User talk:128.174.192.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (128.174.192.194) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

cs:Šablona:Anon fr:Modèle:Bonjour IP pt:Predefinição:Bem-vindo IP AZ t 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi 128.174.192.194, I believe User:Mhym was not trying to act in bad faith with his reversion, but he apparently did not understand what your edit meant and unfortunately jumped to the initial conclusion that the edit was nonsense. That is slightly strange since you did provide sources with your edit though, so I think it would be best that you leave a message on his talk page asking for his explanation of the reversion, considering that he apparently has much more experience on the subject then I do.

Out of curiosity, how did you find me of all administrators? :) AZ t 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flexible polyhedra

Hi 128.174.192.194, by now I read the references and understand exactly what you meant. Basically you are saying that almost all polyhedra are rigid by Gluck's theorem and thus when one perturbs the edge lengths, the polyhedron is no longer flexible. Had you said so, this would be a reasonable addition. However, you used non-standard notions (non-computable, etc.) which may or may not be appropriate in teh research literature, but are definitely not appropriate in the WP context which is aimed at a general audience. Also, as a creater of this article I would say Gluck theorem is more appropriate for the polyhedral rigidity article (which does not exist yet). It deserves a only brief mentioning here as it was also briefly mentioned at Cauchy's theorem article that I created as well.

Now, I read the reference paper by Kuznetsov and judging by you ip address this is likely to be you. Fine. It allowed by WP rules to report on your own research as long as it is published (and thus no longer WP:OR), but in my understanding this is still biased. You should convince other WP users to make such edits by writing as you correctly did on the talk page. If and when someone else decides to make these edits he/she, you and I can then discuss on the WP their relevance. As for the old Pontryagin paper - I don't have an access to it and it looks relevant as a motivation at best.

Hope this all clarified my action. Feel free to ask me to expand on this. Mhym (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat. I don't think this physical point of view makes much geometric sense beyond the Gluck's theorem. I also think it is inappropriate to discuss your own research contributions, whether good or bad. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so just because something is true does not automatically mean it is acceptable e.g. simply because it might be too narrow for a general audience (see WP:NOT). I am sure you will find lots of articles you can contribute. Start at Portal:Mathematics and look at we have (and don't have). Mhym (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)