User talk:67.198.37.16

It's easier to live that way.

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to more than 500 articles in math and physics topics. The first 423 of them are listed at User:Linas/Articles. The list below, of more than 100 articles, were edits made anonymously. Some of these edits were made under different IP's, including Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179 and Special:Contributions/67.198.37.17 and Special:Contributions/162.204.250.21 - my IP address and geographical location changes from time to time.

1:

The first 24 edits were mostly under Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179

Probabilistic logic - Compact closed category - Pregroup grammar - Hom functor - Simply typed lambda calculus - Presheaf (category theory) - Powerset - Type theory - Dependent type - Universal quantification - Curry–Howard correspondence - Stability criterion - No-communication theorem - Quantum teleportation - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - No-deleting theorem - Quantum information - Quantum operation - Dagger compact category - Quantum noise - Quantum amplifier - Optical phase space - Quantum finite automata

25:

These are mostly under the current IP addr.

Multiplication theorem - Valuation (logic) - Quantum finite automata - Quantum Turing machine - Affine Lie algebra - Dedekind eta function - Current algebra - Vertex operator algebra - Charge (physics) - Operator product expansion - Product (mathematics) - Blancmange curve - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - Ladder operator - Huygens–Fresnel principle - Baire space (set theory) - Static spacetime - Mass - Vertical and horizontal bundles - Exterior covariant derivative - Gauge covariant derivative - Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state - Wigner's friend

49:

Kaluza–Klein theory - Bundle metric - Contorsion tensor - Christoffel symbols - Lense–Thirring precession - Quasi-quotation - String group - Pullback - Classifying space - Witt vector - Sum - T₁ space - Currying - Mapping cone (topology) - Puppe sequence - Fibration - Cofibration - Hopf algebra - Structure constants - Tensor algebra - Exterior algebra - Universal enveloping algebra - Poisson algebra - Casimir element

73:

Bol loop - Grassman number - Poincaré group - Super-Poincaré algebra - Supermanifold - Superspace - Spin group - List of rules of inference - Connection form - Metric connection - Moving frame - Connection (vector bundle) - Quantum pseudo-telepathy - Skyrmion - Jacobi operator - Hessenberg matrix - Composition operator - Diagonal functor - Necklace polynomial - Yoneda lemma - Circle bundle - Eilenberg–MacLane space - Mutual information - Tensor product

97:

Turnstile (symbol) - Natural deduction - Nome (mathematics) - Integrable system - Tautological one-form - Configuration space (physics) - Linear fractional transformation - Stable manifold - Roman pot - Spherically symmetric spacetime - Frame fields in general relativity - Kerr–Newman metric - Vacuum solution (general relativity) - Boyer–Lindquist coordinates - Spin connection - Fubini–Study metric - Gravitational instanton - Spinor - Weyl equation - Ginzburg–Landau theory - Spin glass - Conservative system - Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem - Manley–Rowe relations

121:

Resonant interaction - Perturbation theory - Measure-preserving dynamical system - Bernoulli scheme - Markov odometer - Bernoulli process - Dyadic transformation - Riemann integral - Cantor function - Minkowski's question-mark function - Quadratic irrational number - Three-wave equation - Center manifold - Lebesgue covering dimension - Carathéodory's extension theorem - Commutator collecting process - Hall word - Free monoid - Monoid factorisation - Lyndon word - Free Lie algebra - Mixing (mathematics) - Nonlinear resonance - Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula

145:

Sigma model - Lagrangian (field theory) - Hodge star operator - Divergence - Tetrad formalism - Dirichlet energy - Solder form - Ergodicity - n-vector model - Coalgebra - Symmetric space - Killing vector field - Isometry - Simple Lie group - Symplectic group - Lie group - C-symmetry - Higher-dimensional gamma matrices - Dirac spinor - Bispinor - Exterior calculus identities - Dirac operator - Tangloids - Dirac algebra

169:

Gamma matrices - Majorana equation - Dirac equation - Helicity (particle physics) - Indefinite orthogonal group - Lorentz group - Sesquilinear form - Clutching construction - Chiral anomaly - T-symmetry - On Numbers and Games - Actual infinity - Near-rectilinear halo orbit - Lemaître coordinates - Cohomotopy set - Direct integral - Group action - Lusin's theorem - de Rham curve - Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) - Hankel matrix - Borel measure - Capacity of a set - Analytic capacity

193:

• Quantum speed limit

major rewrites

Of the above, I'm particularly proud the ones that were major rewrites or even complete rewrites, either doubling or tripling the size of the article - anyway changes where more than about 5K or 10K bytes were added. These are listed above but repeated here:

• Vertical and horizontal bundles
• Gauge covariant derivative
• Bundle metric
• Christoffel symbols
• Lense–Thirring precession
• Currying
• Puppe sequence
• Cofibration
• Tensor algebra
• Universal enveloping algebra
• Metric connection, although, in hind-sight, almost all of that content should be merged to connection (vector bundle).
• Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem
• Resonant interaction
• Measure-preserving dynamical system
• Three-wave equation
• Hall word
• Mixing (mathematics)
• Sigma model
• Ergodicity
• Higher-dimensional gamma matrices
• C-symmetry
• Chiral anomaly
• Weyl equation

major rewrites that are hack jobs

Some major rewrites are just-plain-old hack jobs, without any particular elegance. Sometimes very ugly hack jobs. Notable only because they are large re-writes. Like the above, these are changes were more than about 5K or 10K bytes, sometimes doubling the size of the article.

• Boyer–Lindquist coordinates
• Fubini–Study metric
• Ginzburg–Landau theory
• Conservative system
• Bernoulli process
• Dyadic transformation
• Lagrangian (field theory)
• Killing vector field
• Tangloids
• Dirac spinor
• Dirac equation
• Lorentz group
• T-symmetry
• Quantum speed limit

non-math

Edits of 500 bytes or more were made to these non-math articles:

• Chloe McCardel
• Structure (disambiguation)
• Link grammar
• Internal model (motor control)
• Good regulator
• Entity–attribute–value model
• Neoliberalism
• Symbol table
• Debug symbol
• Volt-ampere reactive
• Standard solar model
• Delegative democracy
• Singularitarianism
• Control theory
• Wikipedia:Does_Wikipedia traffic obey Zipf's law?
• Energy quality
• East Blackland Solar Project

Due to the recent AfD of Draft:Mass dimension one fermions I started an attempt to describe the problem from first principles, here: Draft:ELKO Theory. This is hard, because existing literature is sloppy. This forced a major expansion of Majorana equation which ... is unsatisfying, because the existing literature on the Majorana equation is sloppy. There is not one single adequate review that does not do hand-waving at critical junctures. In particular, explanations of CPT symmetry of the Majorana eqn are a horrible mess.

Move to user-space: User talk:67.198.37.16/Draft:ELKO Theory

I am breaking my own rules about TODO-lists, namely, that they should never be created, because they will never be done. That said, the following red-links could be interesting and fun to write:

• Split Markov odometer into two articles, the second being adding machine (ergodic theory) or maybe just odometer (ergodic theory). Or maybe don't split; just fill in more details?

• Ergodic decomposition theorem. There is an itty-bitty statement of the theorem in ergodicity but it is not stated generally, nor is it stated formally. A nice informal description is in conservative system. A suitable formal defintion can be found in Danilenko, Alexandre I.; Silva, Cesar E. (2009). "Ergodic theory: Nonsingular transformations". Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer. arXiv:0803.2424.

Things worth doing:

• Expand Klein–Gordon equation to describe the propagator in dimensions other than four. It has unusual, unexpected properties when the dimension is not four.

• Expand Darboux's theorem and connect to Darboux transformation explain in plain language what EOM says: Darboux transformations Q±Q± are ladder operators, the intertwining relation H(1)Q+=Q+H(0)H(1)Q+=Q+H(0) gives rise to a supersymmetry algebra, the Kac-Moody algebra.

Things worth doing that someone should do, probably not me:

• Create a version of Holonomy that is accessible to physicists, so Holonomy (physics), e.g. explaining Aharonov–Bohm effect which is the holonomy of the U(1) circle bundle. Also (I'm not sure, but I think this is right) the parallel transport of a spinor around a loop in a gravitational well is a holonomy, its the neutron interferometer. And the Sagnac effect is another transport-of-frame-field holonomy. I'm thinking pretty much *everything* interferometric is probably some holonomy somewhere, somehow. This would be very worthwhile, as it builds a bridge from every-day physics to mathematical physics in "laymans" terms.

OMG:

• Fix Affine Lie algebra so that it is not utterly opaque. This is not hard. It can be stated in much simpler terms!

Create some redirects

Things that an anonymous IP address cannot do:

• Create redirect Plemelj formula to Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem
• Create redirect Cauchy–Kovalevskaya extension to Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem
• Create redirect Rarita–Schwinger operator to Rarita–Schwinger equation
• Create redirect Stein–Weiss operator to Rarita–Schwinger equation or maybe to Clifford analysis
• Create redirect monogenic polynomial to monic polynomial
• Create redirect Charge conjugate to C-symmetry
• Create redirect Parity conjugation to Parity (physics)

Banned users: User:Hillman - User:Likebox - User:Silly rabbit - User:Incnis Mrsi - User:Dcoetzee

A big list (but not all are banned users?): Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- {{Remember the lost}} -- oh my, that template has become a red link. Such deletions are just ... shameful.

Harassed users: User:Michael Hardy

Unhappy users: User:Deltahedron

See Talk:Conformal_bootstrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Link grammar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Can you give me a chance to finish editing? There are hundreds of papers published on link-grammar, many of them provide the basics. I will add references shortly.67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Link grammar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

• Sources are required, per WP:CHALLENGE Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I can't add them if you keep reverting! Can you give me a chance to finish editing first? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mass, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. Which change? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility? Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to reply, so I'll reply briefly here, and in the other article. From what I can tell, the dispute is about self-promotion, not credibility, right? I can try to google up some review article, but I don't see how credibility would be an issue: some simple search terms typed into google suggests he has hundreds of papers published in refereed journals, with dozens of co-authors. Its impossible to "pull the wool" over that many people, so my general impression is that he is "academically credible". Regarding "views (that) are not universally held", well, that is an issue as old as science itself. Modern-day examples can be found by looking at exit polls taken at academic conferences: typically, some handful of controversial questions are asked, and the replies are inevitably 1/3 to 2/3rds one way or another, and when asked again 5 or 10 years later, the replies invariably flip-flop. Is there some specific attack that you are aware of?

I thought I'd dig around, I just now skimmed the a sequence of papers on the Mars Global Surveyor data, where there's work by Iorio and a rebuttal by Krogh, and a rebut to that by Iorio, again. If you read through these, they read like standard scientific controversies: neither is claiming that the other is not credible: they're wrangling over details: apparently, Iorio said "5 years" when he should have said "5 years and 2 months". Apparently he is "misinterpreting data": over the course of the mission, better gravitational modelling of the mountains on Mars has resulted in better estimates of the trajectory of the satellite, decreasing the errors of orbital estimates ... by the time people are arguing over stuff like that, you have to assume they're both credible, and its a standard controversy, and possibly one or both sides are making mistakes. When I search for Evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars google tells me that its "Cited by 60" and clicking on that link indeed shows all sorts of citations. Its hard to get that many citations, period, under any circumstances. To get that many if you're not credible is nearly impossible (but I suppose it happens.)

So again, I assume that the issue is excessive self-promotion, rather than technical merit. I don't really know how to deal with self-promotion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Its also clear that he's a bit of a hot-head. Most experts are. Which surely violates the WP "civility" rules. ... so let me take a pot-shot ... In case you haven't noticed, hot-head editors are routinely banned from Wikipedia. I believe that this explains why the Wikipedia science articles are in such disasterously bad condition: they keep getting written by undergraduates who kind-of don't have a clue of what they're writing about. Meanwhile, all of their profs have been banned for violating civility and what-not polcies. This is a major weak-spot in the current Wikipedia administration: you can't keep banning authorities and still expect to get high-quality articles. (For example, Lense-Thirring was a complete train-wreck of failure before I cleaned it up; its only marginally better now, I tried to bring it up to not being "obviously false", but that's it. More or less *every* article I review in WP is failed and flawed in some deep, fundamental way.) WP has to find some way of accommodating hot-head behavior, controversy, etc. without routinely banning everyone who is an expert. I dunno how to solve this problem, it appears to be very deeply rooted. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is not easy to get a proper discussion going at Frame-dragging if one party appears to be stuffing their own material in, even if, by coincidence, they could be one of the major figures in the field. 15-30 mentions of Iorio is likely to be too many. If any controversies involving Iorio could be summarized in one or two sentences with a link to further reading that might be sufficient. Administrators are well-prepared to deal with self-promotion, but producing a well-written article is a harder task. We would still like to take advantage of User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.'s knowledge if there is any way of engaging him diplomatically. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I independently wrote to Spinningspark on its Talk page before the most recent, quite interesting and important evolutions here and in the article's Talk page, I am absolutely ready to be engaged diplomatically and to cooperate. I agree with the idea of reducing the amount of citations to my works and, if required, to rewrite some sentences in a more impartial tone, if it is the case. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 67.198.37.16, thank you for your mature, wise and significative approach. I think I've learned a lot on this specific issue and on several others. Best regard. PS I would suggest to go to SAO/NASA-ADS: it is more complete and trustable than Google Scholar. It allows also to cope with the self-citations issue through the tori and the riq indexes. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, edit the page? Another utter jerk just came in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please create an account. If you do that I can give the account permission to edit the locked article. It is not technically possible to do that for an unregistered IP address. SpinningSpark 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On self-promotion, the position is quite simple. We expect the person with a conflict of interest to leave it to neutral editors to decide whether to use the material, modify it, or leave it out altogether. If they do not, and continue to fight in-article, they risk being hounded off the project. As someone not connected with Iorio and scientifically knowledgeable you are in an ideal position to make that call. SpinningSpark 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that L. Iorio deserves an article in Wikipedia, but I see that only admins can recreate it. Redwheel (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrea Insinga. I write you to ask your help about one of your contributions to the page Structure constants. In order to continue my research I really need a good reference for the following statement:

• The structure constants are completely anti-symmetric in all indices if and only if the Lie algebra is a direct sum of simple compact Lie algebras.

Can you suggest me a book or scientific paper where I can find a more detailed explanation about this statement? That would really help me a lot!

Best regards, Andrea Insinga 17 August 2017

I assume that pretty much any book on Lie algebras will state this, and it will probably do this in the first 2 or 3 chapters. They typically describe all the different kind of Lie algebras, and then state what the semi-simple ones are, then they state why they will work only with semi-simple and ignore the others. You should try to get access to a university math library, and just go into the stacks, and search there. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the book "Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups" by Jurgen Fuchs is probably too advanced for you, but in the first few chapters, he does a fast/quick review Lie algebra basics. The affine algebras are not compact and so provide an example where the structure constants do not have a simple form. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will try looking in the book you suggested. Best, Andrea —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment on the talk page - I think you might like to read WP:NOT. You will see that WP is aimed to be clear and concise about facts of relevance, not a collection of all possible knowledge. Of course, each particular case is different. In the future, if you think something relevant is missing, find it first perhaps on the web and link to your comment on the talk page. If it's really hard to find, it is more likely than not that this info is not all that notable and best be omitted in the article. Happy editing! Mhym (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you be more precise? Is there some particular comment, edit or change that you refer to? I think I made over 100 edits yesterday, to maybe a dozen articles, so stating that some of these edits might not be notable is really not sufficient for me to figure out which ones, in particular, that you are refering to. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one: [1]

OK, Interesting. What, exactly, makes you think that this is is too obscure to be notable? I'm fairly certain that it shows up on lecture black-boards on a regular basis, and so would be in some textbooks somewhere or another. I don't believe that particular bit of knowledge is either obscure or non-notable. I was just plotzing along, from article to article, tripped over this, and thought I'd add a note. There's a meta-issue, at play here: pretty much all math and physics articles on wikipedia kind-of totally suck, and are missing pretty much most information that, for example, students might get during classroom lectures. So, if you are a student, learning something for the first time, or an adult, trying to remember something you once heard, Wikipedia is kind-of wholly inadequate for providing those details (at least, for math/physics). So your complaint that something is too obscure to be noted rings hollow, to me -- the articles, in general, contain far too little information. The symmetric group, in particular, is hugely important: Its sort of the entry point into Lie algebras, see for example, the book "Representation Theory - A First Course" - William Fulton - Springer for all the stuff one could say about the symmetric group, but that this article does not say. And that's just the "first course". What about the second and third course? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Judgment (mathematical logic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain why exactly the content you were removing is "junk" please. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Umm, how much more of an adequate explanation can you possibly want? Did you look at the edit summary? The content that was added was clearly insane and the talk page goes into details about it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Judgment (mathematical logic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop! If you are an expert in mathematical logic, then please engage in a conversation on the talk page of the article. Otherwise, please stop interfering! I am trying to remove content that is simply insanely incorrect! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@67.198.37.16:, I apologize for reverting your edits, the tools that editors use to manage vandalism tagged your edits as blanking. I see that I'm not the only editor to revert your edits due to the same issue. I'm not an expert in mathematics so I cannot confirm your position concering the state of the article. Next time you have an issue, please wait for others to discuss it on the talk page. Reverting edits after they have been reverted three times is against WP:RRR. Please refrain from this practice. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But please don't wikilawyer -- I'm not the one reverting, you are; don't even try to somehow turn this around and blame it on me!!! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
Are you the same person who screw up the product notation some three years ago? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply (although the question wasn’t answered explicitly). Now also here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fixed. See commentary there. There was a shortage of adequate notation. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe pings don't work with IP addresses; this is to let you know that I have responded on my talk page. --JBL (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the allegations here before you next edit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Why would you bother writing an unblock request like this that obviously would never be accepted by anyone? You should retract it. Ping me if you would like advice about filing unblock requests with a positive probability of success. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, it's not obvious to me, I guess. Look at how 331dot responded: "its not ok to be "subversive"" -- without any clear articulation about why defending User:Incnis Mrsi and/or talking to User:Kbrown_(WMF) is "subversive". Where's the line of "subversion" being drawn? How can one tell when that line is over-stepped? How do I move from being "subversive", or do I have to live in fear that any/every political comment that I make might be punished for being "subversive" in some undefined way?

I guess I'm willing to listen to advice, but the mind-set of these people is very alien to me. I don't understand what they are thinking, or what makes their actions defensible, or socially acceptable. The attitude of "punish first, then see if the victim is still alive" is a bizarro reaction to an attempted chat with a high-level WP muckitty-muck. It's like, what? Talking to Putin, after which a hit is taken out on you? In the modern Western tradition, we are not supposed to act in this way. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who said your activity was subversive. The purpose of allowing you to edit this talk page is to allow you to contest the reason for the block. If you intend to continue using it for some other purpose, I will adjust the block settings. ST47 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to capture the attention of User:Kbrown_(WMF) regarding a topic that I believe to be of interest to her. I quote from her user page: "I am a Trust & Safety Specialist at the Wikimedia Foundation. My responsibilities as part of the Trust and Safety team include liaising with the Ombuds Commission, supporting the Foundation's work in furthering Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces." I attempted to inform her of a recurring pattern of blocking highly capable, highly knowledegable WP editors. This, to me, seems like a prime example of "Trust & Safety", and thus worthy of her awareness and involvement. The direct outcome of that contact was that I was blocked. I am well aware that talking about "Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces" on WP is considered to be highly subversive in some quarters. It should not be. If some admins are going to punish talking about "Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces" then there should at least be some guideline or policy that publicly articulates that such conversation is not tolerated on WP. Otherwise, one is left to guess: what kind of speech is allowed on WP, and what kind is not?

I don't know how to appeal the block. JBL was kind enough to offer help with that. Without help, it seems unlikely that I will be able to express myself in a fashion that is acceptable to you. The first two appeals failed; I did not find the correct words. I don't understand what is expected of me, or what to say, or how to say it. I need to be able to strategize how to arrange a third appeal that might work. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linas (if I may presume),

I will try to keep my comments short and to the point. The obvious (to me) problem with your unblock request is that it is entirely about what you think is important. The administrators who review it do not share your view of what is important: their role in reviewing unblock requests is narrow, focused on interpreting a certain set of rules in a relatively context-independent way. At the moment, you are blocked as a sock-puppet, i.e., because you have an account and you are editing while logged out instead of using the account. If you were not Linas, then the obvious thing to do would be to concisely try to make that clear; however, my impression is that you are Linas and you don't dispute that you are Linas. In that case, the thing to do is to be honest, admit that you are Linas, and submit an unblock request as Linas. In that request, you should emphasize that you have been making contributions in a productive way, have been avoiding whatever it was that you were originally blocked for, and also you should commit to no longer using more than one account if unblocked. Any discussion of Wikipedia hierarchies, politics, KBrown, Incnis Mrsi, etc. will be counter-productive. (Of course I cannot guarantee that any of this will work, but it could possibly work; your approach above could not possibly work.) Also WP:GAB might be helpful.

I would take your time crafting your next unblock request, keeping your intended audience and their perspective in mind.

Hope this helps,

15:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The admins who blocked User:Linas are still active on WP. The only route to getting that account unblocked is to recruit a larger group of admins, convince them that unblocking Linas is a worthy cause, and have them go off and fight where-ever it is that admins go and fight. This is extremely unlikely. The block is in perpetuity; there is no mechanism by which an appeal can be heard. (Of course, there is a formal "appeal process", but its absurd: one writes a private email to some address, requesting unblock; the reply is an insult.) FWIW, the original block started because there is a math-book publisher called "New Age Publishing"... some admin started tagging math articles with 'Category:New Age Religion', and I called that admin a bad word. This lead to the perma-ban.

The ban-and-appeals system is opaque, it has no oversight or controls, and allows bad actors to run around with impunity. WP needs basic reforms in multiple areas; for starters, a system of checks and balances by which the mob impulses of the admins can be kept under control. Why it doesn't have such a system is an interesting sociological question. Perhaps appealing to some young political-science or social-science grad student looking for a PhD topic: understanding the causes of the failed political structure of WP adminship.

(To be clear: the WP:GAB looks nice in writing, but doesn't actually work that way, as you can see above. To paraphrase Pauli, "it's not even toilet paper".) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing in your comment that I care to respond to; let me know if you'd like me to restore your comment on Tsirel's talkpage. --JBL (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, yes, that would be nice. And thank you for listening; I'm mostly just venting. We live in a world filled with crises; issues with WP adminship is a tiny one on the scale of things. It can wait. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your comment there. You are welcome. I agree, and your relatively calm attitude is refreshing. All the best, JBL (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Conservative system, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your contributions on mathematics articles. Hope to see more of your contributions. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have reverted some edits on Conservative system that concern style of writing, and MOS:STYLERET tells not to change between accepted styles, unless other main editors agree.

As you are the main editor of that page, feel free to revert my latest edit if you agree with the italicizing of greek letters.

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first half of that article was built out of cut-n-paste from other WP articles (so as to obtain a uniform notation ... and style.) The popular style these days seems to use utf8 whenever possible. I don't much like that, I prefer using <math> tags everywhere, visually, I think math tags are prettier ... but I was lazy and was not about to convert the utf8... so whatever.

Micheal has a long history of bringing various math articles across wikipdeia into a uniform style. By my estimation, he's touched at least 1/4th if not 3/4th's of all 18K math pages on wikipedia, to unify style. In this case he's right - when mixing <math> and utf8 in a jumble, the utf8 should be italic. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's clear you want to contribute, and that's great, but you're going to have an increasingly hard time doing so while evading a block. If you really want to do this right, log into your main account and post an unblock request. This is an unusual case, and if you can swallow your pride and demonstrate that you want to make the effort to avoid what led to your block in the first place, it has a reasonable shot at succeeding. Your continued evasion will be an issue, but I'm sure something can be worked out. Multiple people have offered their support at various points. If you want, you can ping them from your talk page and see if they're willing to add to any discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'm not blocked! At least, I wasn't just yesterday... I'm not "evading" anything! Are you confusing me with someone else? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you even admit here, you operated the User:Linas account, which was blocked indefinitely several years ago. Any edits that you have made since then, no matter how well-intentioned, are block evasion. If you continue to edit while logged out of that account while it's blocked, you will no doubt have this IP address (and whatever others are discovered) blocked again, which I think would be a shame. I'm sure I don't have to spell it out in any more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That account has been inactive for more than six years; I assume the block expired long ago; are you claiming that it hasn't? Either way, it makes no sense at all to try to revive it; Wikipedia is one of the most highly toxic corners of the internet, and editing WP under a login is like ... what, I dunno ... like announcing that you are a gay black cross-gender transvestite on some alt-right discussion list? Except they'd probably treat you better than how people are treated here? Every math prof I know (some of them very famous) have been banned; no one particularly wants to have anything at all to do with WP any more. I'm plodding along despite the head-winds; staying anonymous is a reasonable strategy for avoiding the toxicity and lightning bolts that logins attract. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page on the blocking policy. You don't get around them simply by abandoning the account that was blocked, and indefinite ones don't expire. Despite, as you claim, how toxic it is here, a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'd suggest you grab it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. I am certain whatever block it was, it expired a looong time ago. I don't understand why I need a "life-line"; I'm not drowning? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks do not expire. Even if you want to continue editing without logging in, you still need to log into User:Linas and successfully appeal your block. At that point, if you want to abandon your account and continue editing as an IP address, then go right ahead. But you're still evading your original block currently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times. (So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article, and I reverted, and we got into a revert war. As it happens, he was an admin, so he banned me, and soon as that ban expired, all of his buddies banned me again for varying periods of time. I do recall trying to appeal, more than a few times, but was told that it was impossible, that the block had to be permanent due to "higher powers", and that I should either create a new account, or edit anonymously. So that's what I did. I'm just doing what I was told to do, I don't really want to get underneath someone's spot-light again. The spot-lights are painful. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article" Are you implying that you're facing a Randy in Boise user? If so, where is it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 05:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was one of the series of articles on monoids, one of trace monoid or history monoid or one of the spin-offs, that contained a citation to some conference proceedings with the unusual title "The Book of Traces" published by a company with the unfortunate name of "New Age Publishing". This book, here; it seems the imprint has since been acquired by World Scientific. I'm imagining that the resemblance of the title to apocryphal religious texts, e.g. the Book of Enoch or Book of Urantia plus the name of the publisher evoking New Age religion triggered an episode. It would take some archeology to dig it out. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So to sum this all up: 1) You've lost your required credentials for logging in to Linas (at this point Linas is blocked) 2)You're doing a great job under the threat of being blocked of socking 3) You're using your IP right now, and all of us can see where is the location 4) You think that Wikipedia is one of the most toxic corners of the internet, but you keep editing nicely here 5) A long time ago you faced a Randy in Boise admin and lost.

Well, the best thing to do is appeal. As Deacon Vorbis said above: a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'm throwing you another one. It is up to you to get on the line and hop back to the boat, or get drowned on the endless ocean of blocked users. Cheer up, and do the right thing. Declare you ownership to the Linas account, and appeal. After you get yourself a nice new account, declare that Linas is your account.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm breaking absolutely zero Wikipedia rules. Why do you feel compelled to threaten me? Why do you feel compelled to have a conversation with me? Why can't you just ... leave me alone? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that you are breaking no rules here. You are a very good contributor, and its nice to see you here. The problem is that your other account is blocked, which means that someone in office thinks that you are breaking rules. It's a pleasure to discuss with you, and I hope I'll see you again sometime later (although you might not). Keep editing Wikipedia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, I've completed all of your redirect articles. Feel free to check it. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to ask forgiveness to people that you have personally attacked. You might ping them here, or else. This is just an advice. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for forgiveness from a bully is inviting a punch to the stomach. One learns this on school playgrounds, and it continues to apply in adult life. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only way to know if its a bully is to try ask forgiveness for them first. If they don't punch you, you know they are not bullies. If you get punched in the stomach, you know what to do. You don't die from a single punch to the stomach, eh? 😀 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the User:Linas account has been blocked for more than a year ... apparently, I'm told, for seven years. For a punch in the stomach, seven years a long time to be in a coma. That gang of bullies were rather relentless, they did not stop with just a few bans and leave it at that; they piled them on. The appeals to higher levels came down with a clear message: this gang is very well-connected politically, up to the top, and they cannot be challenged. I was explicitly told, more than once, that the User:Linas account could never-ever be unblocked, and that I should either create a brand-new account, or edit anonymously. I've no reason to believe that the situation has changed.

For example, scroll up, and you will see a 6-month ban for a "sock puppet" accusation. Clearly, this accusation is patently false. There was no sock-puppeting, as the User:Linas account has been inactive for 6-7 years. No matter that the accusation is false, the ban held. So if its not that, then what DID I do that deserved a 6-month ban? What was it that got this particular admin tied up into a knot? If you examine this closely, you will see it is because I posted a (friendly) message to User:Kbrown_(WMF). She's a high-up mucketty-muck. She never replied. Instead, I was banned under a false accusation! That is how it goes. These lessons are really quite clear. My conclusion is that there's a band of thugs, at the admin level, that have insinuated themselves into Wikipedia, and they rule by total fiat, and are willing to make utterly baseless and false accusations to justify their ruthless application of power. The entire adminship is corrupt.

This may not be clear to you, but I have been around for fifteen years, and I have watched each and every capable and competent academic hounded out and blocked. This includes assorted prize-winning academics. You don't have to take my word for this, you can do the science yourself: go through the biographies of living people, figure out which of them are mathematicians or physicists, figure out which of them have edited Wikipedia, and then figure out which of them has NOT been banned. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one (yet, they are inactive). Don't ask me to reveal the identity, as that would be compromising; it is, however, a name that you would recognize from popular science blogs.

This is how things go around here. The culture is toxic, and it's not getting better. One last example: why, exactly is it that you all -- total anonymous strangers, have appeared at my door, to hound me into having a conversation that I do not want to have? What is it about "toxic culture" that y'all don't understand? Does it not occur to you that perhaps you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on User talk:Linas about getting an appeal set up, which I'll take the lead on - the basic gist is that this all ancient history and if we are actually here to write and improve an encyclopedia instead of being a glorified social network, we should probably think about an unblock. (In light of the above comments - I've basically been mulling this over for about four years) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Is there something I should do? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upthread you said, "I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times." Does that mean you've forgotten your original password for the Linas account, or simply that when you log in, you can't do anything (because you get the stock "you are unable to edit Wikipedia" message)? I think if you can access the original account, it's more straightforward to run the appeal on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt password recovery. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you may be interested in this discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Whiffs of scandal and outrage ... just right now, I cannot don my political-thinking-cap; I'm busy with something else. But, indeed! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal is up : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review : Linas Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Are the three admins above (plus two more, named below), who made the false sockpuppet accusations, recused from the proceedings? Or do they get to "vote"? I don't understand what drove them to make the false accusations in the first place. Without that key piece of knowledge, I'm concerned that whatever power interests created this incident will continue to be at play in the appeal. I don't understand the motives of these people, and without understanding that, its hard to guess how the power structures are organized. This whole thing could back-fire badly; I'm concerned that all they'll do is ban this IP addr permanently. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: if I look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas/Archive I can see two admins making false accusations: User:1989 and User:ST47. If I scroll up, I see three admins making false accusations: User:L235 aka "Kevin" and User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:331dot. That is a total of five different admins working in cahoots with one-another to ban this IP address. Who are their friends? Are their friends actively involved in the proceedings? Most importantly, what is driving these people to behave dishonestly and pugnaciously? What are the underlying motives? What caused them to focus on me? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to continue to make personal attacks, such as accusing us of "making false accusations", then you will be blocked again. I chose not to block you when I saw that you were editing again because I thought that having you editing could be a net positive. Stop trying to disprove that. ST47 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What rule am I breaking, User:ST47? Why do you want to block me? I have not personally attacked you. You blocked me under false pretense: you accused me of sockpuppetry, which is obviously a false accusation, as even the simplest investigation will show. Now you are falsely accusing me of a personal attack. Why are you being hostile? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. You were socking, you still are socking, you were blocked years ago for personal attacks, and here we are. ST47 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not socking! How can you even say that? You know, and I know that you have no evidence whatsoever for any sock-puppet behavior. So quit saying that. As to personal attacks, we have never interacted before you banned me. When I point out that you banned me under false pretense, you choose to construe this as a "personal attack". What is motivating your behavior? Why are you doing this? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly your are technically socking. When the user Linus was banned that ban applies to the real life person, it applies to any acount under any username and under any IP address used by that person. While User:Linus is still banned any attempt by you to edit counts as sock puppetry. The only official way out of this is the Standard Offer mentioned below. --Salix alba (talk): 19:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, two points: First, I was told (encouraged) by several WP bureaucrats (bureaucrats are the layer above WP admins) that I should edit anonymously for as long as User:Linas is blocked. I did exactly what I was told to do by the WP hierarchy! Since the User:Linas account is blocked, it cannot edit at the same time, so technically, being a sock-puppet is literally impossible! I'm flabbergasted how this obviously true statement continues to be denied by so many people. You know that you have no evidence of sockpuppetry, and I know that you know this because I know that you know that User:Linas is blocked! I also know that it is not a violation of any WP policy for me to edit anonymously! Are you actually willing to make the accusation that multiple WP bureaucrats advised me (encouraged me!) to do something that they knew would be a violation of policy?! Come on, this is turning into a farce! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment deleted by User talk:67.198.37.16)

In case you did not notice, that was a question. In case you did not notice, I was in favor of unblocking you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I am very sorry. I find this all extremely stressful. My eyes blurred out and I misread. I have been stress-eating and loosing sleep ever since Deacon Vorbis showed up. This is not good for my physical and mental health. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon Vorbis has retired since several days ago. Chances are he'll never came back here again. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. To edit WP, one needs social skills as well as topic expertise. Balance and insight. The ability to be both intensely engaged, and calmly deattached. So, it is like other human activities: a place to master one's demons. We are all imperfect. When I see a tragedy, I sometimes say to myself: "There, but for the grace of god, go I". 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the mathematical community I would like to find a way to have you back editing under a proper username. There is a process for this called the Wikipedia:Standard offer. This basically involves you not editing for six months without any attempts at trying to edit under an alternate username or as an IP. You then need make a commitment to avoid the behaviour that led to the initial ban.

In you case avoid the problematic behaviour would take a bit of work. You need to try and keep a lid on your anger. Statements like "Asking for forgiveness from a bully is inviting a punch to the stomach." unfortunately does you no favors. I get that you feel there has been some injustice in the past, and maybe there was, but in many cases its they way people respond to the issues rather than the issues themselves which cause the problems. The more users to prove their innocence the worse it gets. --Salix alba (talk): 19:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What problematic behavior? I was blocked by an admin who was literally adding material about UFO's and New Age Religion to a math article! The guy was having a mental breakdown, and you are accusing me of problematic behavior because I got in an edit war with him? Why are you accusing me of problematic behavior? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you make an assertion about another user, every time you call admins bullies, every time you give an impression of being an awkward argumentative user becomes another mark against you. There was a way you could have responded to initial incident: providing a diff to the edit in question reporting the problem in as neutral language as possible. But that is gone now and you will get on much better by never referring to it again.

Right now you could think of Wikipedia as a nightclub, and the Admins are the bouncers on the door vetting who gets to come in. Someone with a chip on his shoulder who insults the bouncers will not be let back in.

Yes it sucks, yes it is unfair, but that's the way the Wikipedia system works. Too many people like you have been banned with a very similar trajectory, a small incident which blows up out of control.

What works in you favour is a largely unproblematic set of edits in the last six years (even though you should technically not been editing at all). Right now I would advise you wait a bit, try to avoid editing while angry. Spend time reading a lot of the Wikipedia policies guidelines and essays. The better you understand the rules and the expected behaviour the better you have a chance of being let back in. --Salix alba (talk): 20:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to give up. For the last week, I've been waking up in the middle of the night, wondering what unpleasant surprise awaits me on this talk page, and toss-n-turn for hours. Next morning, bleary-eyed and unfocused, I stress-eat to calm myself down. WP is literally the most toxic place on the internet that I know of; editing here is literally unhealthy, both physically and mentally. The suggestion that I should spend my time reading about WP policy is absurd; I am here to read math, not to study the inner workings of a toxic culture. I must leave that for future anthropologists who will dissect what the heck happened here. But that is not me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly feel like that, then you really shouldn't be here editing. There are more important things to worry about in life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing mathematics articles makes me happy, and I enjoy it. But if you look at the bottom half of this page, the conversation is not about mathematics. It's a whirlwind of drama and infighting between a bunch of people I don't know, I didn't invite, who do not edit math pages, and have come here unbidden, to argue amongst themselves. Compare this to the opening lede of "toxic workplace". I was doing just fine for the last 6-7 years, until this tornado materialized at my doorstep. Why is it here? I dunno. What can I do? Duck and hide, and hope that it passes quickly. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through old contributions and noticed this comment was the last one you made before the account was blocked. Speaking personally and cycnically, Aspect-oriented programming is a buzzword designed to sell seminars and books, and is simply a fancy way of making old code call new code without modification, which pretty much any decent programming language in the last 50 years can do, more or less. And as you said, there's no particular difference between this and callbacks as used in X11 or the WNDCLASSEX::lpfnWndProc signature on Windows. Just avoid function pointers in C++ otherwise your head may explode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer up!

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience at the AFD. Based on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_971#Disgrace_by_J._M._Koetze, I'm concerned that Dr. Ahluwalia fundamentally doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless work on math and physics articles Footlessmouse (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it. I have been thinking of leaving you a note for a couple of weeks, so I am going through with it now. You are clearly a highly valued contributor here and you have spent many years with your head down with no problem. I really believe you should reconsider appealing your original block. In my view, it is no longer valid, as they are not supposed to punish but prevent future disruption. I think a great place to start, if shy of apologizing, is simply stating that you understand now than many of the things you said back then were wrong and that you would handle the situations differently if they happened today, even if the others could have handled it better as well. I don't mean to pressure or badger, I just wanted to put this out there. I will ask the admin who removed your ability to make an unblock request if they would be willing to return you that right so that you can appeal once more, if you wish. I have seen may unblock requests on pages and you always know which are going to work just by reading them, all you have to do is make it clear you will not repeat the problematic behavior that got you blocked in the first place. Just my friendly two cents. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears as though you should make unblock requests at WP:UTRS, which provides a system for handling such cases. Anyways, good luck! I only wish you would take care of this so that you would not have to worry about it anymore and you can continue being an excellent contributor to Wikipedia without expectation of future problems. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Slykos. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Dirac equation that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Calling a user's work "nonsense" Slykos (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi User:Slykos, the content there is 100% bullshit posted by someone who fundamentally misunderstands the Dirac equation. If you are able to make a cogent argument that it is anything other than 100% nonsense, you are welcome to do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Polar form of the Dirac equation where this issue has already been raised for discussion. As to civility, I'm not sure what you are getting at; is there some rule that says one must be polite and deferential to nonsense and crackpottery? Give it equal time, equal credence, equal respect? Elevate it to the podium? Give it a silver medal for "nice try, 2nd place"? Nonsense is nonsense, it should be kicked hard in the butt, punched in the nose, exterminated with prejudice. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Slykos (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Slykos, did you actually read the entire AfD? Perhaps you are confusing me with one of the other participants? I was the one who was defending that editor, not attacking him! Are you going to warn the half-dozen other AfD participants? The WP articles on fermions are shambolic. This is a factual statement, not an expression of opinion. That is why we have article ratings! For you to wallop right into the middle of a weeks-long debate in which you have not participated in, and single me out for "personal attacks" is absurd, ridiculous, unjust, mean, twisted, sick and demented. Instead of coming here to attack me, throwing your weight around and making false accusations, why don't you actually go do something useful? When people say "wikipedia is toxic", maybe you should look in the mirror, and ask yourself, "why did I decide to come to attack this person?" What's wrong with you? Go away! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Slykos (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I harrassing? You? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among others, yes. Read your messages to me. They seem pretty harass-y. Slykos (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dirac equation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:DVdm The sources are Bjorken and Drell, chapter two, Itzykson and Zuber chapter two, and Weinberg chapter 12. These books are commonly available in your local library, and are considered to be standard references for the topic. If you are still confused about what is written there, please consult Jurgen Jost "Riemanninan Geometry and Geometric Analysis" for a generic explanation of spin and spin structures. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that source, even with a sigh. And remember, the possessive pronoun of "it" is "its", not "it's". - DVdm (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Although I have kind of reverted much of your edits, I think they are interesting and important; they just weren't added in the right article. I'll try to explain.

T-symmetry is a term used mainly in particle physics to describe symmetry to the reversal of the time direction. Your edits refer to (and put emphasis on) what is known as "the origin of the arrow of time"; which can also be stated as the origin of the second law of thermodynamics. There are several different Wikipedia articles about this issue (such as the second law of thermodynamics and arrow of time). I think that your edits, after adding sources, may be added to these articles, up to some remarks I have about the content.

As for the content of your edits, I see several strong points but also some weaknesses:

• The edits seem to discuss a modern analog of the H-theorem that is related to non-linear dynamics. This is a very interesting topic and I think that the appropriate Wikipedia articles can benefit from these.
• However, the edits claim that non-linear dynamics solve, to some extent, the question of the origin of the arrow of time for classical mechanics. This claim does not hold up to Loschmidt's paradox (just as the original H-theorem does not). The culprit is that the equations are time-reversal and so cannot explain time directionality without the further assumption of low-entropy initial conditions.
• An additional point is that the difference between the microscopic time-reversibility and the macroscopic time irreversibility is no longer considered a real paradox. In fact, it is now understood that the very-low-entropy initial conditions in the Big Bang explain this difference.

I hope to see you continuing with your contributions, just please source your material and make sure it is in the correct place/article.

Thanks, Dan Gluck (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You might want to study the Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem more closely before invoking paradoxes and their refutations. There's been tons of progress since the 19th century. My vague understanding is that it was people like Phil Anderson and his students publishing in PRL in the 1980's that cleared up a lot of this material; his students are now retired professors who've raised another generation or two. It's several academic generations of results that need to be covered; what I wrote was barely a postage-stamp hand-waving synopsis of that work. At least some kind of survey article is needed, targeting the undergrad physics/math major and the grad-student audience. Thus, the suggestion of second law of thermodynamics and arrow of time are absurd; those articles are aimed at non-mathematicians; there's nothing I could think of saying that wouldn't be trite and idiotic.

There are two problems with the current T-symmetry article. One is that conventionally, it is a part of the CPT triad, and so if one comes at it from that angle, the coverage is inadequate. The second and more serious problem is that the entire section titled "Macroscopic phenomena" is almost completely 100% malarky and garbage, presumably pieced together by earnest and well-meaning editors who learned about it by reading the "science" column in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine. It's devoid and utterly ignorant of what academia (i.e. the generation of Phil's students) know about the topic. I was attempting to replace that section with a bare-bones sketch. If you don't like my material, then maybe we could simply erase the entire section on "macroscopic phenomena"? That way, it could get a clean start, and maybe develop organically with some healthier content than the current .. I dunno what to call it .. OR? POV-pushing? It's putrid. Would you care to do the deletion? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we started at my talk page, let's continue there.Dan Gluck (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new reply on my talk page.Dan Gluck (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued that you find it plausible:

• Presumably the premise is that radiation pressure replaces the reaction force normally attributed to inertia. Have you calculated the minimum necessary radiation power (in the form of supposed Unruh radiation) that needs to cross a boundary enclosing the total mass?
• Did you notice that the Planck length is used without motivation in the force formula, and that subdividing the mass into other shapes allows tuning of the results at will?

—Quondum 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quondum: I'm not coming at it from that direction. What I find plausible is that there might not be any electromagnetic wavelengths longer than the size of the observable universe, and that therefore the wavelength spectrum should be quantized. What McCulloch points out is that by assuming this, plus a back-of-the-envelope calculation, one gets a number in the ballpark needed to "explain" MOND, where "ballpark" means "a factor of thirty".

The next level of detail requires converting that back-of-the-envelope calculation into a theory. This requires understanding a tangle of inter-related ideas. First: the horizons: the horizon of the observable universe. It's relationship to an event horizon, and to the Rindler horizon of an accelerated observer. Next, how quanta and quantized field theory works in accelerated spacetime. Closely related: untangling the considerable confusion behind Unruh radiation, Hawking radiation and horizons; simply looking at StackExchange for physics shows lots of confusion and many incorrect statements. Horizons have something to do with it; I am currently hunting for references and reviews, and there's much to read. My understanding of gravitation is very highly geometric: the conventional language of Riemannian spaces, frame bundles and spin connections. I'm very comfortable with that. Given a spin connection, how do you formulate electromagnetic QFT in it? I dunno. I hope to find out. (I know more than a few ways of doing QFT. Just not in a curved background, with horizons, for accelerated observers.) Such a formulation, if it is correct, should make it clear "what Hawking radiation is", and "where it comes from", and "why the horizon has something to do with it". One might then hope to have a reasonably clear picture of the Unruh effect: why accelerated observers would appear to be in a thermal bath of photons. Done right, this is all geometry, kinematics and coordinate reference-frame changes, and "nothing more". It would work as a generic set of manipulations on any pseudo-riemannian manifold, because if you can't explain it in that setting, then "you don't really understand it".

Finally, with this mathematical machinery in hand, one can revisit the original issue: given that there is a hubble horizon, and given that accelerated observers (e.g. stars very far from the galactic center) feel unexpectedly large accelerations (that thing that MOND and dark matter both try to explain), and given that the back-of-the-envelope equations hint that universe-scale casimir effects give the right order of magnitude, can all this be synthesized into a more precise calculation, and can it be presented using the conventional language of GR and QFT such that conventional readers would accept the calculations as plausible and reasonably correct?

For me, personally, it is a motivation to read about and think more about QFT for accelerated observers and/or curved spacetimes, and what horizons have to do with it. Heck, it should be a baby step on the road to the firewall debate, and what Maldacena had to say about it. Does that firewall debate also apply to the horizon at the edge of the universe? If not, why not? Or perhaps more pertinent: what would it take to get someone to pay me to think about such things full-time? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to pseudoscience, just read through Relativity priority dispute and now imagine being a dyed-in-the-wool Galilean, Newtonian, ether believer in the 1899-1905 time frame. All that stuff about Lorentz transformations and clocks running slow sounds completely and utterly insane, the mad ravings of a lunatic. The early history of QM is also filled with assumptions that sound utterly preposterous, "not even wrong". And yet, it all worked out in the end. Physics can be like that. There's a bit of Thomas Kuhn to it all. Look at MOND: on the surface, what it says can't possibly be right; it has been and still is accused of being pseudoscience, and yet, here we are, 40 years later, it still stands, and we've poured billions into the search for dark matter, with no resolution in sight, the fog as dense as ever. A universe-scale casimir effect can't be dismissed; it doesn't sound any crazier to me than saying the universe is filled with golf-ball-sized black holes. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you seem interested in some questions. I am unable to ignore some others. —Quondum 23:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

😃 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 67.198.37.16. I think you read my comment on the section limiting behavior of the polylogarithm and wrote your reply to it a bit too fast. I have written a detailed reply on the talk page. Best, Malparti (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your reply. As a personal note, the tone of your comment came off as unpleasant: you wrote your comments to fast (or while being to tired), since the first time you suggested an error term that diverges and the second one you got confused about the point that was being made, thinking my problem was using ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{z\to a}}$ with complex numbers when I clearly said that the problem was to have varying terms on both sides of the limit operator.

Yet that did not prevent you to wave the problem away, calling the remark a "nag note"; saying that the meaning was "utterly unambiguous"; explaining something trivial to me; and concluding with "But sure, someone should jog to the library".

If I had been wrong and you had been right, this would have a been a "harsh" and complacent way to point it out (certainly not something to use with a student or a new contributor, for instance; fortunately I'm neither). But since but since you are wrong this just looks awkward for you.

Best, Malparti (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say "best" when you mean "worst". Unpleasant people perceive me as unpleasant. Nice people perceive me as nice. Please do not come to my page to insult my intelligence, my character, my perceptual abilities or my social graces. I presume that you are an adult; you should focus on acquiring some basic social skills. Also: please do not edit any more WP mathematics articles. Many or most of the articles that we have require a formal education in mathematics, and are not amenable to amateur tinkering. I do not have time to tutor or teach you. If you have questions about mathematics, I recommend the mathematics stack exchange as a suitable forum. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case it was not clear, you are wrong, on a multitude of levels. You should not worry about my awkwardness, you should worry about your own. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not come to your page to insult you, I came to this page because you wrote a comment that I found annoying and I thought it might be useful feedback to let you know how other contributors perceive such comments.

I am not interested in discussing my social skills. Regarding whether I have the required formal education to write mathematics on Wikipedia, I thought you would have understood from my "I read math for a living" that I am a researcher in mathematics. Not in complex analysis, admittedly, but do occasionally use a bit of it for enumeration purposes. So maybe you, again, wrote your comment based on quick assumptions?

Anyway, what I want to discuss is why you think I am "wrong on a multitude of level". As far as I am concerned, here is why I think you are wrong:

• Although that's not the crux of the matter: you suggested that we might have ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Li} _{s}(z)=z+O(z^{2}\log |z|)}$, when ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Li} _{s}(z)}$ is defined as ${\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{k\geq 1}z^{k}/k^{s}}$, so the second order term is ${\displaystyle z^{2}/2^{s}}$. Reading that indicated to me that you probably aren't more familiar with the polylogarithm than I am. I wrote above that "the error term you suggested diverges", which of course is not true; I wrote that too fast, based on what I remembered reading rather than on what you wrote. I think we both agree that ${\displaystyle z^{2}\log |z|\to 0}$ as ${\displaystyle z\to 0}$.
• Next, I pointed out a problem that has nothing to do with the angle of approach. You replied something concerning the angle of approach. So either you replied something off-topic, or having the limiting variable on the right-hand side of the equality being a problem actually has something to do with the angle of approach. If so, can you briefly explain why?
• Now, the important part:

1. Do you agree than expressions such as ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{|z|\to 0}\operatorname {Li} _{s}(z)=z}$ or ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{\operatorname {Re} (s)\to -\infty }\operatorname {Li} _{s}(e^{\mu })=\Gamma (1-s)(-\mu )^{s-1}}$ are of the form ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{x}f(x)=g(x)}$?
2. Do you agree that the notation is ambiguous (in the sense that both interpretations I suggested are different yet equally "natural")?
3. Can you point out to a reputable math source that uses that notation?

I did teach some math at university and, at the bachelor level, ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{x}f(x)=g(x)}$ is a cardinal sin -- plain and simple. The reason for this is that some students will happily (and, in fact, usually unknowingly) use the ambiguity to "prove" all sorts of things. Therefore:

1. I think it would be better if Wikipedia avoided notation that (1) is ambiguous (2) is a cardinal thing at the bachelor level (3) is, as far as I know, not used by anyone.
2. A source that uses that notation immediately seems highly dubious to me. And the fact that this source was published as a technical report and written by someone who, as far as I can tell, is not doing research in complex analysis, does not improve things (of course the author and the format of publication are not a problem in themselves; it's really the notation).

If you reply some mathematical arguments, I'll be happy to continue this conversation. If you are just going to keep saying things such as "I do not have the time to tutor you" and "most of the articles that we have [...] are not amenable to amateur tinkering", then I'm done with the conversation.

As a final note: I suspect than when you are saying "the articles we have", you are including yourself and excluding myself. If so, then in my opinion there is something really wrong with your relationship to Wikipedia.

Best, Malparti (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your energies would be better spent correcting the article to say things the way that you would want them to be said. I've already made my opinion clear. The notation that you are challenging is not uncommon. Most readers have no issues in comprehending it's meaning. Arguing with me does not improve the article. Don't try to fix me, fix the article instead! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying to both your comment here and on the Polylogarithm talk page. I'm doing both here because I do not think that my reply would benefit other Wikipedia users:

1. On the polylog page you, again, talked about directional limits when this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. ${\displaystyle z\to 0}$ and ${\displaystyle |z|\to 0}$ are rigorously equivalent, both are fine and and there is no possible confusion stemming from that -- I have no idea why you keep mentioning this as if it mattered. As I have said multiple times: I am talking about speed of convergence.
2. Your argument for why ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{z\to a}f(z)-g(z)=0}$ would supposedly "capture the same meaning" as ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{z\to a}f(z)/g(z)=1}$ is flawed. You proved something different -- namely that if ${\displaystyle f(z)=z+O(z^{2})}$ in zero, then we have both ${\displaystyle f(z)-z\to 0}$ and ${\displaystyle f(z)/z=1}$ in zero. Yes, indeed. However, the section in question is dealing with other situations, such as [sic] ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{|\mu |\to 0}\operatorname {Li} _{s}(e^{\mu })=\Gamma (1-s)(-\mu )^{s-1}}$ and ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{\operatorname {Re} (s)\to -\infty }\operatorname {Li} _{s}(e^{\mu })=\Gamma (1-s)(-\mu )^{s-1}}$. Your argument does not apply to these.

To see why ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{z\to a}f(z)-g(z)=0}$ does not "capture the same meaning" as ${\displaystyle \textstyle \lim _{z\to a}f(z)/g(z)=1}$:

• First, ${\displaystyle x-x^{2}\to 0}$ in zero, yet ${\displaystyle x\not \sim x^{2}}$. That shows that ${\displaystyle \lim _{x\to a}f(x)-g(x)=0\;\not \!\!\!\implies f(x)\sim _{a}g(x)}$.
• Second, ${\displaystyle x^{2}+x\sim x^{2}}$ in ${\displaystyle \infty }$ yet ${\displaystyle x^{2}+x-x^{2}\not \to 0}$. That shows that ${\displaystyle f(x)\sim _{a}g(x)\;\not \!\!\!\implies \lim _{x\to a}f(x)-g(x)=0}$. Note that the problematic section is dealing both with limits in 0 and ${\displaystyle \infty }$.

1. I asked for a reputable source using the problematic notation. You provided an example of a source using a completely different notation, that I have no real problem with. So, you keep claiming that the notation is not uncommon but I have yet to see an example of it.
2. "if that makes you happy, you can rewrite" → it's not about making me happy, it's about (1) writing something that makes that meets the same basic criteria for mathematical rigor that are required from any math student (2) the fact that, for reasons that I already mentioned, this cast a doubt regarding Wood being a reliable source for these matters. I could easily edit the expressions mechanically to make them unambiguous. That would not necessarily make them correct; in fact that would only hide the fact that there may (or may not) be problems with them.
3. Thank you for caring about how I invest my energy. For your information, writing this reply is not something that requires a lot of it. Checking all of Wood's calculations to make sure I fix the article correctly would -- and I think some people might be better suited to do it than myself.

Given that I've been mostly repeating the same thing over and over again and that you do not seem to want to try to understand what I am saying (and instead prefer to keep thinking about me as an obnoxious nitpicker), I am not going to continue this conversation. I do, however, hope that you are going to take the time to read my reply and try to understand what my initial point was: to be perfectly honest, your last comments only tend to confirm to me that you still have not understood what the problem was in the first place. Hopefully this message will clarify that. Best, Malparti (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 67.198.37.16. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ELKO Theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the page about Lorentz group, I found a very interesting sentence which was added on December 4th, 2020 in relation to adding a new subjection about homomorphisms and isomorphisms. It is written: "The symplectic group Sp(2,C) is isomorphic to SL(2,C); it is used to construct Weyl spinors, as well as to explain how spinors can have a mass." In particular, I am interested in knowing where the last statement, i.e., the explanation of the mass of spinors, is found in literature. Stefan Groote (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinors with mass (and electric charge) are called Dirac spinors; they are the sum of two Weyl spinors. There is also an alternate construction, massive but chargeless, called the Majorana spinor. If you're going to study spinors, study the Dirac spinor first. The Majorana spinor is ... kind of weird, and the mathematical (algebraic) and field-theoretic foundations remain weak and opaque (c.f. "ELKO" and "mass dim one spinors" -- stay away from this stuff until you've got mastery of the basics.).

The "basics" -- old physics references for Dirac spinors include Bjorken & Drell (circa 1960's), and Itzykson & Zuber "Quantum Field Theory" (circa 1980's) I suppose there's something newer but I don't know what.

The "basics" from the math viewpoint are provided by Jurgen Jost, "Reimannian Geometry" (circa 2010, so modern and up-to-date.) Chapter 2(?) describes how to construct Weyl spinors in arbitrary dimensions, starting "from scratch" -- via the Clifford algebra. It then covers Weyl spinors in 2,3,4,5.. dimensions, and in particular, their combinations, some of which correspond to the Dirac spinor (which is a special case in 4 dimensions). Later chapters cover spin manifolds, spin connections, superconductivity and Yang-Mills from the mathematical point of view -- all very nice topics, because physicists rarely present the material as cleanly and precisely. Or rather, if you already know these topics from the physics lit, that book will clarify what they "really are".

If you know what a fiber bundle is, then I recommend "Gauge Theory" by Blecker. Gauged spinors are covered in chapter 5 or 6. This book is quite dense, but it does provide all the details, helping you gain confidence in exactly what is actually going on. If you don't know fiber bundles, this book will be impenetrable. Also FYI, it contains no quantum at all. It does contain Kaluza-Klein, which is nice.

Hope that helps. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here is maybe a more precise answer to your question: Spinors are solutions to the eqn ${\displaystyle (\nabla -m)\psi =0}$ where you want the solutions to be Lorentz covariant. For Weyl spinors, the only covariant solutions are those for m=0. However, if you take two of them, a Weyl spinor, and the complex conjugate of a second Weyl spinor, and then take their direct sum, then you can find solutions where ${\displaystyle m}$ is any positive value. You can confirm this by explicitly applying Lorentz transforms to ${\displaystyle \psi }$ and to ${\displaystyle \nabla }$ and seeing that it all works out. Both Bjorken & Drell, and Itzykson & Zuber explicitly walk through these covariance properties. Warning: their notation is almost exactly the same, but there are sign differences and the occasional transpose hidden in there, so that you have to be careful when comparing their formulas. They may look the same, but with extra minus signs sneaking around, they are not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do want to visit the crazy world of Majorana, then look at the Majorana article here on WP, and then look at Draft:ELKO Theory. I never finished that draft -- I was trying to untangle the absolute woeful, awful literature on the topic. It's rather painful, and takes a lot of effort to triple check everything and make sure there are no missing signs. It's pretty neat, though: a well-written, well-developed text on these topics, that clarifies and exposes the otherwise poorly-stated and controversial claims in the existing literature, that would be a good thing. In particular, exposing the details clearly enough to prove/disprove this mass-dimension-one thing would be useful. But this is an advanced topic. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. Bjorken and Drell is at hand (which one?), the other handbooks I have to find in the library. I might try to start with Jost. However, the list of contents of this handbook (in my version from 1995) on https://cds.cern.ch/record/1666885/files/9783540773405_TOC.pdf does not unveil something related to the construction of Weyl spinors and overall looks quite mathematically involved. Do you really mean this one? In general, I also did not find a relation to the symplectic group in your answer. Is this relation given or do I misunderstand the sentence in this section, i.e. is the last part of the sentence related not to the symplectic group but to Weyl spinors? Stefan Groote (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two Bjorken & Drells - Volume I and Volume II. I imagine Dirac spinors would be covered in the first one.

Yes, that PDF is for that Jost. It is a math book, graduate level, quite readable, well-written, pleasant. All Jost books seem to be excellent. (And there are a lot of them. And he used to be active here on WP, under a pseudonym.) Given that table of contents, the Weyl spinors would be constructed at page 62 thru 82, and the Dirac operator at page 155. Superconductivity at page 521. You can skip many chapters in the middle. Although this is a mathbook, it's aimed at the mathematical physicist; It explains stuff that theoretical particle physics people know, but it does so in a clear and well-structured fashion. I wish I had it when I was in school, because ... ugh, ... at the time, there just weren't any good textbooks on this stuff, and I struggled to learn this from crumbs and hints in other places.

As to the symplectic group, there are a lot of "accidental" isomorphisms in low dimensions. Assorted Wikipedia articles cover them. I'm not sure that they "mean" anything deep.

Oh, one more thing, another good/great book is "Classical Mechanics", Abraham & Marsden. It has no spinors in it, at all, but it does a pretty good job with symplectic geometry. Starts with the basics -- Lie derivatives, etc. The early chapters are accessible to undergrads, if I recall correctly.

I should stop talking, but I can't .. If you dive off the deep end, and umm, keep going a lot deeper, then a top-notch, very readable book is "Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups" by Jurgen Fuchs. But perhaps deeper and more advanced than you want to go. It covers all the Virasoro, 24 dimensional, 10, 11-dimensional bosonic and fermionic reps of the Poincare group. But do Abraham & Marsden first, and Jost.

Oh, and as to the isomorphism to the symplictic group: you don't need to look that up in a book; you can treat it as a homework exercise. Just write out all the axioms, and verify that they hold. I don't think it's hard. If for some reason, you can't get it, then I'm fairly confident Jost will review this somewhere between pages 62-82, that would be my guess. This isn't some magical mystical identity, its pretty straight-forward. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again. I will at least try to obtain a copy of Jost's book from the library today. What I am keen in particular in all this affair is the relation of the symplectic group and/or the Weyl equation to the mass of the particle. In Bjorken and Drell I found the argument that Weyl's equation was ignored because of breaking the parity. And I know that parity is also broken if we add mass to the electroweak model. However, I did not find anything about Lorentz covariance for m = 0.Maybe Izykson and Zuber have it? Stefan Groote (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the way that you are writing about this, it seems that you need a much stronger background in representation theory. For this task, Fulton & Harris, "Representation Theory". It is another math book. It covers SU(2) and SL(2,C) and so on. If you are not finding this in Bjorken & Drell, it is because you are skimming too quick, and not paying attention. Let me quickly sketch the general idea.

First, there is the famous double-covering of SO(3) by SU(2), given by

${\displaystyle R{\vec {v}}=S^{\dagger }({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {v}})S}$

I hope this is familiar. Here, ${\displaystyle {\vec {v}}}$ is a vector in 3D space, R is a 3x3 rotation matrix, S is a matrix in SU(2) and ${\displaystyle {\vec {\sigma }}}$ are the three Pauli matrices.

Something very similar to this holds for the Lorentz group SL(2,C). 4D vectors transform under 4x4 Lorentz matrices L. 4D derivatives transform at the *inverse* of L. Spinors ${\displaystyle \psi }$ transform under S, which is now a 2x2 complex matrix. Mass terms m transform as scalars: i.e. they don't transform at all. If you try to write down the Weyl eqn as ${\displaystyle (\sigma \cdot d+m)\psi =0}$ and then apply Lorentz transformations to it, the only way to get a Lorentz-covariant eqn is to set m=0. Otherwise it is just not covariant. This is in Bjorken & Drell, somewhere.

However, there is a trick! Write ${\displaystyle \psi _{\mbox{Dirac}}=\psi _{\mbox{Weyl 1}}\oplus \psi _{\mbox{Weyl 2}}^{*}}$ where ${\displaystyle \psi _{\mbox{Dirac}}}$ is a 4-component Dirac spinor, and ${\displaystyle \psi _{\mbox{Weyl 1}}}$ is a two-component Weyl spinor and ${\displaystyle \psi _{\mbox{Weyl 2}}^{*}}$ is another Weyl spinor, but this time the complex conjugate, so that it transforms under ${\displaystyle S^{\dagger }}$ instead of ${\displaystyle S}$. The ${\displaystyle \oplus }$ is the direct sum. If the direct sum notation is not familiar to you, be sure to include a few weeks of reviewing tensor algebras in addition to representation theory. Anyway, this allows you to write two coupled Weyl equations. If you do it correctly, the Dirac equation becomes this:

${\displaystyle (\sigma \cdot d)\psi _{\mbox{Weyl 1}}+m\psi _{\mbox{Weyl 2}}^{*}=0}$

and

${\displaystyle (\sigma ^{\dagger }\cdot d)\psi _{\mbox{Weyl 2}}^{*}-m\psi _{\mbox{Weyl 1}}=0}$

or something similar: I may have slipped in one too many stars, daggers and/or minus signs into above. I'm doing this from memory. (note the sign flip in front of the m -- this is NOT a mistake!) Anyway, this pair of coupled equations are Lorentz-covariant even when m is not zero. This pair of equations is the Dirac eqn, written out two components at a time!

The above is so fundamental to the idea of massive Dirac spinors that it is covered in Bjorken&Drell, and in Itzykson&Zuber, and in Jost, and possibly in a footnote in Fulton&Harris (not sure about this last).

Reading Fulton&Harris will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand Lorentz and SU(3) and SO(10) and all those things that theoretical physics people talk about. Reading the first 3 chapters of Jost will take 2-3 months, but it will allow you to understand curvature and covariant derivatives and geodesics, which you need to understand general relativity. There are a number of modern, very good books on general relativity, and almost all of them will cover this same material. Although sadly, one that I looked at recently was filled with misprints and typos, so that is a shame. Otherwise a great book. Oh well. You will also need a good book on fiber bundles, but I don't know of any. You'll need horizontal and vertical connections, spin connections, solder forms. Go for Abraham & Marsden, "Classical Mechanics" It's old but good. It will take you another 3-6 months to read. So you have several years of reading material in front of you, and all of it is mandatory, required reading! Do not attempt to run past this material; stop and smell the roses. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Well - in seven years I will be retired, so I should gain the insights much earlier.;-) I think I have a profound background in theoretical physics but many of the details may have slipped by. I will analyze your explanation of combining the Weyl equation in more detail. The book I got from the library yesterday was a disappointment - it was the first edition (or close to that) and really only mathematics. For instance, the sections 1.5 - 1.7 and unfortunately also 1.11 are missing, not to talk about 3.4. I have a second chance next week in Germany with a larger library. The publication I work on in moment to improve it is found at https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03262 if you are interested in. Actually, I would prefer the direct scientific exchange with you, avoiding to use wikipedia for this. Stefan Groote (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me at linasvepstas@gmail.com -- I am crazy-busy with other non-physics projects, and so am very protective of the mental bandwidth I have free. However, do write; perhaps we can do something fun together! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ELKO Theory".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made undeletion request here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, whoever you are! Copied to User talk:67.198.37.16/Draft:ELKO Theory -- Some day it will get finished. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the comments in historical order. This is the convention for talk pages. Top posting is generally discouraged. If you want to change WP to top-posting take it up as a proposal. I'm gonna revert. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 67.198.37.16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ELKO Theory".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 67.198.37.16, would you mind re-assessing the article about Fair pie-cutting? Replacing "Mathematics" by "Economics" seems wrong to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its clearly not math. Could be classed as Game theory, but this seems pretty cut-n-dried economic theory to me. I mean, textbook economics, even, stuff you'd get in college. Note that game theory can be considered to be a sub-branch of both math and economics, while economics is a branch of sociology. Tere might be other sociology projects that might be interested in this. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change special:diff/1211130730 to Poincaré disk model based on your edit summary, "the last one with the log is clearly wrong", which is inaccurate. These formulas are in fact equivalent, as is not hard to show with a bit of algebra. If you want empirical validation of that, I made a Desmos plot showing how this quantity compares when computed in these various ways: https://www.desmos.com/geometry/wdazt75lac – drag the blue points around and watch the computed numbers change in tandem. I'm sure there are published sources for these expressions, but I haven't looked to hard for them.

Whether we should include all of these equivalent expressions is a separate question; arguably they aren't the most important thing to emphasize. (Frankly this whole article is kind of crap and should be substantially rewritten.)

Personally I think another measure should be included in this context: the (hyperbolic) half-tangent of hyperbolic angle measure. For two points ${\displaystyle a}$ and ${\displaystyle b}$ represented by (Euclidean) vectors from the origin of magnitude ${\displaystyle <1}$, with hyperbolic angle measure ${\displaystyle \psi }$ between the points they represent, this stereographic distance (sometimes called in complex analysis literature the "pseudo-chordal distance") is:

${\displaystyle \tanh {\tfrac {1}{2}}\psi =\left|{\frac {a-b}{1-ab}}\right|={\frac {|a-b|}{|1-ab|}}={\frac {|a-b|}{\sqrt {(1-a\cdot b)^{2}+(a\wedge b)^{2}}}},}$

where ${\displaystyle ab}$ is the geometric product and ${\displaystyle |x|}$ means the magnitude of a multivector, defined by ${\displaystyle |x|^{2}=xx^{*}}$ with ${\displaystyle x^{*}}$ being the "reverse" of ${\displaystyle x}$.

This is just the length of the vector ${\displaystyle (a-b)/(1-ab),}$ whose end is the point where the point represented by ${\displaystyle a}$ gets sent if you rotate hyperbolic space to put the the point represented by ${\displaystyle b}$ at the origin.

In the context of points on a sphere, I find this one often more practically useful than the chord-based distance. (I don't actually have much practical use for points in hyperbolic space; but a "chord" here means the extrinsic straight-line distance between points on a a 2-sheeted hyperboloid under a metric with signature ${\displaystyle (-,+,+,\ldots ,+)}$, the "hyperboloid model"):

${\displaystyle \sinh {\tfrac {1}{2}}\psi ={\frac {|a-b|}{{\sqrt {1-a^{2}}}{\sqrt {1-b^{2}}}}}}$

Cheers, –jacobolus (t) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: Oh, Ah, heh! Yes you are right. I was going to argue, but on closer examination, I see that I completely misread the argument of the square-root there. It looked like .. oh never mind. Whatever, I misread it; my mistake, my apologies. Ooops!

Having your explanation above in the article would be useful; it would have certainly made me look twice at that square-root, before shooting from the hip.

As to having "use" for this stuff: I was working on another, unrelated problem, and I needed a quick-n-easy expression for the hyperbolic distance between two points in general position, and arrived at this article. It provided what I needed. It's OK for articles to have lists of equivalent expressions; it responds to needs of having a reference work to look things up in. I'm past the age of remembering formulas by heart, or scratching them out from first principles in an afternoon.

As to the quality of this article... heh. It's not awe-inspiring. I hate the first two illustrations; some classic Escher could get the point across more nicely. The Poincare quote is bizarre. Temperature!? Did a quantum wormhhole open in his brain and fill it with Unruh radiation? Or is there some more mundane explanation: perhaps he was thinking about how the heat equation is a rotated-on-imaginary-axis version of laplacian? Brilliant scientists sometimes say the most inscrutable things. I would be happier if the article started out by giving the conventional hyperbolic metric and discussing the Schwarz lemma briefly, before going into other things. I have no intention of doing any more edits here. I'm swamped with other tasks. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine enough to have a few alternative expressions. The main thing the article is lacking is basic explanation and connective prose. It would be nice to cover most of the main topics of hyperbolic geometry as they specifically appear under stereographic projection, especially graphically. I'll hopefully get around to rewriting/expanding all of these hyperbolic geometry pages someday. I want to take care of the spherical geometry ones first though. –jacobolus (t) 16:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obsessing about the Poincare quote and the heat equation. The solutions to the heat equation on hyperbolic spaces are the theta functions and the 2D version thereof shows up in relation to the Riemann zeta and modular forms, and so perhaps he was thinking of that. Was he foreshadowing developments much later in the 20th century? Huh. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I think he was just trying to think of some parameter that people might be familiar with and consider to vary with position, and temperature was a convenient one at hand. –jacobolus (t) 22:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Humidity or air pressure or color would have worked for that. Softness. Transparency. But he picked heat. I'm pretty sure Riemann himself wrote down solutions to the heat equation that explicitly tied it to his zeta function. I vaguely recall that he's even talking about it within a page or two where he uses primes to define his zeta function, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering. The general setting is very 19th cent: elliptic curves, Riemann surfaces (which should have been called "Betti surfaces", since Enrico Betti described and characterized them some decades earlier.) modular forms, Richard Dedekind of the eta and j-functions is very 19th cent. Dropping an imaginary i into various equations and get new interesting things was clearly a cottage industry in the 19th century. e.g. Clifford algebras. When did everyone come to understand that the setting for all of these things was the hyperbolic plane? So, for example, look at theta representation and notice the imaginary tau in there. That tau in there is the nome (mathematics), and the imaginary part of it is very explicitly the heat or the temperature in the heat equation (and I think Riemann was talking about some variant of this). And of course, the Im tau goes to zero as one approaches the real axis, which is consistent with what Poincare said. And Poincare is plenty smart enough to make these connections. What he didn't know was that bosonic strings would show up a century later. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh: de Saint-Gervais, Henri Paul (2016), Uniformization of Riemann Surfaces: revisiting a hundred-year-old theorem, translated by Robert G. Burns, European Mathematical Society, doi:10.4171/145, ISBN 978-3-03719-145-3, translation of French text (prepared in 2007 during centenary of 1907 papers of Koebe and Poincaré)
• Isothermal coordinates, theta functions in Jacobi variety and heat kernel in Abel–Jacobi map. Both Abel and Jacobi were 1-2 generations before Poincare, so it seems likely he would have learned a variant of of the Abel–Jacobi map in school, as well as it's connection to the heat kernel. I'm still guessing wildly, but pinning dates on some of this helps. Now I'm wondering what Jacobi knew, and what notation he would have used, and what theorems and concepts would have been in his repertoire. Maybe someday, we'll be able to ask some LLM to reconstruct a typical Jacobi classroom lecture as a youtube video, and get a mostly accurate result. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does isothermal coordinates explain the name anywhere? Anyway, it's clear that heat was a common metaphor in this general context. I'm not convinced it's supposed to be taken literally though. –jacobolus (t) 04:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for LLMs, I'd be happy enough if they could OCR and (more or less) accurately translate old math books from Latin, German written with a Fraktur font, etc. –jacobolus (t) 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than a metaphor: search engines for "theta function heat equation" give numerous hits. The primary ingredients are these:

• Riemann zeta function is the Mellin transform of the Jacobi theta function.
• The theta function is a solution to the 1D heat eqn, This is best explained in the 13 october 2023 version of Theta function, before User:Reformbenediktiner turned it into a garbled mess. I would like to revert much of what that user did. Some of his changes are interesting; some of them just makes things cloudy and hard to read. Example: the 23 october 2023 change theta function about the heat eqn just garbles it.
• The solution is this: Take a 1D heat-conducting rod and heat a periodic sequence of points on it to infinite temperature; leave the rest at zero temperature. This is the Dirac comb. So ${\displaystyle T(x;t=0)=\sum _{n}\delta (x-2\pi n)}$ is the temp at time t=0 at location x. At time t, the temp is ${\displaystyle \vartheta (x;it)}$ the theta fun; so temp at a fixed time t is given by a horizontal slice (parallel to real axis) through the upper-half plane. That is, horizontal slices give the temp distribution on that rod at time t.

But when does this all become known?

• According to heat equation Laplace defines and studies the heat eqn in 1822
• Jacobi presumably studied his namesake theta functions before his death in 1851
• Fourier writes his book Joseph_Fourier#The_Analytic_Theory_of_Heat in 1822 (so I guess both Laplace and Fourier are banging away at this.)
• According to Isothermal coordinates, Gauss defines isothermal coords in 1822, same year as Fourier's book.

So we have three famous mathematicians studying heat the same year.

Speculation on my part:

• At the bottom of the current version to Isothermal coordinates we are told that the Gaussian curvature for the 2D case involves a Laplacian, and its clear, for the 2D case, by rearranging terms, etc one can get the heat eqn and the Jacobi theta fn. So my speculation is that this is where "isothermal" comes from.
• This gives indirect evidence that by the 1850's, if not decades earlier, "everyone knows" that the theta function is a solution to the 1-D heat equation.

Things that don't happen until later:

• Mellin transform is introduced by Hjalmar Mellin in 1892, But surely the integral transform between the Riemann zeta and the Jacobi theta is known before then!? Maybe Mellin's contribution is to formalizes such integrals in a general setting? The closely-related Fourier transform is known much earlier.
• The active ferment on metrics and curvatures is mid-late 19th century. Gauss is looking at curvature. The biography of Felix Klein is filled with lot's of cross-over between Riemann surfaces and metrics. For example, Klein's j-invariant gives the relation between the fundamental domain on the upper half-space and the period lattice. Basically, this is the central concept of the torus as the moduli space for elliptic curves, its all being explored contemporaneously, 1860 to 1900.

Some geometry only happens later:

• Apparently, Cartan taught general relativity to Einstein one summer, while camped on the sofa at his house. Cartan did not understand the physical importance of what he was teaching. Heh. But I digress.

Timelines I don't understand:

• The Riemann bilinear relations provide a vector space basis for the holomorphic one-forms on a compact Riemann surface of genus g. All this is presumably known to Riemann circa 1860's or earlier.
• In this basis, one-half of the periods are ortho-normal, and the other half of the periods are given by symmetric matrices that have positive-definite imaginary part. This space is called the Siegel upper half-space, which Carl Ludwig Siegel defines in 1939. So why do we have a 75-year gap between things that Riemann knows, and the space that carries Siegels name? Maybe because Siegel is the one who provides the unique metric?
• Somehow, Riemann knows that compact surfaces are quotients of the upper half-plane and discrete subgroups of SL(2,R) and thus Jacobi variety, but it takes Siegel to do the same thing, 75 years later, with Siegel modular variety.

My general understanding but I've never plumbed the depths:

• There are Siegel modular forms and I am under the general impression that these solve the heat eqn too, but I have never seen any actual text that explicitly demonstrate this.
• The reason for this is they show up in harmonic maps which apparently didn't start until the 1960's. See Harmonic map#Harmonic map heat flow for the heat eqn. So although one uses harmonic maps to classify the moduli spaces for Riemann surfaces, Riemann himself would not have known this. Likewise, Poincare would not have known. Or did they? Was there some inkling?
• Still, "isothermal coordinates", and the 1D solution to the heat eqn by theta funcs is known in the 1860's, so there is some glimmer of this. It just takes 100 more years to bloom.

Well, that was fun. This is how I procrastinate. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what isothermal coordinates have to do with heat. Is that explained anywhere? –jacobolus (t) 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The heat equation is ${\displaystyle \Delta u=\partial u/\partial t}$ with ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ the Laplace-Beltrami operator so ${\displaystyle \Delta =(-1)^{n}*d*d}$ up to an overall sign. An function satisfying ${\displaystyle \Delta u\geq 0}$ is called subharmonic and ${\displaystyle \Delta u=0}$ is called harmonic. If "u" satisfies the heat eqn, then "u" can be interpreted as a "temperature". If also u is harmonic, then ${\displaystyle 0=\partial u/\partial t}$ i.e. the temperature does not change over time "t" which makes it "iso" over time. If something doesn't change over time, you say its "static", and can usually derive some concept of "uniform" or "iso" over a spatial extent.

In the present case, for a complex surface, ${\displaystyle \Delta u=\partial _{z}\partial _{\overline {z}}u}$ so u is harmonic if it is holomorphic (because then ${\displaystyle \partial _{\overline {z}}u=0}$) or if it is purely anti-holomorhic. Or a third interesting case: ${\displaystyle u=\log |z|}$ and ${\displaystyle z\neq 0}$. (this is the 2D greens function).

You might say something like "but wait, there's no time variable anywhere" and you'd be right: but (a) too late, isotherm was already defined by these guys (Gauss, etc.) to be ${\displaystyle \Delta u=0}$ and (b) monkeying around with the formulas might allow something resembling "t" to show up, and you might decide that ${\displaystyle 0=\partial u/\partial t}$ is a good idea for some reason or another, and so you're back to the vocabulary of isotherms.

Now, if people hadn't been studying heat in 1822, then perhaps these coordinates might have been called "harmonic coordinates", but history came out otherwise. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Quantum speed limit theorems, you may be blocked from editing. Banana ezWIN (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Banana ezWIN: Is there some specific edit that you have in mind? I looked at the edit history for that article, and I can't tell which edit you are referring to. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]