User talk:Marc Goossens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] On refs and citations

{{helpme}}

Harvard style in-line citations are much more readable than footnotes, but seem to lack the reverse link (from ref or note to cite in the text). Or is there a way to get the best of both worlds?

As an alternative, can I make the combination of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_footnote_citations_with_full_references work with the structured citation templates?

Thanks! --Marc Goossens (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a little blue, upwards pointing arrow on the left side of each citation[1]--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ ← there should be one there


{{helpme}} OK, sure, works perfectly with footnotes. Question was: can I get something equivalent with Harvard style refs instead of footnotes? Many thanks for bearing with me. --Marc Goossens (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marc. I often monitor the helpme category, but usually only answer questions where I'm confident of my answer. But since your question seems to be languishing, I'm going to give it a stab. What I think you are looking for is the use of {{Ref harvard}} in combination with {{Note label}} (please see Wikipedia:Footnote3 for some material on this). I'm going to use it at the end of this sentence following my signature as a working example for you and hope it fits the bill.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)(BBC 2006)

[edit] References

[edit] Hello, and thanks for your post on my talk page

Hi! I just saw your post on my talk page and haven't even finished reading it yet. I hadn't checked it in quite a while and wanted to let you know I appreciate your help.

I have spent the last few months trying, among other things, to work out the precise difference between semantics and everything else. I've got a copy of Tarski on "the semantic concept of truth" (or maybe it's "semantical conception" or something?) but not much else, as most resources tend to read like the article on Wikipedia on semantics, which says that it "refers to the aspects of meaning that are expressed in a language, code, or other form of representation" and "is contrasted with two other aspects of meaningful expression, namely, syntax, the construction of complex signs from simpler signs, and pragmatics, the practical use of signs by agents or communities of interpretation in particular circumstances and contexts".

My problem is that I see such things as "representation" and "meaning" as rather useless insofar as their effects cannot be determined by experiment. If someone says "this represents that", it's like saying "this may be interchanged with that in some way", usually, and likewise with "this means that" (at least generally), but one only knows what one means oneself or what something represents to oneself, unless another person tells what something means or represents to himself or herself. But if semantics can only be defined in these terms, how can I test whether something is "just semantics" or not? Syntax, which is often contrasted with semantics, seems to me to be reductible to it (or vice versa).

In other words: if semantics "is contrasted with" such other aspects of "meaningful expression" as "syntax", then syntax, being an aspect of meaningful expression, is an object of study within the "field" of semantics, right? If semantics is, along with other things, "the study of meaning", but is only contrasted with everything other than semantics, then what else should I conclude?

If you know of any "original" sources on semantics (first uses of the term in English, first distinctions made between semantical and syntactical arguments (if that's even correct English), etc.), or, better still, of a formal or axiomatic definition of it commonly used within mathematical and/or scientific discussion, or, best yet, of a criterion which always distinguishes between semantics and everything else, this would be greatly helpful.

Sorry for the quasi-rant-- as I said, I haven't even read most of your post yet-- but, again, I've been trying to figure this out for quite a while and can't seem to get it. I'll probably post more later regarding the actual content of your post :) and I hope you'll find the time to answer the questions it will probably raise in my mind. I'm really not being rhetorical about my confusion about semantics; I've consulted several people and generally been told I'm making semantic arguments, but honestly don't see much difference between them and arguments of any other type other than that they are dubbed semantical by other people. Thanks for your patience if you can help me with this at all.

"[E]verything is but a purely formal game" in mathematics: isn't precisely what a purely formal game is something that can only be settled by semantic argument? (Or is it? Do you see my problem?) I've yet to tackle any interesting problems in mathematics, since I know full well that I don't understand its foundations, although I'd like to do things like prove that the Mandelbrot set is or isn't pathwise-connected. (I do finally have a couple of books on topology, at least...) I understand that mathematics can be a tool that allows people to do things, like predict events in the world or make fractals, which I would like to be able to do myself. But I need a really, really formal introduction or set of definitions in order to get started. Maybe categories would be better than sets for me-- I already understand naive set theory, first-order logic, etc., and would like to see a formalism without so much internal dispute as set theory (in which one may employ a theory with urelements, or ZFC, or any of a host of other things). Can you give me a reference (or a few) to freely-available information on category theory? A friend has already recommended that I study category theory, universal algebra, and topoi, and I'm trying to get there, but a text that started at the beginning would be helpful.

Tastyummy 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi--long time no talk. Sorry about all this delay. I have started an attempt towards a reply to your comments above in a corresponding section of my user pages: User:Marc Goossens/Reply to Tastyummy. Apart from its being preliminary and incomplete rant too, it's probably not much use to you anyway, I'm afraid. --Marc Goossens (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuum thermomechanics

What is this, I've never heard of this term before. Is there a book that uses this term? --Sadi Carnot 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadi: sure, I didn't make it up. It goes back to the modern reformulation of thermodynamics in the 1950's by Truesdell and Toupin (in the part on classical field theory of Flügge's classic Handbuch der Physik). This approach makes thermodynamics into a real dynamics (with time as explicit parameter) and lifts it to the level of continuum mechanics, so that it can deal with combined thermal and mechanical processes (flows, deformations, ...), even in inhomogeneous bodies (possibly mixtures undergoing chemical reactions, or materials exhibiting memory-effects, say like hysteresis). This extends the scope of thermodynamics to viscous, visco-eleastic, hypo- and hyper-elastic media etc. A recent book is
Continuum Thermomechanics
Series: Progress in Mathematical Physics , Vol. 43 /
Bermúdez de Castro, Alfredo / 2005, ISBN-10: 3-7643-7265-6
You will also find countless references in articles published over the years in Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis; you may further want to check Truesdell's classic on Rational Thermodynamics. Googling for "continuum thermomechanics" may also help. Other names in the field are Walter Noll (who pioneered the use of measure theory both in continuum mechanics as well as continuum thermodynamics), Bernard Coleman, Morton Gurtin, Ingo Müller and many others. Does this help? Of course I should wish to complete any possible contribution with relevant references in due course. --Marc Goossens 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep this info in mind. Also, I see you have article Morton Gurtin listed in "category:thermodynamicists". Could you clean this up a bit, e.g. add a birth date, summarize the person in the first paragraph, etc., see any of the other thermodynamicists to use as a model. Later: --Sadi Carnot 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Obviously I have been looking for such information, but unfortunately was unable to obtain it so far. I keep trying. Remarkably, birth dates are easier to find for dead scientists...? --Marc Goossens 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Hi, could you please define (with references):

  • Continuum thermomechanics -
  • Continuum thermodynamics -

Thanks, --Sadi Carnot 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)