User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Charles Matthews. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hello Charles -- I just wanted to write because I see you put up an initial article on Christopher Middleton a few hours ago, and I just randomly thought a few minutes ago to look him up on wikipedia. Very odd coincidence, in my opinion. I was a student of his at the University of Texas, correspond with him via letters now and again, and just thought about adding an article. How did you decide to do that? Sincere regards, NathanBeach - 10/7/2005 Dallas, Texas USA

It was him or C. H. Sisson! I mean, he was an obvious gap in British poets of reputation, and plenty of links wanted him. Here (UK) they say he's neglected because he went to Texas ... Charles Matthews 19:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Charles, can you please take a look at Mean#Mean_of_a_function? Is this correct? It doesn't make sense to me at all; it comes from this edit of User:Kaimbridge. I am somewhat suspicious of this user; the account was created shortly after a spate of hoax vandalisms from Cambridge University IPs. Lupo 11:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Little or no content, anyway. Charles Matthews 14:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That may well be so, but these new formulas strike me as awfully strange. Hence my question: is it a hoax or not? Lupo 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not a hoax and these are valid expressions and FAR from being "new":

• Univ. Wisc.

• Lancaster Univ.

• MathWorld

Furthermore, there is the mean value theorem, stating a<c<b. So what is so offbase with what I did:

${\displaystyle mean(F'(X))\,\!}$	${\displaystyle ={\frac {\int _{a}^{b}F'(x)\,dx}{b-a}}=F[a,b]={\frac {F(b)-F(a)}{b-a}},\,\!}$
	${\displaystyle =\sum _{TN=1}^{UT=\infty }{\frac {F'(x_{TN})}{UT}}=F'(a<x<b)\quad (x_{1}=a,\;x_{UT}=b).\,\!}$

And as for location, I'm over here near Boston! P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 18:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say 'hoax'. Your links are about some numerical analysis concepts, mainly. Charles Matthews 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

While Kaimbridge's contribution is correct in some sense, I think it is rather unhelpful. Firstly, many notations are used without explanation (eg., F[a,b], UT, x_TN); secondly, the mean of a function is defined without motivation or attempt to connect with the rest of the article (at least, it should be explained that this is the arithmetic mean); and thirdly, the statement "the mean of a function is the divided difference of the primitive" uses the concept of divided difference, which does not add any understanding (all in my humble opinion of course). Therefore, I decided to remove the section. Nevertheless, a proper explanation of the mean of a function may be a worthwhile addition to the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that motion, absolutely! We should give the proper definition of the mean of a function. If it's Okay (grrr... really bad scholarship on that site), I'll throw something on the page the folks can toy around with at least. Silly rabbit 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

have expanded the daiches page, mostly personal life. u may want to take a look. the image i've added needs to be confirmed as that of daiches. the writeup on his work needs attention as well. Doldrums 14:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done a copy edit, switching the order of material mostly. Charles Matthews 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still wary of that Kaimbridge/Cambridge user. His last edit at Spheroid looked patently wrong to me (to be fair, either he or I may just have been confused). I'd appreciate it if you could take a look, and also at Talk:Spheroid, and tell me which version is correct. I think mine is, but I'm not 100% sure. Lupo 07:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Long time no see! Very pleased for Banville, and not just because he's Irish. He's a very fine writer and the Booker needed to stop rewarding flash Harrys (and Harriets) and look beyond the media darlings.

I'll have a look at home tonight and see if I have anything to flesh out the Middleton. I've been meaning to drop by and say something about The Cantos. It is I think (and I know I really shouldn't say this) the best literature article on Wikipedia and a lot of this is down to you for starting it, creating a structure that survived all the editing, and correcting so many of my errors as I went along.

I'm now tipping away at the Objectivist poets, a much more modest project. Almost impossible to find PD images, unfortunately. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, The Cantos can be our show home for the humanities. I was just looking at The Waste Land. It could do with the same treatment, in a sense. But I take it you're not much of an Eliot man.

What interests me is how 'slices' though the humanities do show up WP's coverage, and gaps. This is the systemic thing from another angle, I believe: taking off the blinkers, and perhaps that that means many articulable and accessible things. I've been quietly adding lists - for example one compiled by going through Eliot criticism (is it all really that bad?), George Steiner, many other things to work on. (Actually, I was having a wretched time with an Internet connection fault, which turned out to be rainwater in a cable box, but I was a semi-exile from WP and did all that as offline compensation.) Listing things is neither a threat nor a promise to create an article about them, by the way. Charles Matthews 09:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would be quite interested in taking on The Waste Land: not my favourite poem (though not bad), but a vital landmark none the less. I took a bit of a break myself recently, self-imposed because of being a bit down about the old place. I've come back with a new resolution to do more positive things besides adding content, which has always been my main focus. Hence my ArbCom candidacy. (Doubt I'll get elected; there are both advantages and disadvantages to working in the more obscure corners of the humanities here, less vandalism on the whole, but nobody else has any idea who you are.)

You're quite right about the systemic bias thing as regards the humanities. I was quite involved with the bias project at first, and my work on H.D. came out of that. Unfortunately, that let me on the more general work on the Imagists and modernist poetry in general. Then the mod. po. in English and Cantos articles and Cantos list nearly exhausted me completely, so I never really got back to the project. Maybe I should. Maybe I will, even. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have anything on Percy Lubbock as critic? I've been piecing him together, and he appears to be one of those influential people who are a bit intangible beyond namechecks. Charles Matthews 16:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Afraid not. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote:

As lists of lists go, it's a good one (thinks ... have I seen any others here?). I've had a lot to do with this page. What Michael says about the reputation of mathematics on the English Wikipedia is correct; I was browsing Slashdot yesterday, and typically Mathematics is highly spoken of, as one of the Main Page big categories that actually delivers. So, this list of lists is at the heart of a success story, and it uses a homegrown system of classification that has grown organically from what is here. All good wiki stuff. So some recognition would be nice. Charles Matthews 07:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Could I suggest editing it to read as follows:

• Support. As lists of lists go, it's a good one (thinks ... have I seen any others here?). I've had a lot to do with this page. What Michael says about the reputation of mathematics on the English Wikipedia is correct; I was browsing Slashdot yesterday, and typically Mathematics is highly spoken of, as one of the Main Page big categories that actually delivers. So, this list of lists is at the heart of a success story, and it uses a homegrown system of classification that has grown organically from what is here. All good wiki stuff. So some recognition would be nice. Charles Matthews 07:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Hardy 21:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I feel too close to the whole business to be comfortable with voting. Charles Matthews 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a proposal regarding what to do with this article on the above AfD. I would value your imput and any suggestion on the idea. Cheers. Youngamerican 02:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Empire of Japan to Imperial Japan, to refer to Dai-Nippon Teikoku; Japan is still imperial but without an empire. Anyway, thanks for voting to keep.Charles Matthews 08:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see and comment on Talk:Quantum indeterminacy#Dispute status of this article. --CSTAR 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have put this article up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

Please consider voting. Thank-you.DV8 2XL 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I have. Charles Matthews 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This AfD was a very bad idea. RfC would have been appropriate, since the goal was to cause change, not deletion, in my view. It's now a mess, since the AfD is accomplishing what the RfC should have accomplished. Please see what you think (yeah I know, I've become a bit of a rabble-rouser myself).--CSTAR 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So, what do you do for a living, anyway? linas 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been a house-husband, put it that way. Charles Matthews 07:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding in our discussion, Charles. Perhaps my point was lost behind the provocative "so what"? In any case, I'm not sure I understand what you took my comment to mean! The example of the Main Page was intended to illustrate my disagreement with the idea that usefulness is central to the matter. I don't think that usefulness could ever be a sufficient condition for featuring a list, although it is certainly necessary. I do think that the precedent set by the present crop of featured lists is important in deciding what is suitable for featuring in the future. My objection is that the List of lists ... doesn't fit this precedent, and that some other (possibly new) way to feature such meta-lists would be better. Cheers, Ben Cairns 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

It's knockabout stuff, really. I wouldn't have got involved without a request from Michael Hardy - we owe him. Charles Matthews 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

Thanks v. much for your edit/interest in Bak-Sneppen. I'd love to have your opinions/ideas on the main self-organized criticality page too if you can spare a mo. :-)

Best wishes, — Joe aka WebDrake 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. — Playing Erdős — who won? ;-)

It's twenty years ago or more. I'm pretty sure I won the first time; the second he was more awake, and seemed stronger (I would have given him four stones). Charles Matthews 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I found this self-redirecting page with your name in the history, and I'm not certain where it ought to be redirecting... my best guess is Steven Berkoff, so I'm going to point it there, but if you remember that there is actually a Steven Berkhoff, then you might want to fix that. Just FYI. -GTBacchus 00:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Berkoff is right, thanks. Charles Matthews 07:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I decided not to block our anonymous friend immediately. Firstly, I am not sure that warning in an edit summary counts. Secondly, I am hesitant to block since I haven't done so before. But rest assured that if he reverts again, he will be blocked. I've put the page on my watchlist, so at least you're not alone anymore. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - thanks for looking at this. Charles Matthews 13:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. I've made a few revisions. It looks like I actually had the wrong idea and will have to revise the Theta (set theory) article (Θ is the least ordinal onto which there's no surjection from the reals, but it appears that the Hartogs number of the reals is the least ordinal from which there's no injection into the reals). --Trovatore

Thanks for the expert fact-check. Charles Matthews 18:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

So there is one more thing I don't know an easy way to check. Right now it claims Hartogs proved without AC that there's a least wellordered cardinal not less than or equal to a given cardinal. The result certainly holds but I don't actually know whether Hartogs proved it; from the information I currently have it seems possible that Hartogs proved only that there's a least wellordered cardinal greater than a given wellordered cardinal. I suppose I could look up your ref and try to puzzle through it with my weak German, but if you have more information perhaps you could clarify. --Trovatore 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing more at this time. Charles Matthews 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles. Thank you for helping reviewing articles at the PlanetMath Exchange project, that is truly helpful. I have just a couple of formatting remarks. First, it is good if the signature goes on a separate line from the status field; in this way my bot which counts the reviewed articles will not get confused (you can see the result of its labor in the tables at the link above). Second, also minor thing, is that if you put the status flag to be N, meaning not needed, mabye a word or two should be said for why that article is not needed. Thanks a lot for your help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, format noted. I deliberately didn't comment on a Smarandache article; if you know his reputation you'll understand. Charles Matthews 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard something. :) I was thinking of some other instance. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles, please accept our thanks for your fine improvements in the Floer homology article. Besides all your mathematical knowledge we especially appreciate your Wikipedia expertise and sophistication in inserting those formulas. We enjoy watching Andreas’ “hermetic theories” come out from academic circles to the more open stage of the Wikipedia. Best - Rolf of: Erkabo 13:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Would Mr and Mrs Browning's The Ring and the Book and Aurora Leigh fit the bill? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The first and not the second? I think The Ring and the Book effectively is written novelistically - as perhaps with other of Browning's works. Charles Matthews 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

recall that the outcome of the BA wars, as I understand it, was to keep Boolean algebra for discussion of the algebraic structure, while Boolean logic was for the algebraic statements they satisfy. Accordingly I don't really agree with your changes to the intro. I don't see in what way Boolean algebras summarize Venn diagrams; they don't "express" the algebra of the set-theoretic operations so much as "model" it; and I don't believe that they are studied in engineering and computer science. --Trovatore 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't in those wars. As I say, I think the intro was far too sparse. I would quite agree with anyone who advised casual readers to figure out truth tables and Venn diagrams first. I would say the same. But it is quite wrong - in fact naughty - to 'warn people off' articles by making the introduction opaque. I feel that quite strongly. Even the sentence structure was reprehensible. So, no, I don't agree. And I have spent time in a computer science department. Charles Matthews 16:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And they introduced Boolean algebras as an algebraic structure? Do tell.

I certainly don't desire that the introduction be "opaque", quite the opposite. StuRat is convinced that's my goal, and I take it rather personally. What I want is that there be an article specifically about the structure, not the logic. It should be along the lines of group (mathematics) or ring (mathematics) or lattice (order). There's no reason Boolean algebras, a more complicated structure than any of those, shouldn't have an article along those lines, and I can't see any reason to mix the article with the one about the logic, currently at Boolean logic.

Yes, but to introduce group theory without reference to symmetry is just nonsense. You say 'only axiomatics', and I think that's wrong from all points of view. Also, it's annoying to me that the introductions of articles are becoming such a black hole. Fine, write the rest of the article in an axiomatic style. I add plenty of stuff along those lines. Considering I have added more about Grothendieck's mathematics to this site than anyone else, I have no inverted snobbery about abstraction. But it is policy that lead sections are to be helpful. Do I have to go get quotes about that? (By the way, I spent time in the Imperial College compsci department, talking to Samson Abramsky.) Charles Matthews 16:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You make me sound like a (horror!) formalist. Look, I absolutely agree that motivation is good, and examples are good. I don't know why they can't go in sections called "motivation" and "examples", though; short intros keep the TOC high on the page, where you can easily pick out what part of the subject you want to look at.

In this particular case, my specific concern is that the term "Boolean algebra", meaning a specific type of algebraic structure, not be muddled with "Boolean algebra" meaning (roughly) the sorts of propositions that are true in those structures. They are quite distinct topics and deserve separate articles. --Trovatore 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see good, valid distinctions to uphold. Boolean logic only has a para about Boole as intro. The same could happen at Boolean algebra, assuming we know who first defined a ring that was one ... Now I have to sleep. Charles Matthews 22:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,

Please take a look at my latest effort, here in case someone changes it by morning. I hope you can see my point about the distinction between the two senses of "Boolean algebra", in addition to the value of avoiding using the term "Boolean algebra" as a name for a discipline in an article that's about an object that's called by the same name. --Trovatore 04:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. At your request to folks at WikiProject Mathematics, I tried to help out here. Trovatore and I seemed to be having a civilized discussion and heading towards a mutually satisfactory opening. I added quite a few comments to the talk page, spent a fair amount of effort editing, even created an image, thus crafting some kind of respectable compromise. [1] Only to see it instantly obliterated by the hoi polloi. If you want to sift through the debris to see what may profitably be salvaged, be my guest. I shan't waste more of my time. --KSmrq^T 13:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Really, you shouldn't be like that about it. In the situation at Boolean algebra, any compromise version was a substantial move ahead, possibly creating good will where there was none. Reverting to some version of yours takes only seconds. The discussion needed some time out for everyone, so I hope to return to it Monday. Charles Matthews 15:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If my contribution can do some good, I'm happy about that. I've got decades of successful newgroup experience, but there my words persist with others (not reverted), and I can filter the worst offenders in the (very rare) event it comes to that. Wikipedia conflicts, lacking those features, can be more stressful. A quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw says it well:

Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

Unlike the pig, I love to collaborate and hate to fight. One person filled with ignorance and hostility can repel dozens of informed and friendly participants. Discussion, compromise, and other peace-making efforts only embolden the culprits, who seem to feed on attention and redouble their efforts. And then there are the maddening borderline cases like Patrick, who personify the adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." (Of course, that raises the question: how much knowledge does it take to be safe? :-D ) So I hope you'll forgive me if I sometimes decide to just walk away from a conflict that looks hopeless.

Just when you think life’s a bitch… it has puppies. (Adrienne Gusoff)

I know that leaves the positive participants weaker, but I'd rather write than fight. --KSmrq^T 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

On mathematics you head up a list of problems with the above phrase. Are you talking about CH? There is in fact no consensus that it is unsolvable; there is very recent work aimed at solving it, due particularly to W. Hugh Woodin. Certainly, as it's independent of ZFC, any such argument will have a philosophical element, but I think it's misleading to state uncritically that the problem is unsolvable. --Trovatore 20:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was a Hilbert problem. That problem was unsolvable, no? Of course ZFC wasn't in place right then, so there is some quibble room. I'm slightly surprised that you take this to be negotiable, though. Of course, coming up with a better question is also interesting. Charles Matthews 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what Hilbert meant. This has been discussed at Hilbert's problems, by the way. (The first problem is currently marked "no consensus", by me; this has stood for some time.) Hilbert's question, as I read it, was not whether CH was true, but whether it was provable; provable from what, he never really said. The question that more interests me is whether CH is true, platonistically if you like.

That's what I think Woodin is investigating, though according to him it's a mere byproduct of the line of research and not the thing in which he's primarily interested. In context I'd point out that Wiles also claimed to be more interested in Taniyama-Weil than in Fermat's Last Theorem; no one really believed him either. --Trovatore 20:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The bit about Wiles must be wrong - he didn't work on completing TW. Anyone in number theory would tell you that TW was the central issue, though. 'No consensus' because you object on CH seems below WP's standards. There seems to be some discussion about whether Hilbert's Fifth is really solved as he wanted. Again, this gives you a little wriggle room, I suppose.

But I'm going to replace CH by the full Hilbert problems, for the moment. Charles Matthews 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on whether CH is resolved, it's not because I object, but because lots of set theorists do. As to Hilbert's exact question, that's possibly a different matter. I've discussed on the talk page that it might be opportune to change it to "partially resolved" with an explanation, while recharacterizing the problem not as "the continuum hypothesis" but as "provability of the continuum hypothesis". --Trovatore 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first two annotations to Hilbert's problems have me reeling. As far as I knew, CH is independent of ZFC and other garden-variety set theories - even the topos-theorists can get models, for chrissake. And then as far as I knew, consistency of arithmetic was settled the other way by Gödel; we have no right to say we know it is consistent. I know about the proof theory, in rough terms. People have some sort of right to believe in cut-elimination working, but that's assuming a lot of transfinite deduction and the computations are not anything that can be done in our physical universe. So now I'm concerned about POV on both those counts. Admittedly I'm out of the loop, but it seems to me that those notes are odd. Charles Matthews 20:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's consider the cases separately:

The footnote currently says

Cohen's independence result, showing the continuum hypothesis to be independent of ZFC (Zermelo-Frankel set theory, extended to include the axiom of choice) is often cited to justify the assertion that the first problem has been solved, although it may be the case that set theory should have additional axioms that are capable of settling the problem.

The only thing I can see here that you could conceivably call POV is the phrase "it may be the case", which is a little unfortunate, but the alternatives seem to be the weaselish "some hold that" or an excessively lengthy (for a footnote) list of examples of set theorists who think so.

If you actually doubt that it's a live controversy, I commend to your attention the Maddy and Foreman references at the end of the continuum hypothesis article. The Maddy paper is prior to the current work by Woodin, which has converted a considerable number of set theorists to the view that there at least might be a question to resolve (at least Donald A. Martin claimed it had shifted his views). If you have MathSciNet you can find the Maddy paper quickly via its MR number, MR0947855. --Trovatore 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll tackle this later. --Trovatore 22:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying in detail. Hilbert problems needs work, anyway. I'm not convinced the table has enough columns (there are various parameters, including how widely the problem statement was drawn, open-ended or not and so on). Charles Matthews 06:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Quick question. Should articles be placed in the parent categories of the category with the same name? For instance, should Musical notation be in Category:Musicology if Category:Musical notation is there also? I ask, becuase I've seen both variants practiced and divergent suggestions, and the written policy has been changing. Karol 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There are actually two contradictory statements in guidline articles, one here and the other here, in both in the example of Microsoft Office categorization. Karol 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at that case, I'd say no need. I've added the sort tag [[Category:Musical notation|*]] which puts Musical notation at the front of its category. Charles Matthews 16:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, what about the guidelines? One states there are exception, the other one does'nt. Karol 16:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Try to ignore that? One has some discretion, and this might be case-by-case anyway. Charles Matthews 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but wanted to ask. Thx. Karol 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my actions appear disruptive to you - I realise that demanding an apology isn't going to go anywhere, but all Lumidek is doing is either deleting comments, or launching new and increasingly nutty attacks. I don't see why I or anyone else should tolerate that sort of behaviour. His vendetta against William is incidental at this point - this is a matter of civility and sanity in this project. I don't know how to get Lumidek to conform to acceptable standards to behaviour, but I think it's wrong to tolerate someone acting like that. I am not intimidated by threats - I know Wikipedia well enough - but a new user would not know that. Threatening and bullying other volunteers can be veyr harmful to the project. He has to start behaving like a member of the community, not a loose cannon. It is not in the interest of the community to let him feel like he can get away with that sort of misbehaviour. Guettarda 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you say, you don't know how to handle User:Lumidek. I believe he has a certain respect for me. I have known WMC for 15 years, and am an admin here. So, I'm asking you to avoid provocative remarks on his user page and elsewhere. Charles Matthews 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain how my remarks are provocative? I did not threaten to block him for his threats, despite the fact that I would not have been acting outside of policy. I asked that he behave himself, stop his personal attacks, and apologise. As you can see from his edit summaries on his talk page, his postings on your page, and his attacks on my user page, he is still going strong with the personal attacks. If you can somehow get him to withdraw his threats and personal attacks, that would be great. If you can somehow get him simply to lay off his personal attacks and insults, that would be a nice start. Are you saying that he has enough gravitas that he should be allowed to threaten me? I find that attitude puzzling. Guettarda 19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. Allowing yourself to be further provoked won't take this anywhere you want it to be. Charles Matthews 19:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like him to stop making personal attacks. I'd like him to stop making false accusations against me. I'd like him to behave like a decent member of the community. Instead he keeps accusing me of vandalism, he keep engaging in personal attacks in his edit summaries. If you have some better suggestion, I'm all ears. But I am not prepared to tolerate his continuing attacks. Guettarda 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You have my advice. I don't see what you can possibly achieve through his talk page. Do I have to spell it out? You are using counter-productive methods and that is worse than doing nothing. Charles Matthews 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

thank you very much for your response. Could I ask you to convince TimLambert and Guettarda to stop spamming my talk page with their hate messages? The only thing I did in this case was to help MichaelSirks to find a place to complain about William Connolley's violations of his parole.

I've checked that MichaelSirks was right and William Connolley has indeed violated it, despite any friendship with you, and I wrote a message about it on a page.

I am absolutely convinced that unless Wikipedia community wants to become a place controlled by radical people at the level of TimLambert or Guettarda - whose overall contributions to Wikipedia are quite obviously negative - the rules defined by the community itself should be followed.

If you're a fair person, I expect that you check the page about Bjorn Lomborg, which was picked as an example - certainly not the only one - where WMC reverts the pages without any justification, obviously violating the parole. You should forget your friendships and all other things that can corrupt you and act according to the rules. If you're not able to convince your friend WMC to obey the rules, you should disable his account. If you can't do either, I will be disappointed.

Thanks, --Lumidek 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at that page, actually, yes. Not that I believe I have to monitor WMC, or you, or anyone, in most cases. I'm not trying to do anything more than stop problems escalating, right now. Charles Matthews 19:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

could I ask you to disable the user named Guettarda? In the last day or so, he or she has reinserted nine times - I am not kidding you [2] - his or her completely insane hate message to my talk page. It is always made of the same lies and threats. He or she apparently wants to revenge for the fact that I pointed out that WMC violates the rules of the parole. It is easy to imagine that Guettarda is exactly an example of a person with Stalinist dreams to control, blackmail, and threaten people around. Imagine if such a person became an admin on Wikipedia, for example! Thanks for your understanding, Lubos --Lumidek 19:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me just mention that WMC in some very generalized sense is my friend, too. Despite our opposite opinions about various things especially in climate science, we certainly have things in common and perhaps even some common interests. And we exchange as many rational and friendly messages as those combative ones. This user named Guettarda is something totally different. It's a kind of activist who wants to actively destroy all people whom we finds inconvenient for his radical political agenda. I appreciate WMC's contributions to Wikipedia, that definitely include many positive ones, and I have doubts that the same thing could be said about those who try to intimidate me right now. Have a nice Sunday, --Lumidek 20:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I talk to William in the street more often than here, actually. As you can see from the above, I'm trying hard to persuade this other user that editing your talk page is pointless. Unfortunately persuasion is all I am going to use. Anything else in this case is beyond a simple admin. I'd enjoy this better if we could talk about mathematics or physics, obviously. Charles Matthews 20:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know if I can do something to calm down the situation. For example, I am not responding to the last edit of my talk page, assuming that it is better than any response. If you think that I did something wrong to him for which I should apologize, let me moderately know. Be sure that I am not a kind of person who is able to initiate a world war just to punish William for a few slightly illegal edits. I just happened to agree with MichaelSirks who asked me that the rules should be obeyed, and my guess is that you know where I am coming from! One more comment: WMC also prefers the Wikipages to say the "truth", like me, except that we disagree what the truth is in various cases. He seems to be more patient in his edits; I've partially surrendered several pages where the people with the opposite opinion would be ready to reignite revert wars at any moment. And it may be a good strategy - with a cool head the pages don't look so terribly bad. Maybe even the John Lott pages in the far left-wing edition would be within my tollerance. At any rate, I am still amazed by Wikipedia as the whole business. It is remarkably efficient to get positive works done. And surely, moderators like you have a certain small credit for this success. --Lumidek 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Refraining from personal attacks would be a good start. Guettarda 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Restraint and understatement all round would be a very good beginning. Charles Matthews 21:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Which parts did you consider dubious? Michael Hardy 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out the references to Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein. Russell was long gone from Cambridge (thrown out of Trinity during WWI). So I was sure that was wrong. Wittgenstein I suppose was around, but I'd need convincing that Pedoe had anything to do with him. Charles Matthews 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have removed this:

His career started at Magdalene College, Cambridge where he served as a Scholar and Bye-fellow. He received a PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1937. He has also held positions at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, the University of Southampton, the University of Birmingham, the University of London (Westfield College), Khartoum University (in the Sudan), the University of Singapore, Purdue University and the University of Minnesota (where he was made Professor Emeritus). His career brought him into contact with many prominent academics and thinkers of the period.

Is all of that "duplication and dubious stuff"? Michael Hardy 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait ... I see that much of that appears lower in the article. Never mind.... Michael Hardy 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jet bundle article is inaccurate and poorly written. I am writing Jet_(mathematics) to compensate at the moment until something is done about this. Thank you for providing headers for Jet_(mathematics), but they conflicted with some of my own edit attempts. Please redirect your wikipedia vigilance upon Jet bundle instead, since the article is quite misleading. I have already flagged it for a cleanup. Thanks, 151.204.6.171

Yes, you should look at anything added by User:Linas. He works hard here, but makes mistakes. Just remove anything wrong. Charles Matthews 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of comments to 151.204.6.171:

1. This is a naive comment, far outside my field: Are jets at a point really interesting on their own, or are they almost always considered in the context of a bundle? In the latter case, you probably want to merge the two articles eventually, even if yours is much better than the original.
2. This comment is on Charles' talk page (sorry Charles) because you're not registered. Anon editing is permitted, but if you want to do serious work here it's a severe disadvantage, not least because people don't know how to contact you. I strongly recommend registering an account. How much you want to tell us about yourself is completely up to you. --Trovatore 23:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you would like a full explanation of why I am doing this, please use the talk page of jet_(mathematics). Best, 151.204.6.171

Jets are cool.

Well, when you're a jet you're a jet all the way...

Firstly they are equivalence classes, for which Taylor polynomials are the normal form, for 'contact of order k'. But then they can be used to do some high-level stuff (up to Spencer cohomology, one of the scariest of all theories). We could do with several articles, therefore. Charles Matthews 23:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have some clue what you mean by the first sentence there. So for example the 2-jet would correspond to curves that meet tangently with the same curvature? --Trov

That sounds like a 2-jet of mappings R → R². Actually I'd never quite thought of it in those terms before, but I think it's accurate; Bourbaki (Charles Ehresmann) will have reasoned back from Taylor polynomials qua normal form to there being an underlying equivalence relation, a less computational but more 'fundamental' object. Historically this is all bound up with understanding Élie Cartan's work on the 'method of prolongation' too: introduce symbols for higher derivatives in Cartan and force them to 'work' bu applying many differential form conditions. That was replaced by working directly with jet bundles. Singularity theory uses a lot of orbit spaces of jets by group actions. Charles Matthews 07:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

just a courtesy notice that I have some changes in mind for large cardinal (see the talk page). One change I've made in particular is to your claim (I think it was yours) that there's a consensus among logicians that proofs from large cardinals will remain conditional proofs. I'm not completely sure what you meant, but if you meant that there's a consensus that ZFC has a special epistemological status that extensions by large cardinals do not, that is not accurate. I've tried to address this, hopefully in an NPOV way. --Trovatore 21:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You've linked to him at User:Charles_Matthews/Bruford, but there's a lot of John Moores. Which one did you mean? Josh Parris # 07:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That list was compiled from a book on Germany in the eighteenth century; I can't actually tell enough from that. (Not that it matters, really; those project pages of mine are used in various ways, but are not lists to 'complete'.) Charles Matthews 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't disambiguate people by giving them forms of their names which they don't actually use. Ian Macdonald is never called "Ian D. Macdonald" (a horrible Americanism) and his article can't be titled that. Please disambiguate him in some other way. The usual way is [[Ian Macdonald (Australian politician)|Ian Macdonald]]. Adam 10:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can pipe the links if you feel strongly about it. I think what I did was reasonable, but if others feel strongly they can go back and cover it up. (Ambi has already moved the article.) Charles Matthews 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect, you should fix all those links yourself and not leave other people to clean up after you. Adam 11:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, what exactly is the incentive to be a responsible Wikizen, getting involved in sorting out dab pages and so on? If it gets back aggressive ethnocentrism? Why shouldn't I just leave it all? I've done it once. I have just added my sixth new article this morning. You'll just have to wait until I feel this warrants my further attention. Charles Matthews 11:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I tried to send you an e-mail yesterday through Wikipedia. Having never used that mechanism before I wanted to check to see if it reached you. I'll watch this page for a confirmation. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 21:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, nothing so far. Charles Matthews 10:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comment could explain why I was having so much trouble setting up links to the GHRR theorem page, and why there sometimes seem to be several pages with identical titles. But if I try to sort it out I'll probably only make things worse. R.e.b. 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the appearance may be somewhat browser dependent. It's not very clear to me in the edit box, but I can see it when on the page. Charles Matthews 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On my browser the non-working version and your fix look identical. So what did you do? R.e.b. 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Replaced hyphens (-) by endashes – = –. Except that one doesn't put the MathML in the titles, which would not be appreciated I think. If your browser doesn't make the distinction it's a little mysterious how to detect this. Charles Matthews 23:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Per your suggestion at Talk:Venetia_Stanley, I created a stub for Venetia Stanley (1887-1948), the friend of Herbert Henry Asquith. I enjoyed writing it, but it needs a lot of work. If you'd like to add to it, please be my guest :-)

— Diamantina 06:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting about the Starbridge books. I don't think I read that one. Charles Matthews 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I recommend Scandalous Risks. It's my favorite of Susan Howatch's Starbridge novels. It is narrated by the Venetia character. You don't need to know the historical parallels to enjoy the book, but knowing the historical parallels enhanced my enjoyment.

I wonder whether the real Venetia would have agreed with the fictional Venetia that her intimate friendship (which Howatch portrays discreetly as involving genital sexual activity, but not intercourse: a plausible but debatable theory for the real-life relationship between Venetia Stanley and H.H. Asquith) with a much older and powerful man ruined her life. I also wonder whether the real Venetia found in later life the forgiveness and sense of redemption that the fictional Venetia seems to have found. — Diamantina 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [3]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has problems, certainly. I should have thought that agent handling was something more specific. It reads like an essay on espionage. Perhaps large parts should be moved elsewhere. Charles Matthews 16:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a clarifying (I hope) paragraph to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which it seemed to me was likely to give the misimpression that independence from a formal theory was the same as not being able to figure out, ever, whether a proposition is true. I tried to make it as neutral as possible but found it awkard to word. So since you seem to have a quite different POV from mine on these things, I thought I'd solicit your opinion on its neutrality. See this diff. You might also want to look at the "Motivations and epistemological status" section of Large cardinal property--I think what I said about the "cabalist" POV is pretty rock-solid, but it could be that the other POVs, which I don't understand as well, deserve to be expanded.

I just noted that there are some pretty bad problems with the "misconceptions" section of Gödel's incompleteness theorem (in particular, it shouldn't be claiming that Lucas is "not at all correct"). --Trovatore 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles. Thank you for adding a category at this article (I should have figured it out myself :) I have a request. I don't have a good idea of what a sheaf is, and I have a blurb about sheafs in that artice. Could you please check it, and also see if anything else in that article needs work? I have a feel more is needed in there, but nothing comes to my mind for the moment. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the relevance of sheaves is only if you wish to speak in some way of Σ as varying. If it is fixed, I don't see that the language is really needed. Charles Matthews 07:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How can I then express the fact that functional calculus is dependent only on the values of the holomorphic function on the compact set Σ and not on a larger open set containing the compact set. That is, it seems that holomorphic calculus is defined on germs of holomorphic functions on the compact set or something like that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm ... unless Σ is just a set of isolated points, the values on Σ actually determine the rest, don't they? In the sense, taking the difference of two functions of one complex variable, that if we have a function that vanishes on Σ it will just be zero everywhere. When Σ is finite, that's not trure, but it is also not much of a problem to have the functional calculuas for finite spectra? Charles Matthews 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

didn't know that the convention was "see also", thanks for that change in the partial fractions article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurigerhard (talk • contribs) .

I'm all for lots of useful x-references. However, in the context of the Palgrave article, I feel that it's wrong. Anybody who browses anthologies, as I do, is used to seeing John Milton or Richard Lovelace. To see J. Milton is a bit odd, but acceptable. To see Colonel Lovelace is disturbingly wrong. I shall certainly consider re-editing that article, not to annoy you - I have no wish to do that - but because

• I am certain that there are many people who think as I do and would prefer the article my way.
• My understanding is that it's bad Wiki form to send people deliberately to a re-direct. If the title of an article you want to link is not right in context, you do something like [[John Smith|J. Smith]]

And please make sure that your redirects aren't misleading - there has never been an Earl of Stirline! - Poetlister 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone filling out the names, now I'm done. (I don't know about the redirect thing actually - as far as I know it is just sensible to do Prince Charles or something, rather than full titles.) Charles Matthews 16:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Stirline thing: this actually gets interesting. Obviously I'm just reproducing what's in Palgrave there. This page [4] suggests it is not a one-off, but may be in at least one other place. Charles Matthews 16:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)