User talk:Miguel~enwiki
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. Cheers! --maveric149
Hi Miguel, thanks a lot for your edits in the Math area! I hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us.
In one of your subject lines, you mentioned that we should merge topological group and Lie group. I disagree: the concept of topological group is more general (they don't have to be manifolds, so for instance the Lp spaces are topological groups but not Lie groups), and the techniques in the two fields are very different (the whole machinery of Lie algebras is not available for topological groups). Also, between topological groups the natural morphisms are continuous group homomorphisms, while between Lie groups the natural morphisms are analytical group homomorphisms. AxelBoldt
Point taken. However, the example of Lp spaces is not really that good, because (with the operation of addition) it is not only an abelian group, but a vector space! In fact, you can use exploit the analogy with finite-dimensional spaces to develop a theory of "manifolds modelled on banach spaces".
A nonabelian infinite-dimensional topological group might be the group of diffeomorphisms of a manifold, but that does have a Lie algebra: the Lie algebra of complete vector fields. This is, in fact, one of the motivations for a theory of manifolds modelled on topological vector spaces.
This suggests to me that the reason Lp spaces don't appear to have lie algebras is that they are abelian, and therefore, the lie algebra is trivial. -- Miguel
By the way, it's cool how you guys pay attention to who comes in and what they do. -- Miguel
Yer a bum, Miguel!!! -- Toby
(And Axel: He admitted to me today that you were right.)
Hello. I have now added a clarification and illustration of the statement you considered dubious in the Archimedes article.
You did a very good job of listing his works. Michael Hardy 19:50 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hey Miguel! Thanks for pointing out the spider/FooBar inconsistency on my User page, well spotted! ;-) Nice job on self-organization, the page is looking pretty respectable. Perhaps we could suggest it go on the front page in the "New articles", as some of them have been there for a few days. -- Lexor 21:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
FOX IS FAIR AND BALANCED. Every conservative who comes on is brought on along with a liberal. You are just used to the liberal bias of the so-called "mainstream media" so much that when you finally get to watch something fair and balanced, you think that it's biased to the right. JoeM
FOX is a highly conservative news organization. CNN, NBC, ABC, etc., are conservative as well, but, not to the extent that FOX is. Vancouverguy 00:34, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Hey, guys, can we move the discussion to Talk:American Mainstream Media? :-) — Miguel
THINK! Now "mainstream" media outlet is to the right of FOX because the media is liberal. When you're used to Communist propaganda, anything's going to seem conservative. And don't be crazy by saying that the media is "conservative." Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg PROVED otherwise. Read these books right away. You're brainwahsed by the liberal media. And that's a good idea. I'm going to have to write some content for the article on American Mainstream Media. JoeM
- The key word is content. -- Miguel
- Ann Coulter? Isn't that the author of Treason? -- Miguel
Calling the media "communist" is a bit rediculous.Vancouverguy 00:40, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Of course FOX is somewhat social-democrat all the other (NBC, ABC etc...) are either communist or trostkyist ;-)
- Ericd 00:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- NO, NO, NO!!!!!!! FOX is the only network where the liberals and conservatives get equal time. Maybe it's just that the conservative ideas are so superior that you noticed the liberal commentators always lose. Well, when liberal ideas and conservative ideas are given equal time, the conservative ideas always come out on top. That's why America, the freest market, is the richest country in the work, and North Korea, the most left-wing regime in the world, is starving. JoeM
- To call North Korea left-wing is a joke, as in totalitarian regimes left and right don't matter. And the US is on its merry way to bankruptcy because of the massive public and private debt. -- Miguel
- No, North Korea is the archtypical regime of the left. It is the most economically centralized country in the world and the country with the highest degree of public ownership. At least the Nazis didn't mess up the economy, by contrast they improved it, until they were all bombed out after losing the war. THat's because the totalitarian regimes on the right maintain private ownership. Now all anti-democratic thought is evil, including Nazism. But North Korea is starving because it is the most leftwing country in the world in that it's the most government controlled. America, probably the least government-controlled economy in the world, in contrast, is the richest. The freer the market the freer the people. The freer the market the richer the country. JoeM
- To call North Korea left-wing is a joke, as in totalitarian regimes left and right don't matter. And the US is on its merry way to bankruptcy because of the massive public and private debt. -- Miguel
- NO, NO, NO!!!!!!! FOX is the only network where the liberals and conservatives get equal time. Maybe it's just that the conservative ideas are so superior that you noticed the liberal commentators always lose. Well, when liberal ideas and conservative ideas are given equal time, the conservative ideas always come out on top. That's why America, the freest market, is the richest country in the work, and North Korea, the most left-wing regime in the world, is starving. JoeM
- Nazi Germany passed laws that allowed the government to control the way factories and other industries operated, as well as imposing strict controls on the hiring, firing and wages of worker, in effect taking them over. As well, saying North Korea's economy is "publicly owned" is a joke.Vancouverguy 01:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Salut Miguel. I appreciate your work on Jean-Marie Le Pen. I have no idea how to get people to agree that the Le Pen article is NPOV. In a certain sense it's a test for Wikipedia NPOV policy. The problem with le Pen is that there many people have some irrational sympathy for him. Obviously Anthere is not of suporters but she feel that the article fail NPOV. I've tried to write some facts with references and avoid as much as possible judgement. But with Le Pen facts will give a rather negative feeling. Strangeless it seems nobody has found positive facts to balance the article. Except the fact that le Pen studied at the university and voluntered for Algeria and things like that... When you read what le Pen write or say.... well it stinks (to say the less), and everything that le Pen say is said with extreme care because there are laws in France that that prevent the expression of Nazi, racist or anti-Semitic ideology. Very few people will say "I agree with le Pen" but they believe there's something positive because le Pen is "against current establishment". That's the key of the problem with fascism : this is mainly irrationnal. I have searched for fact or quote to balance the article I can't find anything. I remember when le Pen was the guest in "Le Tribunal des Flagrants Délires" (a radio show on France Inter where personnalities were judged by humorists) while all other guest showed some sense of humor (even Arlette Laguiller made some good jokes). I can't remenber any good joke from le Pen. My conclusion is we don't have to try to convice anyone. We should go on feeding the article with documented facts and let's see what happen.
Ericd 00:41, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)