User talk:Tosha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Space-Filling Curve

I don't understand the objection (i.e. Tosha's deletion of most of what was recently added) to discussing the iterative construction of most space-filling curves as sequence of approximation curves. 25 Dec 2005.

I just corrected few bit missleading statements and made it shorter a bit, while keeping all info. Tosha 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What was misleading? [Dec. 27, 2005]

Ough, read your-self Tosha 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spacetime

Thanks. I'm not translating only, but the word unarbitrarily made me think there was an error in the article... Manuel Anastácio 12:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

Please, can you give me web references for your "minor" edit: "In dimension 3, it was recently used to give a complete classification of compact 3-manifolds." in Ricci curvature. Thanks. DefLog 02:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I mean the Perelman's solution of Thurston's conjecture. Tosha 03:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the latest news, on the Perelman proof? Charles Matthews 19:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No news, it is just solved.Tosha 04:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you revert??

Was what I wrote about where the spellings connection and connexion are most common correct?? Why did you revert?? 66.245.78.247 23:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

You are writing about the word but not about the term. Both of the terms used everywhere it is more related to math. school than to country. You could add it to connection (if you are sure its correct). BTW I found article connexion which does not say anything about connection maybe it shold be glued together, but I suppose it must be done by someone who knows English better than me...

Tosha 20:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] category: differential geometry

i noticed that you recently classified the Lie Algebra article under differential geometry. I am not sure i agree with that classification. the study of Lie Algebras is pretty much pure linear algebra, right?

You are right, my mistake Tosha 11:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting II.

Maybe my corrections on geometry weren't lucky, but would you be so kind as to explaining your deletions (in the future) (a deletion of a sinful edit, without motivation, doesn't inhibit a fallback. Thanx Gubbubu 20:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I hoped that you will see it yourself, your correction did not contain "information" or better to say that it was at wrong place. I do not like this article at the present moment, I only think it should not get worse. Tosha +++Gubbubu 11:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poincare sphere

If by Poincare sphere you mean homology sphere, we already have a page on that. Walt Pohl 19:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tosha
If Poincaré sphere is the same as homology sphere (forgive my ignorance), this should perhaps be mentioned in the article. As it is, it is rather confusing that when one follows the link Poincaré sphere, one arrives at homology sphere which does not mention Poincaré spheres. -- Jitse Niesen 11:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possibly PS is a type of example of HS only; not that I'm an expert. Charles Matthews 12:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe it is not very standard term, is it? Tosha

[edit] Message from 150.203.43.173

Hello,

I found here a definition of a lambda convex function that I do quite understand. It seems to me, from a few eqamples I tried, that the factor lambda depends on a geodesic, for example its length. Would you be able to provide an example of a lambda convex function, for positive lambda, please?

Thanks for your help

Krzysztof Krakowski

my email address is kris@mcs.une.edu.au

fixed, thanks Tosha 05:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Pythagorean theorem revert

Why? Is said knowledge in the article somewhere that I missed? Cburnett 23:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it directly related Tosha 23:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is the fact that Pythagoras didn't prove the theorem not relate to the theorem? You're going to have to explain this one a little better than with 7 words. I'd all but guarantee people don't know this fact. How is it less related than the bit about the Indians, Greeks, Chinese, etc.? Trim it down? Maybe. Reword it? Maybe. Cburnett 23:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you do not know for sure, all you know is that it is proved in Euckids book, and it is unlikely due to Euckid, anyway it is more related to history of math. Yes, Pythagoras did not have a proof in a way we understand it now, but the same is true for Euckid (although it is closer) so there is no point in your statement. The same is true for all old theorems... Tosha 01:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Miller-Rabin primality test interwiki

You inserted an interwiki to the ru: article, but it doesn't exist. Maybe there was a typo, or perhaps you're just planning on writing the article later. Just thought I'd give you a heads up on it. I'll check back in a day or two and if the article's not there or the link hasn't been corrected, I'll remove the interwiki. Cheers. CryptoDerk 22:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, by some reason it does not want to have "—" inside of ref. so I gave a ref to a redirect page (with "-" istead of "—") maybe there are better solutions?

Tosha 00:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to matrix (mathematics). I have just one request. Could you please put an edit summary when you make a change? For example, by writing "+ru" in the edit summary, you will let people know you put a Russian link. This would be very helpful. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 04:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sphere cat

Hi. Why did you remove the category from sphere? —msh210 14:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly an example of metric space, but this category does not describe it best. Cat. surfeces is much better Tosha 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geodesic

Hi,

Sorry for the arguments over geodesic, and I would rather not battle there, as you must certainly know this material better than I. Please explain what you saw in there that was wrong. I worked hard to try to make that article easier to understand, and your edits seem to do nothing except remove a simple, easy to understand, definition while leaving the abstract complex definition untouched. I am unable to see what error this might have fixed. linas 15:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Main things:

  1. Geodesics are defined not only for metric spaces, (your def kills GenGravity.)
  2. lenght-minimizing curve is NOT a geodesic

everything else is metter of style

I'm not against simple, easy to understand, definition but they should be correct Tosha 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intrinsic metric

Hi, I just made a couple of edits to your intrinsic metric article. I left a question at Talk:intrinsic metric regarding the statement about approximate midpoints. Cheers, AxelBoldt 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small changes to geodesic's definition

Hello,

there a few things in the definition provied I do not quite agree with. Firstly, when one talks about point, I think the points are "in" a space, not on it, as this assumes some kind of ambient space. We live in R^3, not on it.

I also think that one cannot support the stement that geodesic are defined as the shortest paths. Locally or not, because of reparametrisation, for example. I like the definition given in "John M. Lee. Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature. Number 176 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. " where geodesic are simply the curves whose acceleration is zero (well, the covariant derivative of the velocity). Geodesics are, locally, the shortest paths, but the opposite is not true. From the point of view of accelaration, it is natural to see then that the lenght of the velocity vector of a geodesic is constant.

Regards

   Krzysztof Krakowski


58.108.71.172 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is better to discuss it in geodesic --Tosha 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triangle geometry

Why use "Triangle Geometry", with a capital "G", rather than "Triangle geometry", with a lower-case "g", as the title of a category? Now it will have to get moved. This is one of the many many many many many many many many ways in which categories are inferior to lists. Michael Hardy 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Many Many Many Ways. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for changing all this. --Tosha 15:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "little monster tensor"

Hi, thank you very much for starting the article Curvature of Riemannian manifolds. In the introductory section you wrote "Riemann introduced a way to describe it as "little monster tensor"". Can cite the a source for this statement. I mean "little monster tensor". Thanx.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I guess something like that had been used in Gromov's "sign and geometric meaning of curvature", but I do not see why it might be important :) --Tosha (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)