Welcome!
Hello, RobHar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
VectorPosse
09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, thanks for checking in at Artin reciprocity. I look forward to any insight you might be able to add to that article if you ever have any free time. Good luck with your Ph.D. work. (I'm just trying to finish mine!) You also may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics; it's where all the math people hang out. VectorPosse 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I just checked your contributions and I see you've actually been here at Wikipedia quite a while. Oh, well. Welcome and thanks anyway! :) VectorPosse 09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I missed the nice comment you made on my talk page. Sorry about that. Thank you very much for your support. Joeldl 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, you added David Mumford to the Mumford page, but he is already listed on the Mumford (surname) page. All the people called Mumford were moved to the surname page last month - not my idea, but apparently this is mandated by MOS:DP. -- RichardVeryard 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:AWB is (correctly) trying to move interwiks to the end. It should perhaps, leave en: s alone. However they shouldn't really be there in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43 5 December 2007 (GMT).
Howdy, I think you were correct to remove some of that, but I think even more might need to be removed. My viewpoint is from finite groups, so I wanted to use the talk page instead of deleting almost the entirety of the section. If we can agree on the definition for arbitrary fields, then I'll add some verbiage on the finite case. JackSchmidt ( talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
RobHar, I am looking for someone to drop by the Princeton Art Museum to take a photo of 1 or 2 particular Mesoamerican ballgame artifacts that should be on exhibit there. If this is possible for you, let me know. Thanks very much, Madman ( talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:Requested articles/mathematics#Mathematicians. It already lists Mark Kisin, for instance. JackSchmidt ( talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments. I plan to expand root-discriminant soon, when I get some time. About references, by all mean add any reference you think useful, but why delete anything? As it happens I have Frohlich and Taylor right next to me but not Neukirch, so I wouldn't find it at all useful to delete that reference. Richard Pinch ( talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I removed the content is that it is incomplete and thus violates NPOV. The purpose of the article isn't to try to present McCain statements contradicting each other or to make votes seem bad. He opposes a cigarette tax. That's the relevant information for the article. Trilemma ( talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed you used a template to cite a source. This strikes me as a great idea. I noticed that actually tons of sources are done this way, but probably not very many in the math articles. Where did you hear about it? If you've been doing for a bit, how is it working out for you? JackSchmidt ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just see that you are working on algebraic number theory. Great! I will join you as soon as I can (after some holidays and FAC for groups). I'm also working on field (mathematics), which is also Top importance (if ANT is Top, fields should actually be "XX-top"), and start class. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
When you say in the header that "an absolute value may be defined on it," will the induced topology of the absolute value be the same as the original topology? Otherwise the definition is not equivalent. 142.151.171.10 ( talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you! No worries about the removal, I agree with it; that content is more appropriate for an article on valued fields. 142.151.171.10 ( talk) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Likes a MILF.
Well other than asexual nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.241.8 ( talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rob,
I'm hoping to finish the groups FAC adventure soon. Then, I will be free for another topic. I see you progressed somewhat at Algebraic number theory - I know the phenomenon that a topic like this is quite a burden (I thought I could do something for group theory but suddenly realized that I have no clue). Anyway, I think working on "easier" topics (both in terms of depth and concreteness) such as field (mathematics) or vector space is rewarding, too, for both editors and readers. (Vector space is among the 500 most viewed math articles, but in a crappy state). Do you want to join in to push one of the two to GA standard? I have done so with groups, and hopefully even FA there, so there is no miracle about this, just a fair amount of work (that I'd like to share :), together with any potential fame).
Btw. in your box on L-functions, p-adic L-function may deserve a link (even if red). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Great work in converting |
Please no WP:OUTING (read the first paragraph carefully). And I am therefore moving your comment to this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comment:
Could I request that this section be removed? As it is not relevant to the project (and is now resolved), I think we can get back to normal editing. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the reply to my question over at the math project. I apreciate your assistance in resolving the matter. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi RobHar,
I agree with some parts of your post but I still do not understand where I have behaved badly (could you please confirm this so I can improve?). That's all I want to know.
PST
hello. names should be hyphenated, not dashed. -- emerson7 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
moving discussion → to: talk:Picard–Lindelöf theorem
Hi Rob. I heard that you were good with images and wondered whether you might be able to help me. A lot of WikiProject banners use a B-class checklist to help assess articles. At the moment the current icon is used:
B![]() |
But this is not ideal because the B is prominent and may confuse because if the criteria are not met then the article will not be B-class. I think what we need is a combination of a B and the magnifying glass. Perhaps in the style of
. It seems that there is no such icon available yet and I would have no idea where to begin to create one. Perhaps you could (a) make one for me :) or (b) tell me where to start. Thanks!
Martin
10:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
do you know a general definition of conductor that applies to abelian extensions of local/global fields as well as abelian varieties? I don't know how the conductor of an abelian variety is defined (I know it for abelian extensions of local/global fields---is there a generalisation for arbitrary extensions?), but I've got the impression that the discriminant is a more algebro-geometric term, while conductor has something to do with Galois representations. If you can give me some reference, I'll write probably an article on it.
Best regards, Ringspectrum ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
i invite your attention here regarding your comments to the Charles Émile Picard article. i trust you will take it to heart. cheers.-- emerson7 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RobHar, I am still looking for that certain someone to drop by the Princeton Art Museum to take a photo of some Mesoamerican artifacts there. If this is possible for you, let me know -- any of these would be great, but I really need a photo of ballplayer pair in third photo down.
Let me know. Thanks very much, Madman ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you know by chance how in Inkscape the arrowhead (which is part of the line) can be colored? Somehow, neither setting the brush nor the pen color work out, the arrowhead is always black. Up to now, I always worked around this, but it gets really cumbersome... Thanks Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exciting stuff - thanks for updating Sato-Tate conjecture. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I know it's not very important, but just wanted to let you know that em dashes are unspaced while en dashes are spaced per WP:MOSDASH. I know it's confusing. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought that I should clarify the change I made at field extension regarding the comment about Shur's lemma. Most forms of Shur's lemma are stated in the following form:
If M is an irreducible R-module then C(M) is a division ring. - I. N. Herstein, Theorem 1.1.1., p. 5
By C(M), it is meant "the commuting ring of R on M." If F is a field, then F is an irreducible right (or left, of course) R-module (since the submodules of F under this module action are precisely the right ideals of F, this follows from that which you asserted). Elements of C(F) are precisely those ring homomorphims of F and by Shur's lemma, we have that C(F) is a division ring. Therefore, any non-zero homomorphism of F is invertible (in C(F), in fact) so that any such element has trivial kernel. Note that this form of Shur's lemma can of course generalize to module homomorphisms between distinct fields (with the module structure described) so that it relates to the assertion within the article. Perhaps you are right that the assertion in the article is not exactly Shur's lemma, but it is nevertheless the "classical form" of Shur's lemma presented in some textbooks. In effect, that fields possess no non-trivial proper ideals does indeed imply the assertion in the article, but it is not wrong to say that Shur's lemma does too. -- PS T 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, RobHar! I've noticed your comments at the TfD for {{ EGA I}}, and the fact that the French Wikipedia has a dedicated space to hold the references really got me intrigued. Can you tell me if this approach is unique to the French Wikipedia, or are there other wikies that do it? I was once thinking about how it is too damn hard to work with the references in en_wiki, especially with those which are repeatedly re-used and occasionally need updating (like the laws), and concluded that for frequently re-used refs the template approach is ideal. In future, I think it'd be great to have something like the Commons or WikiSource, to hold all the references, enforce consistent formatting, and make them available for re-use across all language editions. It would be possible to immediately see which reference is used where (and to check whether it is used appropriately). In addition, people could kind of "sign" under the references they have access to, which would make it easy to find people with access to a certain book or a database or whatever. I don't suppose there are any plans to implement anything like that any time soon, but I was wondering if what the French Wikipedia is working on is at all similar (my French, unfortunately, is too lousy to understand well what's going on the discussion page you linked to). Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I know, there are few false positives. It is not easy to guess any kind of possible correct (and incorrect) section link. For example <ref name="#Hatcher|Hatcher, p. 149"> has got an odd syntax and had to be replaced. Instead "ref= kol1933" in Borel–Kolmogorov paradox was not recognized due the space after the = sign (now fixed). Thanks. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
When you add the maths rating template to an article's talk page, please think about taking a second to fill in the priority= and field= parameters as well as the class= parameter. Otherwise, we end up with a backlog of articles that need to have their priority and field assessed. It doesn't take very long to fill in the other two parameters if you are already adding the template, and it saves time overall if nobody else has to come along and add them later. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I undid your recent edits to Laman graph and pseudotriangle. They really are about the mathematics of rigidity: that is, the theory of which structures made out of rigid pieces can still flex and which other structures have no degrees of freedom of motion left. Rigidity (mathematics) doesn't seem to cover that anywhere; the closest is the link to Cauchy's theorem but, while I think Cauchy's theorem falls into the mathematics of rigidity category it does not describe the theory that laman graph and pseudotriangle are related to. Most of the references in Structural rigidity are about the same thing: mathematical descriptions of the rigidity of bar-and-joint frameworks, so that seems like the best link to use. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. Am undoing more of the same. Mostow rigidity is questionable and I'm not undoing your edits there, but most of the rest really are about rigidity of physical objects. E.g. Cauchy's theorem is about the fact that if you make a convex polyhedron by forming its faces out of some inflexible material and then linking those faces by flexible hinges, then the whole shape will not flex. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello.
"In algebra,", "In geometry,", "In number theory,", "In numerical analysis", etc., succeed in telling the lay reader that mathematics is what an article is about. But I think
may leave the reader wondering if it's about sexual orientation or evolutionary biology or the geography of France. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I needed a depiction of a morphism between two short exact sequences and found your File:Morphism of short exact sequences.svg, however something seems to be wrong with the SVG code. Could you regenerate the file? Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.
If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.
To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.
The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that this diff from February cut out some classical material. Amongst other things, "normal integral basis" is referred to on four other pages, with a link that now goes to a page with no definition. While I understand why this has happened, it seems to me unfortunate that you omitted the material, given that there are whole books on Galois Module Structure of Algebraic Integers: basically NPOV says you preserve other meanings. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made two changes in accordance with what you suggested. It would be nice to get more feedback on other parts of the article! Garald ( talk) 05:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the disambiguations. For many articles I think I know what term is right, but I'm not sure enough to make the correction myself. Thanks for fixing these (and, so far, validating my guesses).
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi RobHar -- How did you render the tableaux diagrams on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_analytic_tableaux
Pwagle ( talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Algebraic number. What unclear phrase did I use?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the revert. I did not know that blackboard bold should not be used. That's the second time I made such a mistake. The first one was when I replaced 1/2 with 1⁄2 on Riemann hypothesis, while being unaware of MOS:MATH#Fractions. Actually I don't like these style guidelines, but I'll walk the line. ℚ does look better than Q, and so does 1⁄2 compared to 1/2. Anyway, thanks. -- bender235 ( talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the subject of abbreviations on infoboxes on academic journal pages. There's a draft proposal. Would welcome your comments. -- Econterms ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The new page should go live soon. Since you are a past contributor to the talk page, I think your comments will be helpful. Garald ( talk) 14:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably wait until Monday before putting it up anyhow - should I expect your comments by then?
I've removed the "we"'s in the history section. I would find it harder to remove it from the "diophantine geometry" section (for instance), since it is hard for me to give an overview of a subject to outsiders without lapsing into an ever so slightly conversational style. Of course, this may be exactly what I am being asked to avoid; I do not know. Some alternatives would be welcome. Garald ( talk) 15:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes. As for the "starting point" - thanks for the quotations; I thought the current wording made clear that the starting point is fairly arbitrary, and that Dirichlet's theorem is one of the contenders. Note, however, that it does not use complex analysis, or even the zeta function as a function of a complex variable, if I remember correctly. The use of the zeta function as a function of a real variable in number theory goes further back (Euler). What Dirichlet did introduce was, um, Dirichlet L-functions.
I better get a "pro-Riemann" quote somewhere. Garald ( talk) 12:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that the text of the analytic number theory article gives Euler as "the beginning" (search for "beginning"). Garald ( talk) 12:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RobHar, you mentioned that
Bibliography of biology is a list of notable works on the subject of Biology organized by subdiscipline
has a strange grammatical construction. Although this sentence was clearly constructed by a committee, I'm not seeing any grammatical errors; but
Bibliography of biology is a list of notable works, organized by subdiscipline, on the subject of Biology
would read better. Does that sound o.k. to you? RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"Bibliography of biology" is a list of ...
This article is a list of ...
This bibliography of biology is a list of ...
This is a list of notable works in biology.
Hi, Would you care to comment further at Talk:Function_(mathematics)#summary_of_rule_AND_correspondence? Tkuvho ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I put some more work into the above recently. I'd like someone else to read it and see if it still makes sense. If you have a chance and feel like it, I'd appreciate you doing that. Thanks, Richard Peterson 198.189.194.129 ( talk) 00:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the publisher links are clutter. We don't link anything and everything that might conceivably be of interest: we use our intelligence, experience, and subject knowledge to make only smart links that are likely to be useful to the reader of the article. Here are a couple of extracts from the Manual of Style on linking and overlinking (emphasis mine):
- In general, links should be created to relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully.
- An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.
Eliminating overlinking from a template is particularly valuable because it removes those excess links from hundreds or even thousands of articles. Colonies Chris ( talk) 08:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, If you are in a drawing mood could you take a look at the figure at standard part? Tkuvho ( talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Mathematics and that you've expressed interest in mathematical physics. I wanted to let you know that the article on mirror symmetry is currently a featured article candidate.
If you're interested, we'd love to hear your thoughts on this page. Please note that you do not need to be an expert on the subject.
Thanks for your help!
Polytope24 ( talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Characteristic exponent of a field. Since you had some involvement with the Characteristic exponent of a field redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, since you once contributed to the page Bernoulli number I'd appreciate your comment or vote to my question in the talk page. Regards: Herbmuell ( talk) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC).
Hello, RobHar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, RobHar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
VectorPosse
09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, thanks for checking in at Artin reciprocity. I look forward to any insight you might be able to add to that article if you ever have any free time. Good luck with your Ph.D. work. (I'm just trying to finish mine!) You also may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics; it's where all the math people hang out. VectorPosse 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I just checked your contributions and I see you've actually been here at Wikipedia quite a while. Oh, well. Welcome and thanks anyway! :) VectorPosse 09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I missed the nice comment you made on my talk page. Sorry about that. Thank you very much for your support. Joeldl 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, you added David Mumford to the Mumford page, but he is already listed on the Mumford (surname) page. All the people called Mumford were moved to the surname page last month - not my idea, but apparently this is mandated by MOS:DP. -- RichardVeryard 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:AWB is (correctly) trying to move interwiks to the end. It should perhaps, leave en: s alone. However they shouldn't really be there in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43 5 December 2007 (GMT).
Howdy, I think you were correct to remove some of that, but I think even more might need to be removed. My viewpoint is from finite groups, so I wanted to use the talk page instead of deleting almost the entirety of the section. If we can agree on the definition for arbitrary fields, then I'll add some verbiage on the finite case. JackSchmidt ( talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
RobHar, I am looking for someone to drop by the Princeton Art Museum to take a photo of 1 or 2 particular Mesoamerican ballgame artifacts that should be on exhibit there. If this is possible for you, let me know. Thanks very much, Madman ( talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:Requested articles/mathematics#Mathematicians. It already lists Mark Kisin, for instance. JackSchmidt ( talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments. I plan to expand root-discriminant soon, when I get some time. About references, by all mean add any reference you think useful, but why delete anything? As it happens I have Frohlich and Taylor right next to me but not Neukirch, so I wouldn't find it at all useful to delete that reference. Richard Pinch ( talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I removed the content is that it is incomplete and thus violates NPOV. The purpose of the article isn't to try to present McCain statements contradicting each other or to make votes seem bad. He opposes a cigarette tax. That's the relevant information for the article. Trilemma ( talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed you used a template to cite a source. This strikes me as a great idea. I noticed that actually tons of sources are done this way, but probably not very many in the math articles. Where did you hear about it? If you've been doing for a bit, how is it working out for you? JackSchmidt ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just see that you are working on algebraic number theory. Great! I will join you as soon as I can (after some holidays and FAC for groups). I'm also working on field (mathematics), which is also Top importance (if ANT is Top, fields should actually be "XX-top"), and start class. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
When you say in the header that "an absolute value may be defined on it," will the induced topology of the absolute value be the same as the original topology? Otherwise the definition is not equivalent. 142.151.171.10 ( talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you! No worries about the removal, I agree with it; that content is more appropriate for an article on valued fields. 142.151.171.10 ( talk) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Likes a MILF.
Well other than asexual nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.241.8 ( talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rob,
I'm hoping to finish the groups FAC adventure soon. Then, I will be free for another topic. I see you progressed somewhat at Algebraic number theory - I know the phenomenon that a topic like this is quite a burden (I thought I could do something for group theory but suddenly realized that I have no clue). Anyway, I think working on "easier" topics (both in terms of depth and concreteness) such as field (mathematics) or vector space is rewarding, too, for both editors and readers. (Vector space is among the 500 most viewed math articles, but in a crappy state). Do you want to join in to push one of the two to GA standard? I have done so with groups, and hopefully even FA there, so there is no miracle about this, just a fair amount of work (that I'd like to share :), together with any potential fame).
Btw. in your box on L-functions, p-adic L-function may deserve a link (even if red). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Great work in converting |
Please no WP:OUTING (read the first paragraph carefully). And I am therefore moving your comment to this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comment:
Could I request that this section be removed? As it is not relevant to the project (and is now resolved), I think we can get back to normal editing. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the reply to my question over at the math project. I apreciate your assistance in resolving the matter. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi RobHar,
I agree with some parts of your post but I still do not understand where I have behaved badly (could you please confirm this so I can improve?). That's all I want to know.
PST
hello. names should be hyphenated, not dashed. -- emerson7 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
moving discussion → to: talk:Picard–Lindelöf theorem
Hi Rob. I heard that you were good with images and wondered whether you might be able to help me. A lot of WikiProject banners use a B-class checklist to help assess articles. At the moment the current icon is used:
B![]() |
But this is not ideal because the B is prominent and may confuse because if the criteria are not met then the article will not be B-class. I think what we need is a combination of a B and the magnifying glass. Perhaps in the style of
. It seems that there is no such icon available yet and I would have no idea where to begin to create one. Perhaps you could (a) make one for me :) or (b) tell me where to start. Thanks!
Martin
10:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
do you know a general definition of conductor that applies to abelian extensions of local/global fields as well as abelian varieties? I don't know how the conductor of an abelian variety is defined (I know it for abelian extensions of local/global fields---is there a generalisation for arbitrary extensions?), but I've got the impression that the discriminant is a more algebro-geometric term, while conductor has something to do with Galois representations. If you can give me some reference, I'll write probably an article on it.
Best regards, Ringspectrum ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
i invite your attention here regarding your comments to the Charles Émile Picard article. i trust you will take it to heart. cheers.-- emerson7 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RobHar, I am still looking for that certain someone to drop by the Princeton Art Museum to take a photo of some Mesoamerican artifacts there. If this is possible for you, let me know -- any of these would be great, but I really need a photo of ballplayer pair in third photo down.
Let me know. Thanks very much, Madman ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you know by chance how in Inkscape the arrowhead (which is part of the line) can be colored? Somehow, neither setting the brush nor the pen color work out, the arrowhead is always black. Up to now, I always worked around this, but it gets really cumbersome... Thanks Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exciting stuff - thanks for updating Sato-Tate conjecture. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I know it's not very important, but just wanted to let you know that em dashes are unspaced while en dashes are spaced per WP:MOSDASH. I know it's confusing. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought that I should clarify the change I made at field extension regarding the comment about Shur's lemma. Most forms of Shur's lemma are stated in the following form:
If M is an irreducible R-module then C(M) is a division ring. - I. N. Herstein, Theorem 1.1.1., p. 5
By C(M), it is meant "the commuting ring of R on M." If F is a field, then F is an irreducible right (or left, of course) R-module (since the submodules of F under this module action are precisely the right ideals of F, this follows from that which you asserted). Elements of C(F) are precisely those ring homomorphims of F and by Shur's lemma, we have that C(F) is a division ring. Therefore, any non-zero homomorphism of F is invertible (in C(F), in fact) so that any such element has trivial kernel. Note that this form of Shur's lemma can of course generalize to module homomorphisms between distinct fields (with the module structure described) so that it relates to the assertion within the article. Perhaps you are right that the assertion in the article is not exactly Shur's lemma, but it is nevertheless the "classical form" of Shur's lemma presented in some textbooks. In effect, that fields possess no non-trivial proper ideals does indeed imply the assertion in the article, but it is not wrong to say that Shur's lemma does too. -- PS T 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, RobHar! I've noticed your comments at the TfD for {{ EGA I}}, and the fact that the French Wikipedia has a dedicated space to hold the references really got me intrigued. Can you tell me if this approach is unique to the French Wikipedia, or are there other wikies that do it? I was once thinking about how it is too damn hard to work with the references in en_wiki, especially with those which are repeatedly re-used and occasionally need updating (like the laws), and concluded that for frequently re-used refs the template approach is ideal. In future, I think it'd be great to have something like the Commons or WikiSource, to hold all the references, enforce consistent formatting, and make them available for re-use across all language editions. It would be possible to immediately see which reference is used where (and to check whether it is used appropriately). In addition, people could kind of "sign" under the references they have access to, which would make it easy to find people with access to a certain book or a database or whatever. I don't suppose there are any plans to implement anything like that any time soon, but I was wondering if what the French Wikipedia is working on is at all similar (my French, unfortunately, is too lousy to understand well what's going on the discussion page you linked to). Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I know, there are few false positives. It is not easy to guess any kind of possible correct (and incorrect) section link. For example <ref name="#Hatcher|Hatcher, p. 149"> has got an odd syntax and had to be replaced. Instead "ref= kol1933" in Borel–Kolmogorov paradox was not recognized due the space after the = sign (now fixed). Thanks. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
When you add the maths rating template to an article's talk page, please think about taking a second to fill in the priority= and field= parameters as well as the class= parameter. Otherwise, we end up with a backlog of articles that need to have their priority and field assessed. It doesn't take very long to fill in the other two parameters if you are already adding the template, and it saves time overall if nobody else has to come along and add them later. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I undid your recent edits to Laman graph and pseudotriangle. They really are about the mathematics of rigidity: that is, the theory of which structures made out of rigid pieces can still flex and which other structures have no degrees of freedom of motion left. Rigidity (mathematics) doesn't seem to cover that anywhere; the closest is the link to Cauchy's theorem but, while I think Cauchy's theorem falls into the mathematics of rigidity category it does not describe the theory that laman graph and pseudotriangle are related to. Most of the references in Structural rigidity are about the same thing: mathematical descriptions of the rigidity of bar-and-joint frameworks, so that seems like the best link to use. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. Am undoing more of the same. Mostow rigidity is questionable and I'm not undoing your edits there, but most of the rest really are about rigidity of physical objects. E.g. Cauchy's theorem is about the fact that if you make a convex polyhedron by forming its faces out of some inflexible material and then linking those faces by flexible hinges, then the whole shape will not flex. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello.
"In algebra,", "In geometry,", "In number theory,", "In numerical analysis", etc., succeed in telling the lay reader that mathematics is what an article is about. But I think
may leave the reader wondering if it's about sexual orientation or evolutionary biology or the geography of France. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I needed a depiction of a morphism between two short exact sequences and found your File:Morphism of short exact sequences.svg, however something seems to be wrong with the SVG code. Could you regenerate the file? Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.
If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.
To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.
The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that this diff from February cut out some classical material. Amongst other things, "normal integral basis" is referred to on four other pages, with a link that now goes to a page with no definition. While I understand why this has happened, it seems to me unfortunate that you omitted the material, given that there are whole books on Galois Module Structure of Algebraic Integers: basically NPOV says you preserve other meanings. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made two changes in accordance with what you suggested. It would be nice to get more feedback on other parts of the article! Garald ( talk) 05:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the disambiguations. For many articles I think I know what term is right, but I'm not sure enough to make the correction myself. Thanks for fixing these (and, so far, validating my guesses).
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi RobHar -- How did you render the tableaux diagrams on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_analytic_tableaux
Pwagle ( talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Algebraic number. What unclear phrase did I use?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the revert. I did not know that blackboard bold should not be used. That's the second time I made such a mistake. The first one was when I replaced 1/2 with 1⁄2 on Riemann hypothesis, while being unaware of MOS:MATH#Fractions. Actually I don't like these style guidelines, but I'll walk the line. ℚ does look better than Q, and so does 1⁄2 compared to 1/2. Anyway, thanks. -- bender235 ( talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the subject of abbreviations on infoboxes on academic journal pages. There's a draft proposal. Would welcome your comments. -- Econterms ( talk) 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The new page should go live soon. Since you are a past contributor to the talk page, I think your comments will be helpful. Garald ( talk) 14:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably wait until Monday before putting it up anyhow - should I expect your comments by then?
I've removed the "we"'s in the history section. I would find it harder to remove it from the "diophantine geometry" section (for instance), since it is hard for me to give an overview of a subject to outsiders without lapsing into an ever so slightly conversational style. Of course, this may be exactly what I am being asked to avoid; I do not know. Some alternatives would be welcome. Garald ( talk) 15:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes. As for the "starting point" - thanks for the quotations; I thought the current wording made clear that the starting point is fairly arbitrary, and that Dirichlet's theorem is one of the contenders. Note, however, that it does not use complex analysis, or even the zeta function as a function of a complex variable, if I remember correctly. The use of the zeta function as a function of a real variable in number theory goes further back (Euler). What Dirichlet did introduce was, um, Dirichlet L-functions.
I better get a "pro-Riemann" quote somewhere. Garald ( talk) 12:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that the text of the analytic number theory article gives Euler as "the beginning" (search for "beginning"). Garald ( talk) 12:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RobHar, you mentioned that
Bibliography of biology is a list of notable works on the subject of Biology organized by subdiscipline
has a strange grammatical construction. Although this sentence was clearly constructed by a committee, I'm not seeing any grammatical errors; but
Bibliography of biology is a list of notable works, organized by subdiscipline, on the subject of Biology
would read better. Does that sound o.k. to you? RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"Bibliography of biology" is a list of ...
This article is a list of ...
This bibliography of biology is a list of ...
This is a list of notable works in biology.
Hi, Would you care to comment further at Talk:Function_(mathematics)#summary_of_rule_AND_correspondence? Tkuvho ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I put some more work into the above recently. I'd like someone else to read it and see if it still makes sense. If you have a chance and feel like it, I'd appreciate you doing that. Thanks, Richard Peterson 198.189.194.129 ( talk) 00:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the publisher links are clutter. We don't link anything and everything that might conceivably be of interest: we use our intelligence, experience, and subject knowledge to make only smart links that are likely to be useful to the reader of the article. Here are a couple of extracts from the Manual of Style on linking and overlinking (emphasis mine):
- In general, links should be created to relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully.
- An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.
Eliminating overlinking from a template is particularly valuable because it removes those excess links from hundreds or even thousands of articles. Colonies Chris ( talk) 08:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, If you are in a drawing mood could you take a look at the figure at standard part? Tkuvho ( talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Mathematics and that you've expressed interest in mathematical physics. I wanted to let you know that the article on mirror symmetry is currently a featured article candidate.
If you're interested, we'd love to hear your thoughts on this page. Please note that you do not need to be an expert on the subject.
Thanks for your help!
Polytope24 ( talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Characteristic exponent of a field. Since you had some involvement with the Characteristic exponent of a field redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi RobHar, since you once contributed to the page Bernoulli number I'd appreciate your comment or vote to my question in the talk page. Regards: Herbmuell ( talk) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC).
Hello, RobHar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)