User talk:Charles Matthews
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! :-) It's nice to see another BGA member here, there's also User:SGBailey and User:Matthew Woodcraft and I'm Allan Crossman.
This is the point where I'm meant to say: If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump.
:-) Evercat 14:41 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi there, Allan. You're also meant to say - leave now, mortal, while you still have a chance ... Charles
You say:
My current interest is go (board game), but I've been adding material here from a previous existence as a mathematician, on a hobby basis.
What previous existence as a mathematician? Are you interested in providing details?
I wrote a Ph.D. on Gauss sums in 1978 under Cassels in Cambridge, worked at IHES, Cambridge, Harvard, Cambridge again as a lecturer and Fellow of Queens' College. That took me up to 1988; I haven't worked as a mathematician since.
Charles Matthews 18:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Charles, I took the metaphorical red-pencil to the Multilinear algebra article. Primarily I re-worded things (shortening sentences, changing from passive voice to active voice, etc.) Could you take a look, see if you think it's an improvement, and check that I haven't introduced any errors in the process? Loren Rosen 04:41 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've done an edit on top of that.
Charles Matthews 07:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've added some technical detail to your localization of a ring. Cheers, AxelBoldt 11:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Actually I never liked that construction (needing verification that the 'fractions' form a ring) - even though it is probably traditional in textbooks. A matter of taste.
Charles Matthews 15:19 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)) All this maths stuff... good to see you making a serious contribution to the ice age page though ;-) Hello from William.
Hello William. Yes, for light relief it's always interesting to do a search on alternative spellings of necessary.
Charles Matthews 12:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hola! I hope you're having fun, and you're doing some good work :) Just a little tip, please add and bold the title in the introductory paragraph of the article, take a look at Three for a pig.
Thanks, keep it up :) Dysprosia 10:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I do know this one - slipped my mind in this case.
Charles Matthews 10:57, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- No problem :) Dysprosia 11:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I noted your comment about vandalization of Game and fixed it up, but am curious if there was a reason you didn't fix it yourself on the spot. It's very easy, just bring up the page history, click on "last" to confirm which change was the trashing, then on the date string to get the previous rev, then edit the page (you'll get a warning about out-of-date rev, that's expected) and save it. It's best to fix it as soon as you see it, keeps WP clean for readers. Stan 12:34, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I was going to lunch - in principle I know how to do it,but takes me a couple of minutes to recall ... thanks anyway.
Charles Matthews 12:49, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"but every human reason not to get involved in an edit war over three letters"
- I don't intend to get in an edit war over three letters either. Please see my post to the mailing list. Angela 16:55, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not chafing at the edit, one way or another. I do need to orient myself in relation to what goes on, if I'm to get rather more involved (my current intention).
Charles Matthews 20:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Charles, I had a problem with your definition of "planar graph"; see Talk:Planar_graph. Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi Charles,
on Talk:List of logicians you wrote:
- If people are going to use lists via the Recent Changes link, it is better to have them more rather than less inclusive. I'd say include anyone who you personally feel qualifies.
Thanks for the feedback, but I don't quite follow the first sentence. I'm new to the wiki world; could you explain your meaning a bit? (The connection between lists pages and Recent Changes is what is loosing me.) Thanks, vanden 04:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
For example, the list of mathematical topics is used by people here to monitor changes in mathematics articles, by going to the Recent Changes link for that page. If you do that, you'll get a list of changes in the past week to all the articles on the list page. As it says on that page, the charter for that list is drawn very broadly - in order to cover the whole area of mathematics in an inclusive way. Lists for more specialised topics can do something different, namely give a portrait of an area; and people are more likely to use them by following the links out directly. A more selective list is more like a reading list, you could say. Charles Matthews 07:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Charles,
thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that rtecent changes would show changes in linked documents. Tres cool. (Just wanted to let you know I'd seen the reply, so you could take it down if you want.) Thanks again, vanden 08:49, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Are you the same Charles Matthews who wrote an excellent (yet agonizingly brief) article on progress in combinatorial game theory entitled "CGT Becomes Hard Currency"?
Do you know of any well-written, thorough reviews of moderate length on combinatorial game theory published on the internet? I pinpointed an excellent review of game theory by Don Ross but its scope is too general to target my needs as I invent only perfect-information games (i.e., chess variants). All I can find are either entire books or short articles machine-gun-riddled with links.
-Derek Nalls
The same. The CGT people aren't great at getting the message out, in my semi-informed opinion. You could look at http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGTPath, which is work in progress, leading up to applications to go but not restricted to those. Are you aware of the theory about Konane? That's the most chess-like thing to come to mind (not a chess variant).
Charles Matthews 08:38, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Would it be simpler (and correct) to define schemes as ringed spaces locally isomorphic (as ringed spaces) to spectra of commutative rings? It seems that the localness of the stalks follows. AxelBoldt 14:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, it sounds OK - start just with a sheaf of rings. On the whole it would be best to follow a text such as Hartshorne Algebraic Geometry for the fundamental definitions, though. The early (EGA) treatment is fairly overwhelming, and then prerequisites alarming, to say the least.
Charles Matthews 17:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Charles,
Pontryagin duality looks good, but I wondered why you created this instead of adding to and/or rewriting dual group. Both are about the same thing at different levels of sophistication. I threw dual group together the other day to expand an ugly stub -- essentially the first few lines describing characters. I have no problem with dual group being improved -- such is the way of the wiki. It suffers from the its history and while trying to be consistent with related pages. The best solution may be a merged page under Pontryagin duality (a more accurate title) with dual group redirecting.
If a merge was to happen, dual group suffers from not having any reasons for wanting duality (which yours covers from a couple of angles) and Pontryagin duality suffers from not actually saying what the dual group is (in terms that an undergrad maths student can handle). Your account of the development of the theory is also better. Maybe a solution is to import and tidy up some of the material on the concrete construction of the dual group (characters, topology) from dual group and make dual group a redirect? Possibly keep the classical examples as well, as they tie it to the Fourier transform/series articles. My attempt at referencing was deliberately lazy, so could be improved.
I have also since noticed some overlap with my version of dual group with the middle chunk of Harmonic analysis. I think it doesn't really belong there, as harmonic analysis on LCA groups is only a part of HA, whereas it reads as though it is the most important idea. My feeling is that HA (also served by a redirect from Fourier analysis) should really be a high-level page with a general flavour of what harmonic analysis is about, some history and many links to the disparate fields that come under or are related to HA - from the abstract to the applications (classical things like PDE solutions through to wavelets and whatever else). Do you know of anyone who has an interest in (or oversees/coordinates) this higher-level organisation of WP? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page only deals with things at the article level.
Cheers, AndrewKepert 01:21, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Generally, I agree with your assessment. I wrote the PD page quickly once I'd actually found dual group (I've thought subsequently of adding a bit more, on discrete and compact R-modules, and End(G) = opposite ring of End (G^)). It could indeed be good to merge the two under PD as main title, putting the dual group material first in the article (and moving across from HA anything that is really about LCA in general as you suggest).
There is no 'they' who sorts out policy-level stuff. We're on our own here ...
Charles Matthews 10:12, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Charles - yes I know Wiki is anarchic. I also thought that informing somebody(s) who might consider the higher-level organisation as their patch might bring in a few tips and avoid subsequent angst when somebody reverted the lot!
I will go ahead with the merge as discussed (not today - too busy) and strip the corresponding section out of Harmonic analysis. I'll also tidy up notation - I prefer &gamma ∈ Γ = G^ to φ ∈ G' myself, but will change additive notation in the group to multiplicative. I think the merge will work well, given the complementary POV of the two pages. Then I will start thinking about how HA should be structured and fleshing it out. Hopefully whatever I do will offend sufficiently many people, thus attracting interest and contributions.
Cheers AndrewKepert 01:00, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Charles, I was going to clean up vector bundle when I realized that I don't know what vector bundles are. Specifically:
- are the fibers finite-dimensional?
- do we want the same fiber everywhere even if the base space is not connected?
- for morphisms between vector bundles, do we require the induced maps on the fibers to all have the same rank?
Thanks, AxelBoldt 21:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On those points in order:
(i) there are Banach bundles, so the infinite-dimensional case deserves a mention;
(ii) I think not. For example the connection with projective modules suggests the 'right' condition is just dimension locally constant;
(iii) No, because the locus where the rank drops is a useful concept in geometry.
Charles Matthews 09:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing on correspondence. I appreciate it. Looks much nicer and is more informative now. Isomorphic 10:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You're welcome.
Charles Matthews 10:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Kasing, China
Great article on Shiing-shen Chern!
What's your source for his birthplace being "Kasing"? I googled and could find none [1]. Was it a book? Don't worry, it is not wrong; the place is spelled (although the Chinese characters have always been the same) as Jiaxing now (pronounced like Jeea-sing). Because I find this romanization (if real) very interesting; it's probably a dialectal pronunciation. I want to include it in Jiaxing that I'm writing, but I don't want to if it's a typo or just too little an idiocyncrasy. --Menchi (Talk)â 12:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I was working from his Selected Papers. I checked and it's Kashing, Chekiang province.
Charles Matthews 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I apologize for the pathetic wording re Transposition cipher :) Dysprosia 10:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Problem no.
Charles Matthews 10:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The last sentence in cross-ratio says:
- Similarly for h(z) = 1 − z; and these two transformations general the permutation group on the three points.
It looks as if some words got omitted somehow. But I can't tell what they are. Michael Hardy 01:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, written after 11 pm. They generate the symmetric group on three letters, just as (13) and (12) do. I'll give this page some more attention (thanks for starting it).
Charles Matthews 09:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi
We seem to be crossing paths on Epic poetry today. The article is a mess, and its great to see someone else interested. I'm hoping to expand the intro and work on the English section, maybe tomorrow. Do you plan any more additions? If so, is there anything I can do to help? I'm gone for two weeks holiday after tomorrow. Bmills 10:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello. I guess my interest in poetry is more shallow (and much more recent) than yours - but genuine, all the same. And I shall go offline for Xmas. I'd be quite interested in supporting the Ariosto listing with more about the Orlando tradition before it (Boiardo certainly). And forward to why the epic died (Coleridge), or didn't (Hardy's Dynasts); but this get speculative.
Charles Matthews 10:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Out of which I might look at the modernist epic (Pound, Olson, Williams, HD, and so on). My first concern will be to try to outline a definition of epic that will mean not having ballads, The Divine Comedy and other non-epics added. And maybe a bit on epic prose. Bmills 10:59, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I was just wondering if Paterson counted. Certainly would be good to see an analysis of the types of longer poems.
Charles Matthews 11:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The Cantos, Paterson, The Maximus Poems, HDs Trilogy, David Jones' The Anathemata might all make the cut.
And Joyce, Gertrude Stein's The Making of Americans, mabye even Lord of the Rings as epic prose?
Bmills 12:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think you might have fun distinguishing epic prose from the prose romance. By the way, the African epics are probably not easily dated - but it would be odd to leave them out. (And I don't see any of the Slav epics, so big gaps anyway.)
Charles Matthews 13:02, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've made a start on Epic poetry today. More to come, I hope. Bmills 15:24, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about object language, I needed more coffee Maury 13:24, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my stupid mistake with Ric Caddel's name. There were a couple more I did myself. Bed early tonight. I hope to write a stub on Ric this week, and maybe back to Epic poetry soon. Bmills 12:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I happened upon a copy of Other in the Amnesty shop yesterday (making me an instant expert). Interesting to see you (I take it) in print. BTW, Paterson?
Charles Matthews 13:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Other features some of my stuff, I'm afraid. But also some very good poetry. Ric died last year on April Fools Day. I knew him well over a period of 20 years or so, stayed with him in Durham several times, he came over here to Ireland a few times. So the article, if I do it, will be a stub and' I'll get his name right.
Someone else, an anon user, recently added my name to an article I had started. A bit of a quandary, but after a bit of thought, I decided to remove myself. Tricky.
I need to reread Paterson before deciding what might be said about it in the context of the modernist epic, but it should be in. Have you read Roy Fisher's City?
Bmills 13:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Tnx for yr to-the-point edit which was also quick enuf to conflict my edit of the parts not worth putting on talk! One of them was to risk nul geodesics-> null geodesics (&mention in summary). Before i proceed, am i right in that? TIA. --Jerzy 03:35, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)
I think 'null' is correct.
Charles Matthews 08:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Charles,
Thanks for all your work. I have trouble keeping up with you! (I also have more immediate demands..., like graduating). I'm learning a lot from your articles. (I'm really only familiar with the little patch of number theory I work in.) Your contributions make the math area one of the best in the wiki (as if I really read anything else...) Revolver 17:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually I have something else I should be working on right now - but that's fighting back. Assume guilt on my behalf. Nice to hear from you, anyway.
Charles Matthews 17:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
RFA
Hi Charles, good work on the mathematics topics. I have nominated you for adminship, please reply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Charles Matthews if you accept the nomination. Dori | Talk 17:58, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have worked on the format here. Caveat: what is good for one browser may not be good for all.
- This is something I always worry about. There's always a conflict between nice formatting and maximum availability. Although, I find it hard to imagine how someone can really explore the math articles here beyond the basics without being able to view the tex in math mode. There are just too many things that are impossible to render in HTML, even if you try. These are some of the guidelines I use, I'm open to comments.
- I think math mode should ALMOST NEVER be used with inline text. Put another way, I think math mode should almost only be used set off separately. I don't think everyone realises the reason for this -- it's not just that it looks awkward; people can set their HTML text to different sizes, while the math mode stays the same size. This really makes it look awkward across different text sizes. It seems to me, if you want to write something inline, but you can't seem to render it using the additions available to HTML, then it's probably exotic or strange enough that it should be put in separated math mode.
- Sometimes I'll take things that could be done in just HTML and make them in math mode. I try to have a good reason for this, usually this is readability; i.e. in HTML it's very difficult to read. An example would be the e^(blah) expression; in HTML, unless you use super-large text, the exponent is hard to read, so I think exp(blah) in math mode works better.
- I realise these are sometimes subjective decisions, so if someone disagrees with something, you can change it (an explanation is nice, but not necessary). The only thing I stand pretty firmly on is the first thing above, I just think math mode should be used inline only as an absolute last resort. (I believe this is wikipedia policy.)
Revolver 18:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey Charles,
Thanks for splitting the intellectual history of time section into time in physics and what is left now. I think this arrangement works better.
Kevin Baas 21:23, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Charles,
Feel free to add some background, motivation etc. to the article Fuchsian group, you're more familiar with how it "fits into" the general case of Lie groups and so on.
Revolver 01:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Haepul&dummy=1&diff=2421971&oldid=2346420
Hello Charles!
Could you shine your light on the Haepul article on Votes for Deletion? Do you have any evidence for or against the term being merely a fabrication? Andre Engels 14:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Nothing definite - but bulgogi is a famous beef dish, so I suppose I'm now suspicious.
Charles Matthews 15:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! You are now a sysop! I recommend adding your name to the list at Wikipedia:Administrators. Tuf-Kat 22:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Matthews
Thanks for working as a moderating force in the first contentious argument I have found myself in here at WP. Nothing like recognizing that you, yourself, need the involvement of a neutral third party. :) Thanks for stepping in.
User:PilotPrecise 11:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK - sysop muscles duly flexed, and I should perhaps ration the number of contentious topics I take on at once.
Charles Matthews 13:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Charles, I edited monad (category theory) and I believe that the article was mixing monads and comonads, so please check. Also, I could not come up with a good description of the map T(T(X)) -> T(X) in the example. What is it anyway? AxelBoldt 15:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On the example: if Free(X) is the free group on the set X, then there is a fairly obvious concatenation map C:Free(Free(X)) -> Free(X), where the LHS is 'abuse of notation' for the free group on the set underlying the free group on X. In words, what C does is to take strings of (strings of elements of X and inverses) just to strings, by dropping all parentheses. This, I think, is a fundamental example, and even more basic for free monoids (where it is a little clearer, also). As for mixing monads and comonads, it is very easily done since these are dual concepts - I don't immediately see a definite mistake.
I think the motivation in relation to adjoint functors needs to be emphasised - otherwise it is hard (from my perspective) to see why this is an interesting concept. I realised quite recently that there are some quite basic intuitions (monads are about 'closure', comonads are about 'propagation') that help to distinguish the ideas; but one step at a time! Obviously one can proceed by generalising the closure operator side first.
Charles Matthews 15:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Recently I have tried to make two edits to the article on periodic functions since it is a redirect for periodic and the current article seems heavy on the math. I use the term "heavy" simply because some of the people following links redirected to this article could be those whose math skills may be rusty to non-existant. I believe I understand the reason for the reversion you made on my first edit. I do think a rewording to make it more "accurate" in the context of the article would have been better. I am still not sure why my second attempt at bringing in some common examples was reverted as well.
My intent is not to change the content of the article, but to assist anyone who may arrive at this article via the periodic article which redirects to periodic function. It would be a waste to try and write an entire article on the word periodic since the layman's understanding of the term is so close to the subject of this article. I just think some readers may be put off by all the math and a simple one or two sentences added to this article at the beginning would satisfy the needs of a novice reader while giving them the chance to expand their knowledge by continuing to read the rest of the article. I realize a dictionary would provide the same assistance, but I do not see the harm in generalizing a little more at the beginning of the article for the benefit of those who are simply "passing through". It may even be beneficical to the article because it would let such passersby in on the greater depth of meaning associated with this subject. I have used this approach on many articles and this is the first one I have had resistance on. Perhaps my attemps are not appropriate for this type of article, but I do see a need which someone needs to satisfy.
COMPATT 17:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I didn't revert (which would mean sending the page back to the state before you edited it). I rewrote and expanded what you added. Please understand that this is not 'resistance', as you put it, but the normal process, as explained by text under the edit box.
Charles Matthews 17:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My apologies! I am still not used to reading these edit histories and obviously jumped the gun! Your version (now that I have seen it) is much better than what I was trying to do. (...) Thanks for your quick response to my inquirey. Feel free to revert this portion to give yourself more room for more important things or leave it as an example of "open mouth insert foot".
Charles, I don't know if you saw my comments on Talk:Symplectic space before you redirected the page (which I did than undid a couple days ago). Should we have a separate page on linear symplectic spaces?
Fropuff 15:30, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)
Under the 'old' name, alternating form or skew-symmetric form, there is some basic algebra and I'm not sure we have that yet. Yes, somewhere - it isn't obvious to me that linear symplectic space is good except as a redirect name. I always think of these as alternating forms. By the way, none of the theory seems to be that well founded until one has Darboux's theorem.
Charles Matthews 15:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I guess the few pages now referring to symplectic space are using it to mean a manifold anyway, so it works for now.
Fropuff 15:47, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)
I wont arguments, not just "I think is unusefull" !!!
Hello - I assume you were using 24.232.13.196, which I blocked; you are now editing under another IP number. I think you'll find that those using the mathematics pages are reasonable people; they are also in most cases highly qualified (doctoral level). Your edits in some cases have contained mistakes. So, forgive us if we don't value them. You may have big contributions to make to this web site. But everyone here must learn to discuss differences. Every article has a talk page, and it is much better if you put forward arguments on those, when there is any problem.
Charles Matthews 16:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see you are reverting the affine and abelian pages. You should not do this just to prove you can. If you have contributions, please make them. However, I think your definition of abelian is not the usual one. Therefore I can't agree with your edit.
Charles Matthews 16:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
NOW is OK. You are are completely right is NOT the usual and when I get used to your posting method I will justifie it. meantime I'll very carefull.
Please try to understand that everyone is welcome here. I understand that beginning here is not so easy. But it is better if you ask questions at this stage. If you just continue to post material that others don't accept, nothing gets better for you, or me.
Charles Matthews 17:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please, see Eckmann-Hilton argument and make yours comments. How this links with (x T y) T (u T z) = (x T u) T (y T z) will come.
I see the page. I don't feel qualified to comment at present.
Charles Matthews 21:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've now had a look at the external links from that page. I'll just say that the fundamental monoidal category material here is not very strong.
Charles Matthews 21:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
the very point is: we MUST avoid monoids which are consequence of postulated bilateral neutre element. That's the theme of abelian -> affine -> convex, etc. you will see and make comments. END
I think you give me too much credit. Can I comment that the aim here is to produce articles on '[classical' material, mostly; and not in research topics.
Charles Matthews 22:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I can't reffrain to quote: "This is all very simple. Historically, however, it took people a long to really understand. It's one of those things that's too simple to take seriously until it turns out to have complicated ramifications. Now it goes by the name of the "Eckmann-Hilton theorem", which says that "a monoid object in the category of monoids is a commutative monoid". You practically need a PhD in math to understand that! However, lest you think that Eckmann and Hilton were merely dressing up the obvious in fancy jargon, it's important to note that what they did was to figure out a framework that turns the above "picture proof" that a+b = b+a into an actual rigorous proof! This is one of the goals of higher-dimensional algebra." from John Baez: Eckmann-Hilton principle (week 100) the ideas are so SIMPLE that we can call them, CLASSICAL. (sorry if too much emphasis, I'am an old man, so bad on that)
OK, what we do here is different from what John Baez does, though. We can perfectly well have the result that a monoid object in the category of monoids is commutative.
Charles Matthews 23:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This discussion reminds me of a comment that is often made about the integration of differential forms and Stoke's theorem -- namely, that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to become acquainted and comfortable with the definitions and notation, but once you have mastered these, the proof of Stoke's theorem is almost trivial. It sounds like a similar thing may be going on here. Perhaps after taking time to digest the definition of "n-dimensional category" (if I remember) and its motivation, the E-H principle really is as simple as visualising a + b turning into b + a. Still, working up to those definitions is not simple (most people don't really grasp why we talk about categories until grad school), and given the fact that these ideas seem to have been settled and clarified just over the past 5-10 years, I find it hard to call it "classical". But if the result has been published and verified, and appropriate articles can be made for all definitions involved, then there's no reason it can't be included. Revolver 02:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The Eckmann-Hilton argument is generally regarded as the reason why the higher homotopy groups are abelian. I shall explain what it means in the context of algebraic structure on symmetric monoidal categories. This topic provides the foundations for a theory of wiring diagrams in computer science and is also a necessary step in the development of the higher dimensional linear algebra needed to provide an account of topological field theory. In the talk I shall concentrate on characterising some simple concrete categories of wiring diagrams. -- Dr J.M.E. Hyland (Cambridge)
- This certainly gives credence that E-H is a very important argument. Revolver 02:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Martin Hyland is someone whom I know (he lives two streets away). Yes, it seems that this is a basic piece of category theory. Now, if we could get a self-contained treatment onto the page ...
Charles Matthews 08:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi. The analogy with the generalized (Cartan way) Stokes' theorem is great! (Curl, divergence, gradient; Stokes, Gauss, Green, all is ONE) but remember: "the very point is: we MUST avoid monoids which are consequence of postulated bilateral neutral element." I'll try "contained treatment onto the page ..." and SIMPLE! Bye
Hi again. Please, see Eckmann-Hilton argument (and monoid object, category of monoids)and make at least style, comments. when finished I'll return to metric spaces see why. thanks.
I've been looking at the pages you have created. Obviously I feel I should wait until you have reached some end point of your development, before editing. The one on cancellation is OK. Otherwise there are basic problems, still.
Charles Matthews 09:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It seems like there's about 3 or 4 different articles (new definitions and ideas) going on at Eckmann-Hilton argument, is there some way these can be broken up? If something is relevant, it can stay, but in general if there's enough to write a whole paragraph or description for a new definition, that starts a new article. Revolver 08:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have to say I don't know where this leads. If this is heading for some original research, then the policy is that that has no place here.
Charles Matthews 08:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sound power and Acoustic power both say they are power in one second. Surely power is a reate of energy, so it could be energy in one second. I didn't edit the pages because I am not sure enough of my facts. -- User:SGBailey 20040301
Sure, a Watt is a Joule per second. If there is an extra 'per second' in there ... there shouldn't be.
Charles Matthews 15:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello Charles, I wonder if you care to weigh in on a terminology question. Consider a directed graph which has no cycles. Would you call that an "acyclic directed graph" or a "directed acyclic graph"? As far as I know the two are synonymous, but the latter is more common than the former. Feel free to comment or not as you wish. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Usually a DAG, as you say. Charles Matthews 08:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
numbers...
By all means, please remove the protection and help shape the article. That would be terrific. Kingturtle 17:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sam Storr
Thanks for deleting the "Sam Storr" vandalism. You might also want to delete Talk:Sam Storr... Lupo 13:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1729
Engaging in edit wars and then protecting those pages is completely unacceptable. Anthony DiPierro 16:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand your attitude. Firstly I'm qualified to write the material. Secondly I cleared my intervention with User:Kingturtle, who had found it necessary to protect the page, as it was. Thirdly, I have expanded and improved the material. Since User:Wik reverted everything, I had no choice but to protect the new pages.
By the way, I invited comments here on the content. Perhaps you should limit your comments to that.
Charles Matthews 16:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)