturbation Theory (QM) page into Quantum perturbation Theories, (since there are more than one). Please let me know what do you think about my suggestion! 95.238.49.157 ( talk) 18:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuzkatzimhut! I see you have been working on the BCH article. I have a couple of questions, and you might be the one to ask? I have made a few small additions (let me know if they are bad). One addition is a note box on convergence, I placed it at the first appropriate place I could see. It turned out to be the "existence" section. But as I read it more carefully, it seems that convergence is not an issue there at all. Is this guess correct?
Another thing, when I rewrote classical group, there was an addition by you that got lost. I couldn't at that moment find a place for it in the new version because I din't understand it. I meant to ask you about how to fit it in, but I forgot all about it. Do you remember what it was? Something with Moyal algebra? YohanN7 ( talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, such an example would probably help! (If you were ambitious, you might also finesse Stone–von Neumann theorem which utilizes BCH, essentially for â and â†.) The Bologna IP might well be used by more than one person. The Laguna Verde edits, however, might not be inappropriate, since the upscaling of power units by 3 orders of magnitude seems to be bringing that plant up to standard power generation rates of nuclear plants in general. But what do I know... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it is not worth fussing things too much. I gather we have a problem of language: What most physicists have in mind, once they hear BCH, is most certainly not Dynkin's infinite expansion, but, usually something compact like the ψ expression of section 2.1 (Magnus, Miller, etc...), whatever method one employs in evaluating it (admittedly, often series expansions). Very often, they cut corners, without losing track of the controlling essence of the problem, and take logical leaps harder to justify than to explain, on the way to a correct answer, then proven and justified in several ways. The fact is that many of these expressions are solutions to operator differential equations, and series and combinatorics need never enter, for some applications. So, typically, a derivative operator d/dx may easily be plugged into these expressions, act on fancy functions f(x), and lead to correct results, regardless of presumed intermediate steps failing or not, and fussbudgets in the audience agonizing over square integrability of the relevant expressions or not. But we are talking about hypotheticals. If you had a cogent example illustrating the need of caution and the grim consequences of insouciance, why, it would certainly be useful. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Just to make sure we are on the same page: When I say that log(A) doesn't exist, I do not mean that there is no matrix X(whether in the Lie algebra or not) such that eX = A. One could interpret your last post such that you were under the impression that I meant that. Also, the article Logarithm of a matrix (I din't read it until now) puts this a bit loosely, and doesn't even give the formula below. The definition of log is
It is this formula that enters into the formulas involving BCH. It is, in general, divergent when
Surely you agree that formulas based on this can't be expected to have general validity, at least not a priori, and not without proof or reference? YohanN7 ( talk) 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry, I'm new here and still learning wikipedian conventions) Why's the TeX problematic? I thought it was much more readable than the makeshift caret-as-a-hat. Twilightrook ( talk) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we go for a (condensed) full proof of BCH (Dynkins formula)? It would take two more regular-sized sections. One for the differential of exp and one for the proof. YohanN7 ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I found this in a paper "Lie algebra" (almost a complete book) by Shlomo Sternberg that I'm reading right now:
It seems well-referenced enough to deserve mention. Still, it isn't present in the typical literature. YohanN7 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
PS. I see my favorite version in (1.2) of Sternberg's notes (also possibly worth linking in the article?). You might be interested to know that in Varadarajan's book, the formula comes out of lectures by Bargmann he attended at PU. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The baby proof is in place. It should be put in a note box, but this is problematic for me to test since I have this popup problem when i work in my user-space. YohanN7 ( talk) 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Derivative of the exponential map Thank you so much for all inspiration, guidance and hands on editing. Getting so much help from someone truly brilliant in the field, and other fields too, I strongly suspect on good grounds, the result can't become any other than good. But I am overwhelmed over that kind of caliber barnstar. Thank you again. I hope the year of the wine is right. Chateau Cheval Blanc 1996 YohanN7 ( talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks. But, having checked on the internet the price a bottle of this fetches at auction, I am obliged to confess I have found clearance discount bin "poor cousins" of it for $4.99 on occasion (luck; Chile, Portugal, Romania) which were actually good--with food. So, then, arguably the price equivalent of 50 bottles of those: At the rate of a bottle a week, that would amount to a year's supply... a heady supply, no? To think that my extremely distant (if not imagined) ancestors would trade wine to (alcoholic) Etruscan kings for slaves... getting heady already without the wine, there! Thanks again, Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 01:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I tried, and failed, to imagine alternate titles that some WP reader would try to find this type of stuff through, in a search, so as to fashion Redirects to this page... But with no luck... I cannot replicate the language one would use to search for it. In the past, I have seen things like that referred to as "Feynman's identity", which is a terrible cop-out... Perhaps Rossmann has pithy expressions on such? Anyway, I also stuck wikilinks to it in far-flung articles with clear conceptual links, but with no obvious handles to steer interested readers there. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The talk about different Hilbert spaces for in and out states has been nagging me for some time. The QFT texts I have seen never expresses the possibility, and Weinberg's volume 1 (I have that one) is very clear, and emphasizes that all states inhabit the same Hilbert space.
I don't mean to burden you with anything here, but cold you at least say yes/no/maybe? YohanN7 ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The persistent attacks at this article by an anonymous guy from MIT started from Marco Frasca's blog and now is reiterating here. You can check the IP address to verify it comes from MIT. I think a better way to stop them is to stop the IP itself as this guy does not seem to be too much skilled on computer science.-- Pra1998 ( talk) 20:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to write educational physics materials on Wikiversity, something I'm sure you appreciate, given all the well-intentioned efforts to insert mini-tutorials into Wikipedia. One issue that comes up on Wikipedia is the use of inline-TEX, which I use to compensate for the fact that equation numbers don't work well in wikitext (i.e., since I can't refer to previous equations by number I must describe them with words). In-line TEX is also fast to write, an important consideration for the highly underdeveloped Wikiversity. In other words, rough looking (but accurate) prose on Wikiversity is better than no prose. I understand from a recent comment you made, that some browsers poorly display inline-TEX. So I have two questions:
-- guyvan52 ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No argument there! I am a great fan of inline formulas. Indeed, for wikimedia my preferences of Math rendering were set to PNG, which made your page look Terrible, indeed, distracting (on a Yosemite OS Safari browser), but MLL etc makes it look tasteful. In that sense the future will improve compatibility. But doesn't Wikiversity support WP math templates? PS: I just checked it does! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
ƒ̂ , f̂ , f̂, , , ƒ̂ , and sundry reminders i have jumbled in my sandbox.... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
BUT look at what happens to the above under continuous magnification, positive And negative.... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC) There is also the world of stuff ... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To let you know, the "last resort" regarding VB didn't respond. (The first two were very helpful and quick to respond.) As a parenthetical remark, I find some copyright laws around pretty absurd. It isn't exactly like VB himself is allowed to object to having his picture giving glory our articles. YohanN7 ( talk) 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
They did answer now, equally politely, after having searched through the boxes with VB's papers where it conceivably could have been found. Maybe I should make this my life mission? Legally obtain a photo that a 9-year old could arrange in a split-second. Sigh! YohanN7 ( talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I think an article without a good history section and a picture or two of the most prominent persons involved is lacking something. Preferably, there should be an anecdote or two as well. Just a naked publication date of the seminal paper in question feels rather dry. I have fairly recently gained access (through WP) to the natural sciences publications of the Royal Society (it's great, lots from the 30's, 40's and 50's is directly relevant for what I mostly have been writing about here), and I'll get full access to JSTOR in the days to come (and hopefully Elsevier's physical sciences later on). But I failed to apply for access to the history of science publications. I regret that. YohanN7 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify your reason for this edit? Of course linearity is essential to the subject of the article, but why is it relevant to the use of "powers" in reference to iterative application of the operator? I am at a loss to see any connection. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Another query. This one I can't figure out: Rotation matrix What is the (vector?) A in section Exponential map? Also (unrelated but related) is there a half-angle version of Rodrigues' rotation formula on matrix form? YohanN7 ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert this edit? The reversion wasn't given a summary. To my knowledge, my edit was correct and added significant information to the page. (Sorry, I don't know how to sign this comment, I'll look back here to see if there's a reply.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.4.162 ( talk) 19:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I could not find anywhere in Wikipedia the fact I mentioned, where one could have , for example, in , and I wanted to reference it from another site. As for the content and tone of the rest of your remark, do you really want to discourage occasional contributions from professional mathematicians? 24.12.4.162 ( talk)
Hi, excuse the favour, but user:YohanN7 and myself have had a discussion on how to clarify wave functions for particles with spin; particularly on domains and codomains, and the decomposition into a product of a space function and spin function (when possible). It seems badly covered in the literature, but it's no reason for the WP article to be just as unclear.
We have reached a conclusion, and intend to edit the actual article, but before we do a third opinion and your expertise would be valuable. I ask here given your collaboration with Yohan and because of your activity on the Pauli matrices article.
Thanks! ^_^ M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dear, as I said, I am very bad in replicating what others thought, when, etc.. in a convoluted appeals case! I seem to be agreeing with everyone, which might mean that I am missing a point, or not... In any case, I completely agree with the "sloppy"
above, and hardly imagine it could confuse anyone. I am completely confused about any (presumed??) practical difference (skipping t) between (x,i) ↦ c and x ↦ (c1, c2) for i a bimodal variable, =1,2 and c's complex numbers... Is there any? Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Trip cancelled. Thanks to Maschen for move of higher spin matrices. To my surprise (well, perhaps not really, given the caliber of the guy...), Willard Gibbs was teaching the Pauli vector composition formula to his students in 1884, "essentially", before Pauli matrices, before Engø, of course, and without the benefit of quaternions, even... I added the ref, but not the link to the free copy of the IInd volume of his collected works on Google books. The things one learns at the end of the day... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 20:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I have an issue with a number of images pertaining to Compton scattering. If you think you have any insights, please visit:
commons:User_talk:Guy_vandegrift#A_physics_question_about_compton_scattering_images
Thanks - -- guyvan52 ( talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you please add some references to Scalar field theory, where they belong. That would be great, thanks. And maybe expand here Solutions of the Einstein field equations. prokaryotes ( talk) 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that your edit here, does not conform with WP standards. If you want to improve reference please add them at the correct place, and add proper references. prokaryotes ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Cuzkatzimhut (Result: ). Your post doesn't follow the usual rules, in that it doesn't specify an article where you believe that edit warring has taken place. Please expand your report. You should include the names of one or more articles that show either a 3RR violation, or a pattern of long-term edit warring. A general complaint about the behavior of an editor belongs in some other place. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Ed, I am not sure what to propose: In my mind, your board has grossly failed its mission. If there is another venue to address this destructive hounding, please do transfer the case there.
I originally invited you to identify the highly personalized rampage of Aug 13, UT 15:05 - 27:10, and the unwarranted gratuitous acrimony that followed, and to collectively restore the damaged pages, Adjugate matrix, Fermi's golden rule, scale invariance, special unitary group, non-linear sigma model, De Sitter special relativity, Rotation formalisms in three dimensions, canonical commutation relation, wave packet, Polynomial Wigner–Ville distribution, wave packet, pauli matrices, etc, all edited by me last, and that the livid rampager decided to "fix" in a breathtaking spasm of bullying petulance (can only email privately on this). I was hoping you'd realize than when references are summary deleted only to be supplanted by request for references templates, that should be an open-and-shut case.
After the "I don't know what you are talking about" treatment, I am giving up on your report board, and will try to redress the damage, by myself and with conscientious collaborators, laboriously, by hand. However, I should think WP deserves a better way of defending itself against such vicious rampages. It is not about me, and I ask for nothing myself. It is about stanching runaway loose-canon damage. You are aware, I assume, of lots of these little dramas that never reach you, but which routinely result to rather nasty damage to perfectly fine WP pages, negating lots of volunteer work---all wasted.
But if you investigated and failed to see the pattern, and wanted me to build up a lawyerly case for the obvious, I have no stomach for it. I will try to fight the good fight away from that disappointing board. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prokaryotes ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
prokaryotes (
talk)
17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that your edits are in good faith, and so are many of the other editor's. I linked this at WP:ANI but I am not sure if you and YohanN7 read it. You might want to read Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge since it seems to pertain to your case. I am not qualified enough to judge how applicable it is to your case, but you might want to keep this in mind. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frank Kenneth Goward, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.goward.com/Frank%20Kenneth%20Goward.htm.
It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Frank Kenneth Goward requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.goward.com/Frank%20Kenneth%20Goward.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qpalzmmzlapq ( talk to me) 20:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been editing the table at Green's function with some more edits planned. I noticed you have been editing fundamental solution. The two articles don't seem very different to me, apart from the greater development of the Green's function article. The first few sentences of the two articles mention that boundary conditions are the difference, which is somewhat weak of a difference given that you would usually integrate/convolve a Green's function or fundamental solution over some boundary, use the method of images, or do something like that in either case. Is there some historical distinction that's important? Or is it worth merging these articles? There's also the throw-away article method of fundamental solutions.
By the way, please check my work in the table. I had been mostly inspired by equation 16 of [2] while solving the 2D version for a ballistic+diffusive model that I needed. I tried to adjust the prefactors of the deltas in the solutions to the parabolic and hyperbolic equations integrate to 1 in each time slice following the example. For the Klein–Gordon equation, this is maybe weird because you usually want the integral of the square to be 1. Teply ( talk) 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello - I added a section to Microstate (statistical mechanics) entitled "the microstate in phase space" subsection "Classical mechanics". I have been concentrating on classical thermodynamics lately, and I am not ready to describe the microstate in quantum phase space. If you are so inclined, I think it would be a good addition to the article. PAR ( talk) 23:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi-You should go to the editorial assistance/request noticeboard; an IP user mentioned some edits you reverted. This would be under the heading of Predatory behavior towards IP user. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 12:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked them the obvious question: if consensus is the central pillar of WP, how do you achieve consensus with anonymous figures who refuse to talk to you?. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
To whom it may concern. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
03:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you recently reverted my edit to the Jacobi's formula page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jacobi's_formula&type=revision&diff=758456249&oldid=758394601 .
You are right, the special case does appear in the proof; I admit I did not read the proof. How do you feel about calling out the special case somewhere, so lazy people don't have to search for it in the two page proof of the general formula?
I just added the special case to the intro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jacobi's_formula&oldid=758489423 ,
Does that seem reasonable?
And why do I think this special case is important? I need it because it comes up when you take the gradient w.r.t. the matrix elements of formula involving the determinant of that matrix. This comes up when try to use gradient ascent to optimize such a matrix formula. For example (not my question or answer, but the ntc2 comment is mine):
In my case, I need to optimize the likelihood of a multivariate normal:
/info/en/?search=Multivariate_normal_distribution#Likelihood_function .
Enoksrd ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see here [3], thanks M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cuzkatzimhut, I noted a recent article on using the Born–Jordan quantization in place of Weyl quantization, and on a redefinition of phase space quantum mechanics, in which the Wigner distribution is replaced with another quasi-distribution associated with Born–Jordan quantization ( The Angular Momentum Dilemma and Born–Jordan Quantization). It's an article by Maurice A. de Gosson, and certainly to be taken seriously. I was wondering whether you see something of value for the Wikipedia article on phase space formulation? I am out of my waters here and was thinking you may see more clearly on this, or might know about it already. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thx for your reply, I have a few questions to the subject of strong and weak interaction:
I don't quite get the difference of g (coupling constant), g (coupling strenght), g (coupling parameter), g (colour charge), g (gauge coupling parameter), g'(???). The equations I read seem contradictory to my understanding.
For myself I use different notations for every quantity:
Please could you explain if g(charge) has units of Coulomb or isn't it rather a different dimension (colour charge)? g' should be the weak charge (??) which is usually denoted Y_W, but I found: g'=Y_W*e, which makes units of Coulomb. Ra-raisch ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
About the intuitive geometric significances of Split-complex number and Pauli matrices in a plane. I think it is worthy to add them. Would you please think about it? Lily Lily ( talk) 12:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You reverted one of my recent edits, with edit summary:
(Reverted good faith edits by Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk): Conversion to inline TeX deprecated, due to platform inflexibility: be considerate to other users! (TW))
I don't understand what the problem is. My edit used markup similar to that already in use in that article to present several variables and functions more self-consistently, and that was motivated by being "considerate to other users!" Many readers fail to connect two occurrences of the same entity when they're presented in different typefaces or styles, and that's what I thought I was fixing.
Is it simply that some hardware devices and software platforms don't understand the markup we use? And if so, surely we're not writing for the lowest common denominator hardware and software imaginable, e.g. an Apple II, TRS-80 or Commodore 4!
Earlier on your talk page I noticed a long history of discussion (and confusion!) over using Tex. Could you please point me to a concise statement, whether in Wikipedia policies, guidelines or even essays, that will clarify:
Thanks for your attention! yoyo ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, long time no see! I also -luckily- did not encounter that Prokariotes since then. ;)
I'm just here to report that, while wading through disambiguations, I perceived some urge not to select the mathematical article about involuting something, but the philosophical one, instead. I cannot precisely recall my motivation to do so, but for now I want to thank you for your correction. Please, assume I know about the mathy meaning of involution, too. In case some convincing argument for philosophy overcomes me, I'll leave an extensive edit summary. :)
With the best seasonal wishes, Purgy ( talk) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Section transfered to footnote: much better in my opinion. Thanks for compromising. Herbmuell ( talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I am going thru pages and just fixing the grammar up and not taking info out. I think its important as many people who know much on a subject do not know English grammar well. If you have any pages that you want me to look at please let me know. BernardZ ( talk)
Respected Cuzkatzimhut, I ask for your pardon for undoing your revision without having a talk with you at first. I think that even the 'bra-ket' notation is a bit clumsy or superfluous, it still represents an easier way for the derivation. This notation does not involve the integration picture, and hence, one need not to know about the Leibniz's rule for differentiation under the integral sign, which states about the interchange of the integral and differential operators under certaion conditions. I request you to explain me that why do you think that the notation is cumbersome. -- PratikDasIndia695 ( talk) 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Evangelinos Apostolides Sophocles, 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.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)
10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
|
@Jovanmilic97 OK, I linked inline all the extant refs supporting the dates, etc, as advised on the online chat. But, for crying out loud, the stub consists of only two sentences and the rest is links. I condensed the German WP article precisely so I would not have to fight a tendentious uphill battle proving the earth is not flat on every step. I wonder if you could just release it for general consumption, with the appropriate sour templates malefactors litter WP with, so some Harvard type could notice it and improve it. I may have run out of gumption running in circles. I am growing to understand why the English WP has been failing to cover the subject unlike the German and Greek ones... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Please see the sentence "It is an important part of Dirac's development of Hamiltonian mechanics to elegantly handle more general Lagrangians, when constraints and thus more apparent than dynamical variables are at hand" in the page on Dirac bracket in the very beginning.
Do you think there is no typing mistake involved here? Unsigned comment by User:Sashwattanay
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong ( talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Hi Cuzkatzimhut, I think you were incorrect to remove [6] my sentence "The truncated Wigner approximation is a semiclassical approximation to the dynamics obtained by replacing Moyal's equation with the classical Liouville's equation." from the page Wigner quasiprobability distribution. Your only explanation was "Write article before redlinking!", but Wikipedia's page on red links [7] says " It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable....Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." (My emphasis.) The truncated Wigner approximation is a widely used dynamical approximation and certainly should have a page of its own, but I don't have time to create one now. (Even if, counterfactually, the red link was inappropriate, it would be much more respectful for you to simply remove the link rather than revert my entire edit.) Jess_Riedel ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite confident. Sensible realistic pleas by readers wishing for more information could be inserted into the Talk page of the article, rather than spatchcocked in the article; now that is the constructive thing to do, instead of a "write me an article on this" demand. You may imagine the redlinking ploy has not been abused, but I beg to strongly differ, and I distinctly do not wish to enter into a good faith exegesis. As you may ascertain, truncation works in both their equations and their solutions, in tandem. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have received your email. May I include your comments on the draft talk page?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. If is not the quantum state for the quark content, then what is it? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant ( talk) 06:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by your edit in the Wigner distribution page. I'm fine with moving the section and the grammar fixes, but what's the problem with the collapsible section? Doesn't it make the text flow better? Especially if other examples are added to the section (I think it would be useful to have some such examples listed for reference). Also, how is adding a reference to a textbook presenting the proof bad? Luca ( talk) 13:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, done. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with the article Yang–Mills existence and mass gap. Some anonymous editing is going on citing the same article you removed from the QCD page that is rather crackpottery. Please, could you check? Thanks.-- Pra1998 ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Haha, when did you invent that kind of terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
and a boom too :) Ricardogpn ( talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I am following with interest your publications as a Wikipedia editor, in particular with regard to the Wigner function and general properties of quantum mechanics. You can be interested to know that paragraph 7 of Mathematical properties of the article
/info/en/?search=Wigner_quasiprobability_distribution
contradicts to the footnote 19 on page 71 of the monograph Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students (Student Mathematical Library) L. D. Faddeev and O. A. Yakubovskii (American Mathematical Society, 2009)
which can be downloaded from
https://en.ru1lib.org/book/1209526/591310.
Here
/info/en/?search=Talk:Method_of_quantum_characteristics
it is argued that paragraph 7 of Mathematical properties is correct. Indeed, when calculating the average, star product can be replaced with ordinary product. -- Edehdu ( talk) 08:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think so: in phase space, not optical phase space, the Glauber-ordering Cohen function (which is the inverse of the Husimi such function, also doomed) and resulting star product are both a mess; in short, I've never heard of that. Secondly, I insist the article you link to is generic and should not fall into the rabbit hole of alternate ordering prescriptions. You might consider making accurate narrow statements in the Glauber–Sudarshan P representation article, but make sure they convey an accurate, mainstream-referenced (such as Schleich's or Cohen's books) principle. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, re your revert of today, in case you wish to see the point of the abuse charged, note the math MOS lack of spacing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Explanation of symbols in formulae. Surely the manual is not intended to proffer the bad example. This is how embedded formulas are meant to render in mainstream platforms; I cannot vouch for cell-phones. With extra lines, the cornerstone principle of math typesetting "math is text" is completely subverted and the formal discussion is forced to stumble. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 22:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
<math display=block>...</math>
, but I find that the display=block
version is rendered with excessive whitespace above and below and sometimes generates superfluous scroll bars, so I don’t bother trying to change those. –
jacobolus
(t)
00:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Aha, I figured out what happens. When using math display=block
if there's no blank line after, the resulting markup is incorrect. when ("improperly") using a definition list for block math it makes no difference whatsoever to the result. Example:
If we have the beginning of a sentence, then put a display=block
formula,
then continue with the sentence, this part after the block math will not be correctly put into a paragraph tag. Check the resulting HTML on the page using 'view source' to see how.
If we use a blank line between,
then the resulting markup works as expected (albeit renders with more vertical whitespace than my preference).
If we use :<math>
it makes no difference,
we get the exact same resulting HTML without (above) or with (below) blank lines,
as you can see.
Cheers, jacobolus (t) 02:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to BASIC (institute). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 03:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:BASIC (institute), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cuzkatzimhut. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " BASIC".
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! 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)