User talk:TimothyRias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you! :D
Some cookies to welcome you! :D
Welcome to Wikipedia, TimothyRias! I am Auawise and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Λua∫Wise (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical physics article

Hi there,

I was looking at this article out of interest, and I've done a rather drastic re-write. I've added a lot of wikilinks, birth and death dates for the people you mentioned, and also fixed some grammatical and syntactical issues.

My background in the subject is not that of a professional (just a well-read amateur) - so could you please have a look at what I've done and, style apart, see that it still makes mathematical and physical sense?

Regards,

Boethius65 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy Noether

Wow! Thank you so much for those paragraphs; they're precisely what I had in mind. While I could source the first paragraph to the Ledermann & Hill book I have (it discusses the theorem in – from what I can tell – much the same way), we should probably give a source for the second ¶. Do you happen to have anything for this? Thanks again for your speedy and excellent work. – Scartol • Tok 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article

Hi. Not that I'm particularly concerned about this but, certainly not enough to editwar, but I disagree with your argument that using 'the' before a country is proper grammar. Often the definite article is not considered obligatory and even archaic in official documents I have seen. See for reference the info boxes of Nobel laureates from the United States and the United Kingdom. Regards. Rozth (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet for some countries it remains customary to use the definite article. Adressen in the Netherlands are (and have always been) written: Name, street ##, postal code, City, The Netherlands. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
Also wikipedia's flag template - {{NED}} - excludes the definite article (Flag of the Netherlands Netherlands), implying it is common practice to leave out the determiner in infoboxes. Regards. Rozth (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be, if it was not preceded by a city name. (although whether this is truly common practice can be disputed.) (TimothyRias (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
A few things can be disputed, particularly the addressing format passed off as standard in your first comment. Regards. Rozth (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supergroups?

Your comment on the group talk page encourages me to ask you if you know anything about supergroups. The article claims they are generalised groups, but I don't understand it. I have a vague idea that when physicists talk about "groups" they sometimes mean something a bit more special than mathematicians, perhaps algebraic groups? So I wonder if it is correct to list them as generalised groups at group (mathematics). I can see it's correct in the case of Hopf algebras, though. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I know very little about supergroups. The most sense I can make from the wikipedia stub is that they are simply supermanifolds with a group structure. Anyway most of the time physicists are talking out of their ass when it comes to groups. (they tend to confuse lie algebras and groups. Als the "renormalisation group" is not actually a group, but a monoid. etc.) (TimothyRias (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Thanks. Perhaps we should just remove them from the groups article, because the two definitions live in too different cultures. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I agree with you that "Netherlands" without a definite article often (always?) sounds very strange. And if anyone can be trusted to do this right, then I would say it's linguists. [1] I wonder if it has anything to do with "nederlands". In English no confusion should be possible, but still… --Hans Adler (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolicited advice

Hi Timothy. I commend you for your patient explanations to User:David Tombe, and I understand he is quite a frustrating user, but please do try to avoid name-calling. If I might make a general suggestion for situations like this, borne of my own experience: if you conclude that someone is not listening to explanations, stop explaining. Instead, focus on making sure the relevant article is accurate and in accord with Wikipedia policies, and request administrative assistance in the case of disruptive editing. (In the case at hand, I am taking care of the administrative side of things at the moment.) Believe me, I know it's not easy—but it doesn't hurt to let a person be wrong on the talk page. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D Tombe

I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?

If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing at stake here seems to be Tombe refusing to accept that he is just dead wrong. Which annoys me, since I'm allergic to ignorance. Most of the derivations in the articles seem OK. (I haven't checked all of them) I'd personally prefer a presentation that is completely coordinate free, but that might be asking a little too much from most readers. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Emanuel Lasker

I'm editing the article about the chess champion Emanuel Lasker and have found that he's a much more significant mathematician than I realised, and I'm not qualified to judge his significance in mathematics. Since you've contributed to Emmy Noether, could you please comment on the parts of Emanuel Lasker about his mathematical work (and career, if you have material). Philcha (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)