User talk:Geologician
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Intro
 |
This user is a member of WikiProject Geology. |
[edit] Time
Hi, Geo. Welcome to Wikipedia. Both Jim and I have considerably more experience on the Wiki that it appears that you do; your edits have been limited in the main to time alone. Perhaps you might consider leaving this article for a while and doing some work elsewhere; this would allow you to develop a better understanding of the Wiki. As I have said before, I think you make some valid and interesting points; the problem might well be in the way in which you present them. As it stands, if the edit war continues all that will happen is that time will be locked by the administrators, so that no one can edit it. That would be a shame. Banno 16:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Banno.
- Thank you for your kind welcome to Wikipedia.
- According to the guidelines:
- "The neutral point of view is an ideal, and should be recognized as such. True neutrality is impossible to achieve. Thus, we must remember that every contribution to Wikipedia is biased. Rather than giving up and deleting everything, we instead try to contextualize, and distinguish the sources of knowledge: scientific, historical, inspirational, cultural, etc." IMHO Jim and yourself are not providing breathing space for well informed a posteriori opinions. This should not be the response of experienced Wikipedians to an alternative POV.
- You began the series of deletions by accusing me of not establishing precedents for the POV. When I supplied them, you shifted your criticism to whether the basic concept was appropriate to share in an Introduction that was devoted to possible definitions of time.
- I have many other interests and do not have time to revise all the contributions that would benefit from my experience. However I have a particular interest in time, stemming from over forty years dealing with its geological evidence as displayed on five continents. This is observational knowledge, not merely book learning, or conjuring with mathematial formulae. My opinions. therefore, deserve valid exposure when supported by valid precedents. I trust that the administrators will take note of my concern about the fact that one or two persistent nay-sayers can suppress valid opinions.
- I appreciate you well-intended advice. Geologician 16:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know from which guidelines you found that quote, since it is at odds with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If it is from m:NPOV is an ideal you will have already seen my comments. Your view is clearly expressed in the talk pages - which is the correct place for discussion of content. We are not preventing you form having a say, just making sure it occurs in the right place. Banno 11:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Request for citation for Time edit
Hello. Can you please provide a citation for the information you added to the Time page, specifically the part on circular time that reads "This concept necessarily requires the existence of fifth and sixth dimensions, within which the hypothetical circle of space-time might exist." You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Mike Peel 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mike: I have added a diagram that illustrated why it is axiomatic that the circle of space-time must exist in at least two additional dimensions. Thank You Geologician 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- This diagram proves no such thing. It shows that you _could_ embed a four-dimensional spacetime in six-dimensional space, but this is not _necessary_. All that's needed to describe a spacetime is to describe how the points in it relate to one another (typically with the tools of Riemannian geometry). Positing that any such manifold is embedded in some other higher-dimensional space is an unnecessary assumption.
-
- Check out definition of curve. Positing the existence of a curve requires at least two dimensions for a curve to exist in. "All that is necessary" is merely a POV.Geologician 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Check out Riemannian geometry and differential geometry of curves. All you need to do to describe a curved manifold is describe how its parts relate to each other, and show how it locally departs from being Euclidean. You also appear to be confusing two uses of the term "curve". One, described in the first half of curve, refers to the graph of a function as a "curve" (noun). The other, described in the second half of curve and under differential geometry of curves, refers to the departure of a manifold from being Euclidean as "curvature" (adjective). A one-dimensional manifold, like the one-dimensional line in the graph of a function of one variable has no "curvature" in the second sense (though the higher-dimensional manifold in a plot of a function of two or more variables may, depending on the function). --Christopher Thomas 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even though it may be possible to describe a manifold such as a torus mathematically without resort to "higher dimensions" the mere fact that the torus itself occupies not three but four dimensions necessarily requires that the analysis must take this into account.Geologician 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Spacetime is already described as four-dimensional, so I don't see how this relates to the material you keep including. Four-dimensional descriptions of spacetime are already given at mathematics of general relativity, and don't require additional dimensions to describe a curved four-dimensional manifold. Riemannian geometry can be used on manifolds of arbitrary dimension. --Christopher Thomas 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even though it may be possible to describe a manifold such as a torus mathematically without resort to "higher dimensions" the mere fact that the torus itself occupies not three but four dimensions necessarily requires that the analysis must take this into account.Geologician 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Check out Riemannian geometry and differential geometry of curves. All you need to do to describe a curved manifold is describe how its parts relate to each other, and show how it locally departs from being Euclidean. You also appear to be confusing two uses of the term "curve". One, described in the first half of curve, refers to the graph of a function as a "curve" (noun). The other, described in the second half of curve and under differential geometry of curves, refers to the departure of a manifold from being Euclidean as "curvature" (adjective). A one-dimensional manifold, like the one-dimensional line in the graph of a function of one variable has no "curvature" in the second sense (though the higher-dimensional manifold in a plot of a function of two or more variables may, depending on the function). --Christopher Thomas 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- You also seem to be confused about what was requested of you. A "reference" is a published work by someone else, not a diagram by you. See WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay I'll put in a reference to the Kaluza–Klein theory -- its all implicit in there. Geologician 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, you seem to be misunderstanding K-K theory (and string theory, which uses a similar mechanism for compactification). The extra dimensions are cyclical with a very short period, but nowhere does it say they are embedded in Euclidean space. Indeed, for both K-K and GR, you can get manifolds complicated enough that you'd find it impossible to embed them in a Euclidean space without deformation. --Christopher Thomas 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- No matter how short the period of the cycle it must have required two additional dimensions in euclidian space to make its return. If the possibility exists for sort measures of time then it is equally applicable to circles in cosmological time.Geologician 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, you seem to be misunderstanding K-K theory (and string theory, which uses a similar mechanism for compactification). The extra dimensions are cyclical with a very short period, but nowhere does it say they are embedded in Euclidean space. Indeed, for both K-K and GR, you can get manifolds complicated enough that you'd find it impossible to embed them in a Euclidean space without deformation. --Christopher Thomas 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You keep stating this, but stating it doesn't make it _correct_. Go and read the differential geometry page, or ask any topologist (or any mathematician, for that matter). You've had multiple people who claim that they know about the field disagree with you. How many will it take before you consider the possibility that you're mistaken? --Christopher Thomas 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The differential geometry page poses the question explicitly thus: "The intrinsic point of view is more flexible. For example, it is useful in relativity where space-time cannot naturally be taken as extrinsic (what would be 'outside' it?). With the intrinsic point of view it is harder to define the central concept of curvature and other structures such as connections, so there is a price to pay." What would be outside it?...The fifth and sixth dimensions of course. We are considering here the philosophy of the dharmic religions, not general relativity. Perhaps there is nothing to be learned from it by physicists, but it is much easier to visualize than Riemannian geometry to adherents of dharmic religion. Geologician 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Curve
Hi. I reverted your addition to curve because it is rather incorrect. A curve is not the "shape of a line or surface", rather the "shape of line" only.
The term regular is not clear, and either way a curve is not regular, it can be really strange/wild. A curve can fill in an entire square, just by snaking around it in a complicated pattern.
The sentence "A curve is the shape of a line or surface that has a regular deviation from the straight or flat" is neither intuitively clear nor mathematically correct. Do you have any references for this definition?
You can comment here if you have any questions. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- And looking above, a curve does not need to exist in two dimensions. A curve can be on a line too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi Oleg. Definition of "Curve" came from The Concise Oxford Dictionary and is entirely appropriate for common uderstanding of the term.
- Regarding your second point a curve on a line cannot exist in a single dimension in euclidian space.Geologician 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A curve can exist even in a point. A curve is defined on any topological space. The Oxford definition is incorrect, a curve is not the shape of a surface.
-
-
-
- Also, the text you inserted does not fit with what is now in the article, so it is not appropriate there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gosh Oleg, you seem to be taking issue with the meaning of the English language. Might I ask about your credentials for making the assertion that the Oxford dictionary definition is incorrect? How would you describe the shape of the surface of a lens— their example of a curve in 3D? Geologician 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- A curve is not the same as a surface. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gosh Oleg, you seem to be taking issue with the meaning of the English language. Might I ask about your credentials for making the assertion that the Oxford dictionary definition is incorrect? How would you describe the shape of the surface of a lens— their example of a curve in 3D? Geologician 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the text you inserted does not fit with what is now in the article, so it is not appropriate there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Re: rv on Is mathematics a science?
I am referring to the last archive of Talk:Mathematics, where this issue has been discussed several times. It is now being discussed again at that page. I reverted, firstly because the link given definitely does not provide evidence that Popper believed mathematics was not a science, and secondly because any explanation you give of why mathematics is not a science by his criteria is likely to be both original research and POV, given that this claim is disputed in the talk archive. JPD (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- So far, all examples that have been inserted have been original research, and all have been debatable and not particularly clear. I personally think that an example is not going to help, as the question simply is one of semantics, but feel free to discuss it on the talk page. This section is debated enough that any significant changes need to be discussed first and should definitely not come down on one side or the other. JPD (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, discuss on talk first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
It may be too late, but I recommend you check out WP:3RR John (Jwy) 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematics additions.
Cmon mate, grow up a bit. You're going against consensus (per the extensive discussion on the talk page of which you have participated) and now you've broken WP:3RR. If you keep it up, it'll probably end in a block and then what? There's no point mate, if you must, continue the discussion on the talk page. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you revert one more time at Mathematics you may get blocked per WP:3RR. Please don't play silly games, make your argument on the talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Webster's definition of 'numeral' confirms that it is perfectly appropriate in the place it has been put.
numeral adj 1. Expressing, denoting or representing number. 2. Of or pertaining to number. n. 1 A word expressing a number. 2. A figure or character , or group of either , used to express a number. OED says much the same. Geologician 16:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool. Wiktionary --->
- If you wish to discuss it further, please use Talk:Mathematics. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Area
I have a very firm policy here of "shoot first - ask questions later". This means that I redirect a fork rather than adding a {{mergeto}} tag. I have always thought that "area" was a silly name; your spelling of airey may be a clue to its origin. I am sure you know that your text is still available here. Do please add this variant to the area (architecture) providing you can provide a couple of references to demonstrate the use of the "airey" spelling. -- RHaworth 20:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
