User talk:Teorth

Welcome!

Hello, Teorth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

would you mind explaining why you removed the link to louis de branges from the clay mathmatics institute page? i understand that his proof has not been confirmed, but there is a link on the reinman page... Mactenchi

Well, as mentioned on the Riemann page, there appears to be a counterexample to his entire approach, and his new claims do not seem to be much different from his earlier claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis... in my opinion, it still merits a mention on the Riemann page, but is not credible enough to be placed in the main page (being of similar level of credibility to many other purported proofs of all of these conjectures, which are also not worth placing there).

Terry 04:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that on Special Relativity page, you've been marking many of your edits as minor. I just wanted to remind you what constitutes a Minor edit. (Well, I saw one of your edits which seemed to delete something I added some time ago, and for a moment doubted your motive because the change was marked minor. I found soon that you simply moved to other section (a move which I agree with), but almost wrote an angry-toned message because of initial misunderstanding... I don't think moving a text from a section to another (i.e. an edit that, at first glance, will not seem minor) is a minor edit...) novakyu 15:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, as listed on the Minor edit, rearrangement of text is considered a minor edit - the content has not changed, and apart from the original author of the text being moved, hardly anyone would notice the difference. I did explain what I did in the edit summary; I am sorry if it caused misunderstanding. Terry 00:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, as listed, the edits like this wouldn't be considered a minor edit, as it adds material. 'Just thought it would be good to point out, as is on the help page, Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. So I thought every change was assumed to be not a minor edit, unless it was undisputably minor (i.e. correction of spelling). Well, 'not going to fight over it--'just thought a friendly reminder might help... (Also, although I wouldn't dispute your edit, I still disagree it was a minor edit. As the page states, rearranging of text (without changing any of the text's content) constitutes a minor edit, but you took out bold assertion and changed it to something like nothing more than an assertion which changes the tone of the text => not a minor edit.) novakyu 03:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting of relativity page

The Special Relativity page is excellent. However, would you be in favour of a page called Relativity for Beginners that treats the subject at a simpler level? The subjcet has (at least) three levels of treatment: beginners, undergraduate, graduate. The maths and reasoning in the current article is junior undergraduate level or senior school maths/physics specialist level. A beginners text might be linked as such from the current main text. Loxley 20:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do agree the page needs to be split up. I was already thinking of moving the mathematical treatment of the theory and the connection to other theories to separate pages, but don't know what to do overall. Other people have already noted that the page kind of sprawls all over the place. Terry 22:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sagnac experiment

Hi Teorth,

I noticed that you mentioned Sagnac experiment in the status of special relativity article. Are you aware that both classical mechanics and relativistic physics predict the same outcome of Sagnac experiments?

For example, GPS-technology takes the Sagnac effect into account in order to achieve its level of accuracy. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following text by Neil Ashby was very informative to me. External link: Reference frames and the Sagnac effect

Thanks for that. I've adjusted the wording some. Perhaps you would like to start a stub on the Sagnac effect? It's not really my expertise, I'm more from the pure side of SR than the applied. Terry 03:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I intend to write an article about the Sagnac effect. But I can't write a stub, that is not in my nature. The Sagnac effect is a very thorny subject. I think it is really cool physics; an interferometry phenomenon where relativistic physics predicts the same outcome as classical mechanics, that's pretty unique. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 14:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording of the Sagnac entry in the list. I recommend to remove the Sagnac entry from that list, because it is a null experiment, it cannot distinguish between classical mechanics and special relativity.

I must add that general relativity predicts something called frame dragging. (The Sagnac effect relates to the local inertial frame.) In frame dragging the local inertial frame rotates with respect to the universe as a whole. It is an exceedingly small effect, smaller than current measuring technology can detect. Theoretically, a sufficiently sensitive Sagnac interferometer can be employed to detect frame dragging, thus distinguishing general relativity from other theories.

Taking the sagnac effect into account is done by using the local (Earth enveloping) inertial frame as frame of reference: all GPS calculations relate to the non-rotating frame, and Earth rotates with respect to that frame with a period of one sidereal day. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 15:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've started an article on the Sagnac effect. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Project Participants List

Hi Teorth.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power series in several variables

Howdy, someone at the reference desk asked about a statement in the article power series describing the domain of convergence of a power series in several variables. I don't understand the statement myself, but I was surprised that a shelf full of analysis texts said nothing about the domain either. I did manage to find some notes that proved it was a union of poly-disks. If you have time, can you check over this realy old edit? The 2008 question is at the reference desk (link to topic). JackSchmidt (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Once you center it at 0, it makes perfect sense. Like I said, I cannot find *any* references describing the domain of convergence. I worked in PDE for three years before deciding I had no feel for these things at all, so me not finding a reference should mean (1) they are hard for average joe to find, but (2) probably still easy for an analyst to find. The "every log-convex set is the domain of convergence" fact sounds great.

Is there a name I can look up? Do you just happen to have a reference? If not, I can probably hassle one of the analysts here. Is the result the same for real and complex? We mostly have elliptic PDE type people, but we have one or two several complex var people too. I don't know anyone here who would specifically be into the real variable case, though, is why I ask. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such)for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Endre Szemerédi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Trotter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]