|
Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Search user languages |
![]() | This user has written or expanded 2 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. |
Hello!
You are welcome to email me, add a new comment (by using the + tab above, or click here), or contribute to an existing discussion below.
If I don't reply for a while, I'm probably not logging in much — email me if you want to get in touch.
For reference: Guidelines on using talk pages.
Awards | ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Hi Nils von Barth,
I noticed you worked on the article/section Dynkin_diagram#Folding. I added some chart examples of these folding, although I can't say I did the "directed graph" aspect correctly. Also I used Coxeter notation, line for 3, labels above 3, rather than double/triple lines. I just added an arrow above the higher order lines. If you know better, please help. I'm surprised there's like a number of C~k versions by arrows >>, <<, and <>, based on foldings of different simply-laced higher graphs! Similarly F~4 can project from E~6 or E~7 with reversed arrows!? I have no confirmation what this means, but for the undirected Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams, it looks correct! Thanks for a look if you can help. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. On the directed graphs, Humphreys shows clearly directed arrows on a table on p96. [1] So, either there's something that demands a direct direction, or when it was written (1990), folding wasn't firmly defined, and he didn't recognize alternate forms?! What do you think? Tom Ruen ( talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.p.s. I see the main limitation, is the Hn Coxeter group families are excluded from the Dynkin graphs, so if the charts are correct and can stay, they should be replaced in multiline format, and Hn cases removed. Tom Ruen ( talk) 07:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The changes we get are:
So, concretely, what I’d suggest is:
I think this fixes it – all the diagrams are valid, and we get all of Kac’s diagrams. Hope these help, and thanks so much – ガンバテ! (Japanese “bon courage”)
Goodnight. I'm very happy if we can get some sense here! I have emailed some others for advice too.
Thanks Tom – the newer versions (red vertical lines, Dynkin versions) are very nice!
I’ll leave graphic design choices up to you – I trust your MSPaint skills, and I well remember all the problems that SVG poses.
The other change is to fix the notation – several of the diagrams (the ones with the “wrong way arrows”) are not extended Dynkin diagrams, but rather other affine Dynkin diagrams. Using the notation on Kac p. 55, the maps should be changed as follows:
Two other issues:
Thanks again for your continuous improvements!
Thanks! I'm seeing a bit more "Extended" means "~" format by adding one node to finite groups, and the superscripts (1)/(2) define wider directed-graph variations than the original extended definitions. I'm content to use the superscript notations, but FIRST, I think I need an enumeration of these forms before the folding section in the article, like Coxeter-Dynkin diagram summary tables I list all the groups by symbols. Secondly on indexing, extended or not, agreed there's some confusion, but I can't see exactly until things are properly defined. I just did one update, removed one of the lower-right graphs that didn't match in the folding. I have 2-3 extra busy work days this week, so unsure when I can do more. I'll try to more carely make an enumeration table of the groups and names. (Perhaps I should make some parallel Dynkin symbol codes elements like CD, so they can be more easily built up. Less combinations than CD, since no rings!) Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, actually listing the affine Dynkin diagrams first (before getting into folding!) makes a lot of sense. No rush – I’m busy myself, and it’s holidays. I won’t close this thread until we’ve finished this, so it shouldn’t slip through the cracks. I’ll see about writing a section on affine Dynkin diagrams (so there’s a good place for the diagrams to go, of course).
Hi Tom – thanks for the fabulous tables!
Agreed, the naming/numbering and arrows for the higher families are really confusing to me too – I’ll see if I can figure out what’s going on.
Hi Nils. I've been nervous about the arrow issues, and I found examples of reverse definitions:
All but the first seem consistent, and the last defines the arrow directions in relation to foldings, so if I assume that is the correct standard, all my folding arrows are reversed, and B/C relations reversed!
![]() ![]() Corrected? |
![]() ![]() old |
What do you think? Tom Ruen ( talk) 04:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I decided to update, corrections seem solid. Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Below is a table from the first book above (by Stekolshchik), page 36 (this page not on googlebooks), showing two naming systems, first is in relation to Quiver_(mathematics) usage. I added these also to the test-new chart above left. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nils! At your convenience, I'm interested in your opinion of a table I added to the talk page: Tom Ruen ( talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in this discussion: Math Overflow. -- Kamsa Hapnida ( talk) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon!
You made some changes quite some time ago to Lebesgue decomposition and Lévy_process#L.C3.A9vy.E2.80.93It.C5.8D_decomposition discussing the relation between them. Do you have any references for the statements that you added? I have left quite a detailed comment at Talk:Lévy_process#Levy-Ito_decomposition_and_Lebesgue_decomposition explaining why I don't think the relation is precise as stated - perhaps it is an interesting analogy, but I wasn't able to see a way to make it into a one-to-one correspondence. What do you think? Thanks! Alex. 130.88.123.107 ( talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that! You're right, it's just an analogy. I'll make that clearer, and elaborate that they have different continuity properties, with citations, as you indicate. I'm currently traveling, so feel free to go ahead with changes, but I'll clean up and notify you for review. Thanks again! —Nils von Barth ( nbarth) ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi — in 2009 you added some material regarding PDIFF to piecewise linear manifold. Today I received an email from one of my coauthors complaining that although one can talk about piecewise smooth manifolds on an individual basis, PDIFF is not really a category, or at least the sources do not support it being a category. I have to admit that to me the sourcing to PDIFF looks weak. Do you know more about this? Is there justification for calling it a category despite Google scholar finding almost nothing when one searches for "category of piecewise smooth manifolds" (or differentiable in place of smooth)? If not, should the category-theoretic language surrounding this material be removed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai vu que plusieurs liens vers la page de redirection Permutation representation (symmetric group) (vers la théorie des représentation linéaires du groupe symétrique) faisaient en fait référence à permutation representation. J'ai corrigé ces erreurs mais il me semble que cette page est un peu hors-propos (je n'ai jamais vu cet usage pour "permutation representation---mais je ne suis pas un spécialiste en groupes finis), et que le mieux serait de la supprimer (en corrigeant les quelques liens vers qui restent). Cordialement, jraimbau ( talk) 19:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nils,
I saw that you added in 2009 a geometric picture about the Massey triple product. I am very interested in learning more about this geometric interpretation. I have searched a lot about the topic, but I have only found the geometrical interpretation of cohomology products via Borel-Moore cohomology. Do you have a reference about the geometrical interpretation of Massey triple products?.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlleon ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Japanese rebus monogram has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
"Japanese rebus monogram" is a Wikipedian-created neologism, and the article is complete a misunderstanding of these type of logos. They are not rebuses nor wordplays, and they are not "notably" common for soy sauce brands. This is all apparently made up and not supported by the sources referenced.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Plays about religion and science has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LogSumExp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hessian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Search user languages |
![]() | This user has written or expanded 2 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. |
Hello!
You are welcome to email me, add a new comment (by using the + tab above, or click here), or contribute to an existing discussion below.
If I don't reply for a while, I'm probably not logging in much — email me if you want to get in touch.
For reference: Guidelines on using talk pages.
Awards | ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Hi Nils von Barth,
I noticed you worked on the article/section Dynkin_diagram#Folding. I added some chart examples of these folding, although I can't say I did the "directed graph" aspect correctly. Also I used Coxeter notation, line for 3, labels above 3, rather than double/triple lines. I just added an arrow above the higher order lines. If you know better, please help. I'm surprised there's like a number of C~k versions by arrows >>, <<, and <>, based on foldings of different simply-laced higher graphs! Similarly F~4 can project from E~6 or E~7 with reversed arrows!? I have no confirmation what this means, but for the undirected Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams, it looks correct! Thanks for a look if you can help. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. On the directed graphs, Humphreys shows clearly directed arrows on a table on p96. [1] So, either there's something that demands a direct direction, or when it was written (1990), folding wasn't firmly defined, and he didn't recognize alternate forms?! What do you think? Tom Ruen ( talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.p.s. I see the main limitation, is the Hn Coxeter group families are excluded from the Dynkin graphs, so if the charts are correct and can stay, they should be replaced in multiline format, and Hn cases removed. Tom Ruen ( talk) 07:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The changes we get are:
So, concretely, what I’d suggest is:
I think this fixes it – all the diagrams are valid, and we get all of Kac’s diagrams. Hope these help, and thanks so much – ガンバテ! (Japanese “bon courage”)
Goodnight. I'm very happy if we can get some sense here! I have emailed some others for advice too.
Thanks Tom – the newer versions (red vertical lines, Dynkin versions) are very nice!
I’ll leave graphic design choices up to you – I trust your MSPaint skills, and I well remember all the problems that SVG poses.
The other change is to fix the notation – several of the diagrams (the ones with the “wrong way arrows”) are not extended Dynkin diagrams, but rather other affine Dynkin diagrams. Using the notation on Kac p. 55, the maps should be changed as follows:
Two other issues:
Thanks again for your continuous improvements!
Thanks! I'm seeing a bit more "Extended" means "~" format by adding one node to finite groups, and the superscripts (1)/(2) define wider directed-graph variations than the original extended definitions. I'm content to use the superscript notations, but FIRST, I think I need an enumeration of these forms before the folding section in the article, like Coxeter-Dynkin diagram summary tables I list all the groups by symbols. Secondly on indexing, extended or not, agreed there's some confusion, but I can't see exactly until things are properly defined. I just did one update, removed one of the lower-right graphs that didn't match in the folding. I have 2-3 extra busy work days this week, so unsure when I can do more. I'll try to more carely make an enumeration table of the groups and names. (Perhaps I should make some parallel Dynkin symbol codes elements like CD, so they can be more easily built up. Less combinations than CD, since no rings!) Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, actually listing the affine Dynkin diagrams first (before getting into folding!) makes a lot of sense. No rush – I’m busy myself, and it’s holidays. I won’t close this thread until we’ve finished this, so it shouldn’t slip through the cracks. I’ll see about writing a section on affine Dynkin diagrams (so there’s a good place for the diagrams to go, of course).
Hi Tom – thanks for the fabulous tables!
Agreed, the naming/numbering and arrows for the higher families are really confusing to me too – I’ll see if I can figure out what’s going on.
Hi Nils. I've been nervous about the arrow issues, and I found examples of reverse definitions:
All but the first seem consistent, and the last defines the arrow directions in relation to foldings, so if I assume that is the correct standard, all my folding arrows are reversed, and B/C relations reversed!
![]() ![]() Corrected? |
![]() ![]() old |
What do you think? Tom Ruen ( talk) 04:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I decided to update, corrections seem solid. Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Below is a table from the first book above (by Stekolshchik), page 36 (this page not on googlebooks), showing two naming systems, first is in relation to Quiver_(mathematics) usage. I added these also to the test-new chart above left. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nils! At your convenience, I'm interested in your opinion of a table I added to the talk page: Tom Ruen ( talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in this discussion: Math Overflow. -- Kamsa Hapnida ( talk) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon!
You made some changes quite some time ago to Lebesgue decomposition and Lévy_process#L.C3.A9vy.E2.80.93It.C5.8D_decomposition discussing the relation between them. Do you have any references for the statements that you added? I have left quite a detailed comment at Talk:Lévy_process#Levy-Ito_decomposition_and_Lebesgue_decomposition explaining why I don't think the relation is precise as stated - perhaps it is an interesting analogy, but I wasn't able to see a way to make it into a one-to-one correspondence. What do you think? Thanks! Alex. 130.88.123.107 ( talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that! You're right, it's just an analogy. I'll make that clearer, and elaborate that they have different continuity properties, with citations, as you indicate. I'm currently traveling, so feel free to go ahead with changes, but I'll clean up and notify you for review. Thanks again! —Nils von Barth ( nbarth) ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi — in 2009 you added some material regarding PDIFF to piecewise linear manifold. Today I received an email from one of my coauthors complaining that although one can talk about piecewise smooth manifolds on an individual basis, PDIFF is not really a category, or at least the sources do not support it being a category. I have to admit that to me the sourcing to PDIFF looks weak. Do you know more about this? Is there justification for calling it a category despite Google scholar finding almost nothing when one searches for "category of piecewise smooth manifolds" (or differentiable in place of smooth)? If not, should the category-theoretic language surrounding this material be removed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai vu que plusieurs liens vers la page de redirection Permutation representation (symmetric group) (vers la théorie des représentation linéaires du groupe symétrique) faisaient en fait référence à permutation representation. J'ai corrigé ces erreurs mais il me semble que cette page est un peu hors-propos (je n'ai jamais vu cet usage pour "permutation representation---mais je ne suis pas un spécialiste en groupes finis), et que le mieux serait de la supprimer (en corrigeant les quelques liens vers qui restent). Cordialement, jraimbau ( talk) 19:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nils,
I saw that you added in 2009 a geometric picture about the Massey triple product. I am very interested in learning more about this geometric interpretation. I have searched a lot about the topic, but I have only found the geometrical interpretation of cohomology products via Borel-Moore cohomology. Do you have a reference about the geometrical interpretation of Massey triple products?.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlleon ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Japanese rebus monogram has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
"Japanese rebus monogram" is a Wikipedian-created neologism, and the article is complete a misunderstanding of these type of logos. They are not rebuses nor wordplays, and they are not "notably" common for soy sauce brands. This is all apparently made up and not supported by the sources referenced.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Plays about religion and science has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LogSumExp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hessian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)