User talk:CSTAR

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela . 03:18, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hello - nice pages!

Charles Matthews 21:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CSTAR, I noticed that you cut most of the stuff from the logic page. I'm not really sure why, most of it was content that was not reproduced on the linked-to pages. I was going to revert it, but wanted to ask you why you cut the article so much. As of now, its basically a stub thats little more than a dicdef... siroxo 11:02, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, sorry if I seemed rude, I got a little panicked (; I guess I was confusing on the talk page. Anyways, i've posted an outline on the talk page, if you want to take a look. siroxo 15:02, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Model (economics)

Hi I like a lot of your recent edits to this article. I think it is good enough now to nominate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. If you have any thoughts on that, comment on the talk page. Thanks, - Taxman 18:29, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Re: your comment on the history of economic models... Are you Spanish, by any chance? I'm also guessing you might be a mathematical physicist turned financial analyst. Am I wrong? Miguel 05:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you Spanish? Casi, .. latinoamericano. mathematico si, fisico mas o menos, Tengo un Ph. D. en matematicas. Anonimo principalmente.CSTAR 13:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi CSTAR, I replied on Talk:Model (economics) to your comment on my talk page. Thanks, - Taxman 21:23, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC) Ok, I'll stop noting comments on the model article here, just let you see them. But as an aside, es bueno encontrar otros que hablan español, hablo solo un poco, pero es bueno apprender. - Taxman 22:52, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Modern portfolio theory

Thanks for the addition of the graphic and the latex tidy up!

Fintor | talk | July 1 15:45 UTC

Cat in the Box

Why don't you put the text you cut on MWI into a textbox ? Togo 17:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it eventually should be put back into the article, somewhere,, but I would like to make it coherenet with what's already in the article. Hopefully I haven't annoyed too many people with my edits. Part of the problem is that "relative state" means at least two different things in the literature. Everett's notion is the one that is in the simple example section ; However, sometimes this notion is confused with reduced density matrix (and this confusion is actually helpful) CSTAR 19:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

holomovement

No need to panic. I don't foresee we'll have much trouble voting holomovement into deletion if it comes to that (and I expect it will). Hopefully that will send a message to Togo.

Oops.. forgot to sign that one. Anyway, I decided, instead of deleting holomovement, to write a new article Implicate and Explicate Order and redirect holomovement to it. Take a look at the article and see what you think –Floorsheim 11:22, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

togo, unsurprisingly, does not approve of the redirect. so rather than get into what will surely end up being a revert war, i reverted the change myself and RfC'd the issue. –Floorsheim 04:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1911

Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica has details on this. Basically, sites that display the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica are claiming copyright on their modifications to it, whilst other people are claiming they have no legal right to claim this. You're best off getting your own copy of the 1911 and transcribing it directly from there, unless you personally want to take the risk that the changes these sites have made are not copyrightable. See in particular, the legal notes section of the 1911 help page which says "typographical corrections are not sufficient to create a new copyright" and the last section which says "This on line version cannot be used". As the person making the edit, you have to decide which of these positions you believe. Angela (disclaimer) 21:09, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Separability

Nice edits on the QM article. Having just learned about separability yesterday, I was wondering: it says in the article that (associated) Hilbert spaces are separable. Is that really true? If so, is there anywhere in the world an example of a space that isn't separable? Thx –Floorsheim 23:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps quite a bit. Sorry to keep bugging you, but you seem like a person who really knows his (or for all I know her) stuff. Are you by chance familiar with the axiom of choice? It's been a recurring thought of mine over the past year, and I just can't seem to get why there's such a fuss over it.

According to mathworld, the axiom of choice states: "...given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets."

It seems to me that's equivalent to "Given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets, $S=\{S_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha \in A}$ , there exists a function $\phi :A\to \cup S$ such that $\phi \left(\alpha \right)\in S_{\alpha }$ . After all, the image of $\phi$ would be the set required.

But that seems like it would be easy to do. Let $U=\cup S$ and let $M:A\to U$ . Further, let $M_{\alpha }:U\to S_{\alpha }$ . Then wouldn't $\phi \left(\alpha \right)\equiv M_{\alpha }\circ M\left(\alpha \right)$ be just the map desired? It sure seems that way to me. Where have I gone wrong? –Floorsheim 20:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Butting in) No, unless the U are disjoint, you haven't defined a function. But really these are kind of entry-level questions. Non-separable Hilbert spaces can be shown to exist by cardinality arguments (separable spaces can't be larger than the cardinality of the reals). If you had an uncountable orthonormal basis, that would be an inseparable Hilbert space. But probably one can't apply this in physics in a reasonable way. Charles Matthews 20:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)