CSTAR

Revision as of 03:16, 14 October 2005

Revision as of 00:16, 25 November 2005

Line 1:

{{mergeto|Pequannock Township, New Jersey}}

[[User_talk:CSTAR/Archive1|Archive1]]

'''Pequannock''' is a small [[suburban]] township located in [[Morris County, New Jersey|Morris County]] northern [[New Jersey]]. It is primarily a bedroom community to nearby [[New York City]] and home to roughly 4,661 residents. What the town lacks in entertainment or commerce it makes up for in historical significance.

[[User_talk:CSTAR/Bell|Bell's theorem]]

== Issues...Linguistic Significance ==

::: From the previous message: Whatever does this mean?

Pequannock is thought to have been derived from the Lenni Lenape "Paquettahhnuake", meaning, "cleared land ready or being readied for cultivation". Pompton has been cited by some sources to mean "a place where they catch soft fish".

:::: "''Thus, the group Z/Zn is abelian, the ring Z/ Zn is not''."

== Historic Pequannock ==

::: Z is a commutative ring then so is any quotient. (I'd better have a look at that article). Also the Chinese remainder theorem is a theorem about ''rings''. And abelian groups are called abelian because of Abel's contributions to the solvability of equations. Hmmm. [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 04:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorporated in [[1740]] as one of the largest townships in the region, this 6.96 square mile bedroom community composed of [[Pompton Plains]] in its northern portion and old Pequannock in its southern was once a vast 176 square mile region of [[rural]] [[farmland]] settled by the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] after its purchase by [[Arent Schuyler]] and associates in the late [[1690]]'s.

: Thanks for reading my talk page. You did not see the complete story, because the talk moved on the page of the person stating the above. I did some mistakes in dealing with that person. But in short, that person cooled down after I pointed out that unlike that person thought, not any finite group of order n is isomorphic to Z/nZ, and a quotient of a polynomial ring is not polynomial ring anymore.

During the [[Revolutionary War]], [[George Washington]]'s troops camped on what is now the site of the Pequannock Valley Middle School. Washington himself of course made sure to get a room in the nearby Mandeville Inn.

: That is to say, there were much bigger blunders by the other person than what you saw. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 05:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

During the Civil War, Pequannock was a stop on the underground railroad. The Giles Mandeville House, a field and quarrystone structure located at 515 Turnpike, which served as a waypoint for many runaway slaves, still stands today in use as the Manse of the adjacent First Reformed Church since 1953.

:: PS Your page is kind of large. Might need some archiving. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] 05:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Away from logic==

Hi CSTAR: sorry to drop out of our conversation about [[interpretations of quantum mechanics]], but I got involved in two issues that became very live at that time: far-right attempts to use Wikipedia in their moral equivalence claims between the holocaust and the Dresden bombing, and a little storm that's been brewing for a while around [[Islamophobia]]. In short, I think what you write about instrumentalism is OK; I have some minor comments which I will raise on the talk page in due course. ---- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 13:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Other Pequannock Information ==

== [[Bell inequalities]] ==

People in Pequannock do lots of hardxcore drugs and get trashed nearly every night. Hooray Beer!

Pequannock people are usually white. Notar needs to leave town.

== Current statistics==

What are your opinions on CT's new round of editing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Caroline_Thompson]? It's a pity that qualified authors have waste time watching these articles. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 11:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

*Population ([[2000]] Census): 4,661

== [[Wave-particle duality]] ==

*Housing Units: 1,675

*Land Area: 1.67 square miles

*Water Area: 0.07 square miles

*Zip Codes: 07440, 07444

*Area Code: (973)

*County: Morris

*State: New Jersey

[http://www.hometownlocator.com/ZCTA.cfm?ZIPCode=07440 2000 Census Info]

== External links ==

Thanks for your comments on my French talk page (btw, "duality" is "''dualité''", otherwise your French is perfect).

*[http://www.pequannocktownship.org/ Pequannock Township Official Website]

I think there is a misunderstanding about the aim of the [[metaphor]] (and the choice of the word metaphor is not neutral in the section title). It is an [[analogy]] on only ''some'' of the aspects, not all. I will make a kind of quiz on the [[talk:Wave-particle duality|article talk page]] to make things clearer.

*[http://www.pequannock.org/ Pequannock School District]

*[http://www.hometownlocator.com/ZCTA.cfm?ZIPCode=07440 2000 Census Information]

[[User:Cdang|Cdang]]|[[User talk:Cdang|<small>write me</small>]] 08:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*[http://www.pequannocklacrosse.org/ Pequannock Lacrosse Club]

*[http://www.rootsweb.com/~genepool/njpequa.htm Revolutionary Petition of Patriots (May 1776)]

:The quiz is ready. I would like another comment on your message: in the wave-particle duality, you have of course the "wave point of view" (a particle arising from a wave, which is the analogy) and the "particle point of view" (the [[wave function]] whiwh wavelength can be calculated from the impulsion ofthe particle).

:As you pointed out, the analogy only presents one point of view, and it never claimed to do anything else. This is a lack which I will write in the dedicated sub-section. If you have an idea, a macroscopic analogy for the particle point of view, it will be welcomed by me.

:[[User:Cdang|Cdang]]|[[User talk:Cdang|<small>write me</small>]] 09:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Possible-world metric ==

Hi CSTAR.

You wrote to me:

''Please look at my comment (question) in the talk page [[Talk:Possible worlds]] on defining the metric between possible worlds.''

We could call that metric a "logical-space metric", could we not? I am looking through that talk page and will shortly post something there. But I don't think I can help with your question, since it is not in my main area of expertise relevant to the article. (My thing is more purely the metaphysics of modality, particularly the ontological status of possible worlds; and also modal epistemology and the taxonomy of modalities.) Sorry I can't say more! --[[User:Noetica|Noetica]] 09:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Tree images ==

Hi! Thanks for uploading [[:Image:IMG Tree.jpg]] and [[:Image:IMG binding.jpg]]. I notice they currently don't have [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tags]]. Could you add those to let us know their copyright status? (You can use <nowiki>{{gfdl}}</nowiki> if you release it under the [[GFDL]], or <nowiki>{{fairuse}}</nowiki> if you claim [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]], etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] ^{([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Image sleuthing|sleuth]])} 15:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

== Grammarbot ==

I have unblocked the Grammarbot (I am not the person running it).

In cases like [[Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem]] where the bot modifies "A ,B" to "A,B", this is not an error (it's no worse than the original error). A further fix to "A, B" should be made, but that's beyond the scope of the Grammarbot to fix automatically.

From your contributions, I didn't see any other Grammarbot reverts or discussion of other possible Grammarbot errors, so I have done the unblock. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 19:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the list of reverts at http://r3m0t.geniushost.net/cron/stuff.php , most of these are false positives. Only two or three pages using ASCII art seem to involve a genuine revert. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 19:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right about [[Inner product space]], but the edit at [[Archimedes Plutonium]] was perfectly valid (both reverts were in error). -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 19:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the bot is creating more work than it's worth. It's performing a very useful function, and I'm aware of only four genuine reverts so far, out of probably thousands of edits. For what it's worth, there's a [[User talk:12.144.5.2|human editor]] who creates an enormous amount of work for people by refusing to use spaces after commas and periods (full stops), and he hasn't been blocked yet. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 19:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surely you're not saying that this typo in the original Usenet posting needs to be preserved religiously? There are many cases where typos or spelling changes in even Shakespeare and other authors have been corrected by modern editors. Should we edit [[Jane Austen]] and change the title of her book to ''Love and Freindship'' because that's how she originally wrote it in her idiosyncratic spelling?

In any case, you can't fault the bot for making this edit, because a human (namely me) would have and did make the same edit... that is, even if you consider it an error it's not a bot-type error that a human editor would not make. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for your notice on my talk page that you blocked the grammarbot. Unfortunately, I do not quite agree. Some edits of the bot are indeed mistaken. However, I find the ratio between correct and incorrect edits quite acceptable. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 16:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== xfig guidance ==

Hey, you were adding xfig diagrams to some article at some point, weren't you? I need to make some diagrams myself, and I don't know how, and I was wondering if I could ask you for a little guidance...

Do you have the book Geometry Topology and Physics by Nakahara? I need to make something sort of like figure 10.2 in his second edition. It's like, some maps between fibre bundles, indicating the fibres and maps and sections pictorially. I would also like to make a lattice with some vectors. and maybe the moduli space for the torus H/PSL₂(Z).

So first, can I ask you, in your opinion, are these sorts of diagrams best or easiest done in xfig? Would I be better off using latex picture environment? If so, which one? Second, I have xfig loaded on my machine, and I'm fooling around with it, and it seems like I'm kind of limited by the accuracy of my hand/eye coordination moving the mouse. Are there precise commands for things like: parallel/perpendicular lines or graphing functions or plotting points with coordinates? Can I produce tangent vectors to curves, or do I have to eyeball it? And how do I put latex math symbols in the text areas?

My first foray into illustrating my own work is a little rough. I hope you don't mind me bugging you, and if I'm barking up the wrong tree just throw something at me and I'll go away. Thanks. [[User:Lethe|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe|Talk]] 00:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

:I'm getting better at the diagrams. It took me a while to discover the "depth" feature, but when I did, that helped a lot. But I'm having a hellova time trying to get this latex export business to work. It seems like maybe my tex installation isn't set up right, because I keep getting annoying file errors. Grrr... But I'll show you what I've got so far if you like. Thanks again. [[User:Lethe|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe|Talk]] 04:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old/To close ==

Hi. Just dropping a note... I thought this might be useful to you: [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old/To close]]. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Asher Peres' book and the Bell inequalities ==

Re your comment in Miguel's page, I wonder if Peres' published work can be described as unbiased? In http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905084 he writes:

:"The problem is not whether the validity of a Bell inequality can be salvaged by invoking clever loopholes, ''as some local realists try and trick us into'', but whether there can be any local realist theory that reproduces the experimental results." [my italics]

Why assume we are trying to "trick" anyone? I agree, of course, re the need to reproduce experimental results, but disagree violently with his approach in the above paper of investigating only the ideal cases, not the actual experiments with all their various defects.

Peres, incidentally, is another theorist with whom I have had some correspondence. I wonder if possibly he may by now have changed his mind slightly? Perhaps you could ask him -- I can give you his address if you want. His book, I note, was written in 1993. My correspondence was mostly in 1999. [[User:Caroline Thompson|Caroline Thompson]] 10:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-----

:: Yes, absolutely, Peres did change his mind. He's dead.[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 14:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Semi-off-topic remark: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:21, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

== no, YOU wait a minute ==

I have no interest in getting bogged down in this dispute between Catherine Thompson and the rest of you, and I think it is inappropriate to use my user space to debate issues unrelated to me. Besides, you should know better than to assume I'm going to just listen to her (or anybody) and jump into the articles undoing everyone's work. Finally, you might want to read [[User_talk:Caroline_Thompson#Bell_test_loopholes_and_Bell_inequalities |my reply to CT]]. &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 12:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

===Reply to Miguel ===

:: Miguel

::OK, I'll respond here (in the off chance that you'll read this). I understand why you do not want to get involved in this dispute at all. Indeed it is stressful and time-consuming. It is also understandable that you were annoyed at someone's using your ''user page'' for posting messages (for the record: that someone was not me). However, as far as user talk pages, I thought they were part of the public forum that constitutes wikipedia and that it was legitimate to "but into" an exchange. Others have done it on my talk pages, ''frequently'', and I never thought much of it.

:: Clearly now that you have stated that you don't want it used "''to debate issues unrelated to me''" I'll be very careful in the future about posting anything there.[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 14:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::Feel free to debate me on any issue, but I don't like your debate with CT spilling into my user space. &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 18:12, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

:::: OK fine. But please for the record I would like to keep this episode in proper perspective. If someone else uses (what I had hitherto assumed to be a) a largely public space (a talk page) to represent to you one side of an issue that is of direct concern to me, it is natural that I use that same space to try to present another side of the same issue; this of course, provided certain standards of civility are observed. Please tell me, did I fail to observe these standards?

::::: Excuse me&mdash;I was actually out of line here myself.

:::: However, now that you clearly have stated your position, i.e., that you consider this usage of your talk page, to be abusive, fine, I'm perfectly happy to respect your wish.[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 19:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::: It's just that I don't get to spend all that much time on wikipedia any more, and I hate to get involved in a debate like this with the little time that I do have. CT scores quite high on the [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html crackpot index] and I replied on her talk page and did not touch any of the relevant content pages, just her own talk page. You should have known better from our past collaborations and not find it necessary to launch a ''preemptive strike'' on me like that ;-) &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 22:14, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

:::::: Yes I suppose, stumbling on a fully developed polemic on your talk page can be unnerving. [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 02:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==The drive to make [[Logic]] a featured article==

I posted [[User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Re:_2.2F.284.2B1.29_things|this message]] to Mel Etitis's talk page, which is a summary of some things I thought he could help us with.

I've started a page in my user space [[User:Chalst/logic drive]] to summarise what I think needs to be done. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 09:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Possible impostor ==

I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, and you got the following hits: {{user|Cstar}}. Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 02:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

* My pleasure. I'll be finding more as time goes by. &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 03:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

* This impostor enjoys trying to take advantage of our [[sans serif]] font to trick us (noted at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#.22DoppeIganger.22]]). You'll notice if you look closely that the lower-case 'L' in Plek was swapped with a capital 'I'. &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 14:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

==Quantum reverts==

Hi, please don't revert the categorization of the quantum articles. This category had more than 200 articles in it, and they did not fit into one wiki page. I whittled it down by moving 30-odd articles to a category called [[:Category:quantum measurement]]. If you don't like the category name please say so, but don't revert without discussion. Yes, [[:Category:interpretation of quantum mechanics]] may have been a better name, in retrospect. [[User:Linas|linas]] 03:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

==[[Nuclear option]]==

"the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor"

:Yeah, they want to make it an article about some boring, obscure, unimportant senate rule about internal procedures, about democrats who apparently are going to great pains to filibuster 7 nominees for no good reason other than their joy to "obstruct", and that 51 out of 100 is just as good as 60 out of 100 when it comes to democracy. The intro makes it sound like the nuclear option is a big deal over nothing. And every attempt to give an honest appraisal of the Democrat's side is modified to cast it as mere assertions, opinions, and allegations. Wouldn't it be better if judges were supported by a large majority of the senate, rather than by a partisan group representing only half the nation? I can't even quote a newspaper without hbomb rewriting it into assertions and opinions. shheeesh. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 20:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

==Move FOPC to FOL==

There's a consensus (myself, [[User:Nortexoid]], [[User:Dcoetzee]]) for a move of [[First-order predicate calculus]] to [[First-order logic]] (the latter is currently a redirect to the former, so the latter needs to be deleted first: it has no intersting history/talk content attached). Would you do the honours? Cheers! --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

:''Done. Were everything in WP so devoid of controversy''

Thanks. I'm getting back into WP editing after getting rather worn down with editing articles on pet topics of neofascists (Dreden firebombing, Russian atrocities in East Prussia): simply ghastly. I'm mostly sticking to logic now. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 16:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

== Complementarity ==

Dear CSTAR, I am not sure whether you're serious when you write that SA is a competent experimentalist. He's a textbook example of a crackpot that was completely uncapable to finish the master degree (he has a Bc only and he could never get a job in physics), but he is convinced that he is another Bohr or perhaps Einstein and he depends on editing Wikipedia in such a way that he intends to convince others that he is a genius or at least a physicist - which was a clear success in your case. He is no experimentalist at all - this is another thing that you've totally misunderstood. He's never studied anything such as experimental physics and he has absolutely no skills in doing this job. Before quantum mechanics, he was trying to show he was a genius by inventing a new theory of relativity which was a similar kind of crap. I included the link to Satanic verses because these two beliefs of him have identical roots, and he uses the same kind of threats as Khomeini did. It's a completely irrational belief in his own special position in the Universe - a belief that is critical for his life. All the best, Lubos --[[User:Lumidek|Lumidek]] 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

::(This is in response to a posting CSTAR put on my page and the above). First of all, I think Wikipedia policy needs to be followed by all sides in this debate. If we can find references to Afshar's previous work, or references to the fact he never got a master's degree in Physics (then how did he end up teaching at Rowan), this is probably relevent and can be incorporated in to the article. On the other hand, there is a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy on Wiki. More to the point with the [[Afshar experiment]] article, there is a [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policy at Wikipedia. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 19:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

== Experiment ==

You really misunderstand the very basics of this story. Of course that Afshar did not fake the experiment. His experiment is a completely standard 19th-century style interference experiment, the kind of experiment that every freshman physics student must do (at least in Prague) and understand. The experiment of course agrees with classical electromagnetism; one does not really need anything "quantum". Quantum theory in this completely classical limit is fully reducing to the predictions of classical electromagnetism. The whole problem is only philosophy - he incorrectly interprets the experiment. I apologize but if you really believe that Afshar has done something important, then you are the kind of dumb people who can easily be manipulated by equally ignorant journalists. Best, Luboš --[[User:Lumidek|Lumidek]] 11:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

:: If the previous remark by Lumidek proves anything, it's that Lumidek did not read my remarks. Of course the "the whole problem is only philosophy - he incorrectly interprets the experiment.", and that was precisely my point. Weird. --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 12:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

== Correlation dimension ==

Any assistance you can give on the [[:correlation dimension]] article would be welcome. [[User:PAR|PAR]] 22:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Indeterminacy in computation ==

I'm a bit weary to put what I'm going to say next on the [[Talk:Uncertainty principle]] page for now, so I put it here for you to be able to give your opinion first.

I think Indeterminacy in computation should be removed from the [[Uncertainty principle]] article. However, I fear a bit that if I make this change I'll end up in a revert war, which is obviously not what I want. The problem is that [[User:CarlHewitt|CarlHewitt]] seems to be adding references to the [[Actor model]] quite a number of other articles (mostly computer science related) in such a way that the actor model seems relevant, but ignoring most or all other revelant models. This all very much appears to be vanity from my point of view. I already tried to revert some of these changes, reasoning in the edit summary that either the actor model does not provide more insight in the topic discussed in the article or that the actor model is reachable via the relevant category anyway. Unfortunately this already resulted in a revert of some of my reverts (CarlHewitt did try to add some motivating text in these instances, which are not very convincing from my point of view).

The Wikipedia way is not just to delete other peoples' work. Simply asserting that their work does not provide insight to you is not good enough. It is better to add motivating text and discussion of alternatives.--[[User:CarlHewitt|CarlHewitt]] 2005 July 6 18:22 (UTC)

In addition I find the [[Actor model]] article very inaccessible [[User:Koffieyahoo|Koffieyahoo]] 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find the article inacessible. Any suggestions for improvement?--[[User:CarlHewitt|CarlHewitt]] 2005 July 6 18:22 (UTC)

:: Excuse me? Why are you telling me this?

:::''The Wikipedia way is not just to delete other peoples' work. Simply asserting that their work does not provide insight to you is not good enough.''

:: I deleted (once) in good faith a link you put in, (and please note that I explicitly asked you about that link). I have not modified in any way the comments you placed in the uncertainty principle page, although I have given reasons why I think they are inappropriate. Thanks.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

::Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not referreing to you. Instead I was replying to the remark above mine on your page by [[Koffieyahoo]].--[[User:CarlHewitt|CarlHewitt]] 2005 July 6 19:03 (UTC)

== Summary for pedagogical purpose ==

Dear CSTAR,

I was a bit surprized you simply deleted my contribution to the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics "Summary for pedagogical purpose". I agree this contribution was not perfect but I believe the wikipedia is an iterative process.

My point was that I had the feeling the article was getting a bit technical and lengthy. I think it is not readable by students attending their first semester in quantum mechanics or quantum chemistry. If such a student want to understand this topic from the wikipedia I am affraid he or she could be very fast frustrated. I therefore intended to contribute with some introductory part at a very low level.

If you believe the article "mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics" belongs to you only, I am sorry but I will not touch it anymore. But if you believe it is not I ask you to put my article back to the wikipedia and of course amend it how you want.

Sincerly yours

== quantum mechanical version ==

Thank you for editing my "quantum mechanical version" of the spectral theorem. You are right when you say that the title was misleading. You have replaced the term analytical function by Borel function. The problem is that I don't understand what is a Borel function. In physics text books one finds analytical function and most physicists know what it is. The physicists define <math> f(H)= f(0) + f'(0) H + {1 \over 2} f''(0) H^2 + ... </math> using the Taylor expansion of ''f''. Is the Borel function somewhat equivalent to this? I mean something which allows us (in principle and in practice) to understand how to apply ''f(H)'' to an element of a Hilbert space.

I also in principle agree with the fact that you suppress the summation over the discrete space but I think this is not very pedagogical for the people coming from the quantum physics or quantum chemistry community. I am teaching to chemists. I know what I am speaking about. I think this is an encyclopedia and one should take care that when possible it should be readable by people who don't want to cope with the whole functional analysis but nevertheless want to understand some key concepts they are using in their own field on a daily basis (see for example the article [[variational method (quantum mechanics)]]).

Moreover I am persuaded you are right when you say both version of the theorem are the same. But I am very sorry but I don't understand really why and how. Do you think you could make some notice explaining why both version are equivallent? Thank you very much.

I think you should keep in mind the good willing chemistry student who looks at an article like [[variational method (quantum mechanics)]] and clicks on the link to the spectral theorem. I think he will even not understand why both topics are linked to each other.

== Bell ==

I think the new editor's apology is sincere, and that he is willing to make constructive additions to the page. Let's go with it. [[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]]

==Pseudoscience==

FYI, I just learned today that there is a [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience]]; I thought you might be interested. [[User:Linas|linas]] 13:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

==Autodynamics==

I just deleted your sentence about the full text search of the preprint server on autodynamics for two reasons:

:1) the preprint servers are not a good place to examine for "mainstream" science:

::A) The articles are not peer-reviwed and so they attract many cranks.

::B) the preprint servers are used by a small and narrow cross-section of the physics community, although this includes the most relevant researchers for autodynamics

:2) I am new here, but it seemed to me that it was very close to original research. If I'm wrong, might I suggest something like:

"For example, a search of the Web of Science citation database, yields not articles, except those by Carezani, on Autodynamics, or citing autodynamic articles."

[[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 14:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgement, I had placed my citation results on the talk page because I didn't know if that would be acceptable in an article. thanks for the advice.

I would keep in mind though that anyone can upload a preprint to the server, and while using the preprint server is customary in GR and HEP research, they are not used by most physicists outside of these fields. For example, in my department only ~20% of the faculty -- precisely those in GR and HEP research -- post to the preprint servers. [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 17:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what the above discussion is about, but thought I'd mention that I got cranky and vented some steam about citations and citation databases in [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Crank_science_in_legit_journals]] [[User:Linas|linas]] 00:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::I noticed, and I pointed out that google scholars is horrible. When I say citations, I mean a real citation database [[User:Salsb|Salsb]] 00:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== quantum question ==

I was wondering if perchance you'd ever seen a treatment of an [[entangled state]] in terms of some integral over (possibly) geodesics (or other paths) over some (low-dimensional) (possibly symplectic) manifold? Not a general "gosh QM is a feynman path integral" but something narrower and more precisely worded? [[User:Linas|linas]] 16:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

: Hmm offhand no. Entangled states can be regarded as a compact symmetric space in an obvious way (see [[Bloch sphere]]) but I'm not sure I see how to do what you are asking.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 17:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:: Yeah, it was a wild hypothetical question. I didn't want to ask it. I'm sort of generally trying to build bridges between sums over sets of points or curves and representations of the same as various hilbert spaces. Its all very vague and hypothetical. I've got all the standard textbook background; I'm in semi-uncharted waters. I just thought I'd try a long-shot question. [[User:Linas|linas]] 00:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: the Bell article, yes, I'm done. I have no emotional investment in it, whack at it as you wish. See also [[Talk:Can Bohr's complementarity be tested?]] which I think I want to VfD. I'm not sure why I bother. [[User:Linas|linas]] 00:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== game theory? ==

Hi there - I noticed you were a substantial contributor to [[payoff matrix]] at one time. I've been thinking about starting a wikiproject on game theory to handle some standardization issues and present a place to coordinate efforts. Would you be interested? --best, kevin <font color="#BBBBBB">·</font><font color="#666666">·</font>·<small>[[User:Kzollman|Kzollman]] | [[User Talk:Kzollman|Talk]]</small>·<font color="#666666">·</font><font color="#BBBBBB">·</font> 06:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

== Cindy Sheehan ==

CSTAR, I strongly object the removal of important events in the course of this story from this article. Please restore the sections you removed. They are important for the timeline of the evolving story. [[User:Kgrr|Kgrr]] 16:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, I'm sorry. At first I did not know whose side you were on. I perceived your deletions as part of a vandalism attack. Please excuse my behavior. I'm fairly new at this. [[User:Kgrr|Kgrr]] 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Dear CSTAR, very sorry to bother you, but, unbelievably, this person is back to his/her mischief on "Cindy Sheehan," with another (fourth!) IP address; all have begun with 4.228 and originated in the Denver area. [[4.228.216.125]] Thanks for this. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 21:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:CSTAR, are you able to help with this? The anon IP (this time [[User:4.228.213.151]]) is on another rampage at [[Cindy Sheehan]], 10+ reverts in just a few hours' time. Many thanks. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 09:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==Many Thanks==

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 18:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

== Game theory again ==

Hi there again. I'm sorry to here that you've had a trying time recently. I hope that all is not lost. If you would like to come by and hang out with a friendly group of folk, I have started [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory]]. I have enough regular contributors to justify a wikiproject, so don't feel obligated. --best, kevin <font color="#BBBBBB">·</font><font color="#666666">·</font>·<small>[[User:Kzollman|Kzollman]] | [[User Talk:Kzollman|Talk]]</small>·<font color="#666666">·</font><font color="#BBBBBB">·</font> 23:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

{{tfd|Idw}}

==[[:Image:NSAhyppereals.jpg]] has been listed for deletion==

<!-- Please note that if it says "Editing Template:Idw (section)" at the top then you are editing the master copy of this template. You might want to cancel this edit and use the "edit this page" tab on you user talk page instead. -->

{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="background-color: #E1F1DE"

|-

| An image or media file you have uploaded, [[:Image:NSAhyppereals.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion]]. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

|}

== Historical inaccuracies? ==

Hello [[User:CSTAR]],

I have seen very recent comments from you about historical inaccuracies in my work. Now I am the first to admit that my work can be improved! However, it would help greatly to have some examples of what you hand in mind. I have asked for this before but can't seem to find where you have answered. Since your comments are recent, I would appreciate concrete examples in current articles.

Thanks,

Carl

BTW Thanks for your help and support wrt the recent controversy.--[[User:CarlHewitt|Carl Hewitt]] 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

== Archive of discussion of relativistic information science ==

The category was deleted on September 22. The often vitriolic discussion was also removed, but it can be found here:

:[[User talk:CSTAR/Relativistic information science discussion|Relativistic information science]].

== Cindy Sheehan ==

Thanks for your note. BTW you lost your picture in your user:CSTAR.

My plans for the chronology was first to have a place to record the day to day happenings so that at a later date I could glean the bigger picture. What that means is that I would like to consolidate the days at the ranch into a smaller, more concise paragraph. I will do much the same for the bus tour next.

[[User:Kgrr|Kgrr]] 12:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==RfC for specified complexity==

[Copied by User:Johnstone from Talk:Johnstone page:]

I noticed you put an RfC on specified complexity, with particular reference on my edit, which asserts:

:''When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false.''

Do you believe this to be false? Though this statement is not a direct quote, it is a fair assessment of professional physicists and mathematicians that have read Dembski's work (with the possible exception of Robert Hermmann). If you are looking for a dispute here, well go ahead. But if you are searching for truth, then perhaps you should pick another battle.

Thanks. --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 17:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

:For the record, my full request for comment is as follows:

::"* specified complexity. Much work was recently put into the article by User:CSTAR . This request if for statements such as "When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false," and the math in general, to be reviewed by peers (although WP:PR isn't appropriate since I don't intend to submit it for WP:FA).10:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"

:As implied by the posting, my intention was simply to get more mathematicians to review it&mdash;not to initiate a dispute or battle. But since no edits have been made to the article since September 4, it obviously hasn't helped. Looking at it now, it seems to me that the reason I mentioned that particular statement is that it's not NPOV. To be NPOV it should be reworded to something like:

::"Most professional physicists and mathematicians who have read Dembski's work claim that when his mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false."

:A few of footnotes for the statement, pointing to appropriate examples would also make the article more useful to the reader.--[[User:Johnstone|Johnstone]] 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:: I've been through this "it's not NPOV" discussion regarding other issues in physics. Based on that (sometimes painful) experience I don't think you've got much of a case here. Indeed, as is noted by various authors, Dembski confuses types to which particular numerical measures (such as information and Kolmogorov complexity) apply. But if you want to make an issue out of it I can't stop you.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 00:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:::I can't find anything wrong with the maths in the article, but it doesn't have much maths so that's not surprising. The statement seems fine to me and supported by the references in the article; is there any evidence for anybody who thinks that Dembski's claims are mathematically meaningful and right? Johnstone, it is my impression that an RfC is to be used if you have already had a discussion on the talk page but couldn't reach a consensus &mdash; is there any specific discussion that you wish to be reviewed? -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] ([[User talk:Jitse Niesen|talk]]) 12:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

== Uncertainty principle ==

Hi CSTAR!

Just thought I would let you know that I intend to try to improve this already very good article by trying to make it flow. I hope you dont mind. I think a pair of fresh eyes on it maybe beneficial. Of course if you find I have changed the meaning or made it worse in your opinion, then please let me know and we'll come to some agreement. I'm just an amateur physiscist (ex EE), so if I can change it so that '''I''' can understand it better then I think it should benefit the casual reader and WP generally.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

== Multiverse ==

Good rewrite and does put the Cardinal's words in perspective. Gee, isn't great when reasonable people can come to a consensuses without it turning into a scrap?

==Please vote on ''list of lists'', a featured article candidate==

Please vote at [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics]]. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Many-minds & Quantum mind ==

I'm working on [[Many-minds interpretation]] and [[Quantum mind]] as they are in dire need of cleaning up, as [[Multiverse]] was before we beat some order into it. I would very much appreciate your input on these other two articles as well. I have made some major changes but I'm at the point where I can't always see the trees for the forest. [[User:DV8 2XL|DV8 2XL]] 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)