User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Wikiquette Alert

I have posted a Wikiquette alert regarding your incivility here [[1]] LowKey (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact

That edit is about AIG's saying evolution is not a theory, but the section is about Evolution as fact, shouldn't it be removed entirely as I did? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does this section exist? If any or all parts of the theory are fact the theory will speak for itself. Otherwise any fallacies will speak for itself. All this does is further promote a NON Neutral POV. Sfvace (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the math formulas

Dear respectable Rabbit,

I observed your problem with the edits of the formula in Hilbert space. On my browser (Firefox, and Windows XP) the formula, after you revert it again, does not display correctly: I see the TeX source line instead. This is probably the reason for the numerous good faith edits. I tried something silly: add a useless period "." in front of \langle: then it displays OK! There is a bug somewhere. With best wishes, Bdmy (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Inflection points

Wow, I'm amazed. I've always thought that an inflection point was where f'' was zero or undefined, but some searching on Google books tells me that I'm entirely wrong; I can't find anything to back me up! (I think of all the students I've misled...)

I seem to remember learning it the wrong way back when I took calculus initially. Or perhaps it's because f''=0 is precisely the condition to be an inflection point in the sense of algebraic curves (i.e. the tangent line meets the curve with intersection multiplicity at least 3). In any case, thanks for the fix and for the reference. Ozob (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Noah's Ark

Since you've contributed to the recent discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark, this is just a courtesy note to let you know a RFC has been filed here. Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vector spaces

Hi,

I have asked for a GA review at the round table, but people are busy/dizzy with LateX formatting and icon questions ;) I thought you might be interested in having a look at vector spaces and giving it a GA review? This is the page. Thanks a lot. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

"The bottom line is that those with a creationist agenda always seem to advance the 51% figure" No I am Agnostic, Personally Creationism is a bit absurd to me, some Theists believe in evolution however they can not agree on how why and when, I was just looking on recent changes and I saw an edit that said Most people dont believe in Evolution, I then Found a link that said who and what percentage, really I think there are more important things to argue about then if we were created or not by some other supernatural force. but seriously what does the collective European belief system have to do with an american poll. If there is some kind of a conflict maybe I could help people find common ground thanks --Zaharous (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

well said me too --Zaharous (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific objections to Darwin's theory

Ironically this is something I plan on getting published. So if it gets published you will leave it? Well I wrote this outside of the book and they are logical arguments, so how do you expect I source a logical argument?

When a human being is cremated he leaves behind no fossil, and the question was raised that how can any "scientist" know if species like human beings were alive in the past for sure in that case. Why would you need a source for this and what kind of source would you expect?

I found this argument upon reading of some convo between some guru and someone else (I'm not a member of that temple) and brought this argument to light in this page in which the talk page decided is right. Would you like me to find that convo and use it as a source? How about Doctor's using penacilin part? Come on.Sfvace (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reply ignores what I said above and does not make sense. Again, how do you expect I source a logical argument?

When a human being is cremated he leaves behind no fossil, and the question was raised that how can any "scientist" know if species like human beings were alive in the past for sure in that case. Why would you need a source for this and what kind of source would you expect? How about Doctor's using penacilin part? Geez talk about illogical bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you that Sinbot user who commented on this matter also? I thought so.

Anyway so ok, would you like an obitchuary that proves human beings are cremated and that cremated ashes can't be found years later by scientists lmao? Perhaps I should publish this on a website and have someone else source the argument with my publication? These should be jokes but since you will keep deleting it otherwise I have to ask.Sfvace (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now you want to jump to the Hindu evolution part. I am NOT doing that, OTHERS are. Ex; i changed word MYTH to Hindu teachings. These ARE Hindu teachings. Whether you believe the teachings or I do or do not is another issue. MYTH automatically IMPLIES FROM the PERSON who wrote it that it's false. Tell THEM to stop this. You could have at least changed it to religious teachings or something. Kalki-Tech savy avatar. WHAT? I put Buddha as SPIRITUAL something. That is false? I DETAILED the Hindu and/or Iskcon teachings and SOURCED it with SPECIFIC Guru's/temples quotations. This is bad? Tell me your just messing with me, that would be better to know.Sfvace (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Buddhist or anything but Buddha was a real person.JJ Cool D 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said Buddha was not real so your comment makes no sense. In that section I called him a Spiritual something, i.e. Spiritual teacher. One of many things people distort delete and run away, like this guy here. He won't, LOGICALLY, fully answer anything. He edit wars and shifts the burdon of proof on me to go to some hidden talk pages, among other things. Sfvace (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hindu evolution

Ok finally you tried to explain. Hindus teach that there are always 8.4 million species within the Universe was certainly in the source cited. Please read ALL the sources in FULL. IF you say you did that, I will take your word and add the source. Furthermore, yes I changed the word "belief" in this sentence have expressed their belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is false to the word THEIR understanding. If I say the Buddhist understanding of creation is that of a mental illusion or something, it does not denounce the Big Bang theory. The remaining edits are largely sourced to this website http://www.hknet.org.nz/Darwin-evolution-fantasy-page.htm, which is most reliable in THIS section because they are HINDUS, one the major ones, who talk about this issue. Should I source a Darwinist or Muslim site??

Sfvace (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)If you wish could YOU make your case? These are not quite good or solid grounds firmly rooted in Wikipedia policies. You did not even bother to confront the MYTHS (POV) parts that were used before I edited that part, IMPLYING the teachings of the HIndus are false, or the "tech savy" avatar lol part, or MANY other stuff. Heck look above, you didn't answer the logical questions about your complaints about SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS to evolution. You can't delete logical or factual stuff just because your anti-anything creationist or attached to Darwinism.

By the way you didn't leave a link to any talk page for this matter and some idiot deleted the above reply to you as vandalism lol. See how stupid some edits are? I forgot to sign above so I came back to do so is all I did. Sfvace (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "trust him as an editor" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Miximatosis?

Hello. From your user page, I thought you might have left WP. Glad to see that you haven't. Please carry on doing your excellent work :) Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

recent edits re homogeneous space category

Howdy. I noticed you've added lens space to the homogeneous space category. In a relatively strict sense, most lens spaces are not homogeneous -- there is no finite-dimensional lie group that acts transitively. Only a few lens spaces have transitive finite-dimensional lie group actions. Darryl McCullough has a paper on the arXiv where he computes the maximal symmetry groups of all the lens spaces, which quantifies my statement. But maybe you are thinking of the lens spaces to be homogeneous in a broader sense -- their diffeomorphism/homeomorphism group acts transitively? But in that sense, all manifolds are homogeneous. So it would be better to put the homogeneous space link to the manifold page and not the lens space page, as it would cause less confusion. The same comments apply to "nilmanifold" being homogeneous. etc... Rybu (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was badly confused. I've reverted my edit. Thanks for correcting me. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WikiProject maths

It's all in the title...

Topology Expert (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Any fibre bundle over a contractible space is trivial

Dear silly rabbit,

I noticed that you removed the word 'clear' from this statement. Was this removal because of WP:POV (that is, it maybe clear to most people but not clear to some)? I know that it follows from a (slightly) non-trivial theorem (namely the covering homotopy theorem for fibre bundles), but in my opinion, even if the theorem is considered non-trivial, it is at least intutively clear. What is your opinion?

Topology Expert (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Branch point

Dear silly rabbit,

Could you please tell me why you removed that section there (explain why it was incorrect)?

Topology Expert (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I knew that you meant that 'all but a finite number of points' (see WikiProject mathematics) but any natural measure on a Riemann surface would allow a finite set to have measure 0 so almost everywhere is correct (but not as strong a result as 'all but a finite number of points').

Topology Expert (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean it in a technical sense, but rather in an intuitive sense (consequently I opted not to Wikilink it). As you say (and I agree), I should have said "finite number of points". Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And the article is now lacking a formal definition. Please explain before you revert such a large section.

Topology Expert (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are actually two formal definitions in the article. Maybe you should start by reading these. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that my formal definition was based on the 'intuitive definition' given in the lede. If that formal definition was wrong, then the intutive definition must also be (unless it is my interpretation mistake).

Topology Expert (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct response for you would be to find a reference. I'm not sure a formal definition for multivalued functions even exists. But your definition cannot be right. It says "Let f be a complex-valued function defined on the complex plane such that f is also holomorphic. A point z in the domain of f is said to be a branch point of f …" But a holomorphic function cannot have a branch point in its domain. And there are other problems as well. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No. A holomorphc function can have a branch point. Take the function mapping any complex number to its 1.5th power.

Topology Expert

This is not a function in the usual sense. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the point (it is actually a function; remember, it is a mapping from the complex plane to itself).

Topology Expert ([p[User talk:Topology Expert|talk]]) 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to engage in edit wars, but I still have not got an explanation as to why what I have written is incorrect. I certainly respect silly rabbit (and in fact when I saw that my edit had been reverted, my first thought was that I had made a mistake) and that is why I did not revert his revert (which I would have done in this case for most other editors). However, I am not convinced that my edit is wrong. Silly rabbit wrote that ‘this is not a function in the usual sense’ leads me to believe that he does not understand the concept behind ‘branch points’ but it is (as a map from the complex plane to itself (which is implied)).

Could you please explain clearly your reasons behind reverting my edit and why my example was not valid?

Topology Expert (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you remove you 'Wikibreak' notice? :)

Topology Expert (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry. I will have a look at those two definitions and then come back here.

Topology Expert (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear rabbit,

I didn’t get a chance to see your comment so I thought that you had not explained but you had. Sorry about that. However, the first definition is ‘’really’’ inaccurate (I think that you will agree). The second definition is definitely formal but most readers (and even some professors!) will not understand/appreciate Riemann surfaces (though I certainly do!) and it is therefore probably best to also give the definition for just the complex plane. I believe that my definition is equivalent to the one given on the complex plane, yes?

I looked up some references as Jitse suggested but the only reference I found was from mathworld and there my definition agrees with theirs. So, I am going to add back mine unless you think it is wrong and in that case we can discuss further (I will wait for a response but if none is provided I will add back my definition).

Topology Expert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you want to define the function mapping any complex number to its 1.5th power, but it is not holomorphic at zero, because it's not twice differentiable. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is holomorphic according to the article. But if you mean holomorphic as smooth (in the complex sense) then you are right that a holomorphic function can have no branch points. But I only require one-times continuously differentiable. What were the other things wrong with my definition (you said that there were others)?

Topology Expert (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will remove the first definition. The second definition probably explains it in a more formal manner (but what about the function mapping a complex number to its 1.5th power? Isn't that holomorphic (link provided to show that it is according to Wikipedia) although it has a branch point at 0?).

I did not mean to upset you (sorry if I did) but I just wondered why my definition was wrong (as I said, my first thought was that I had made the mistake so I asked why I was wrong here but since there was no explanation, I added it back).

OK. I will discuss at the talk page from now on.

Topology Expert (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Silly Rabbit. Regarding your comment on Talk:Branch point, there is no need to apologise, and thanks a lot for going to so much effort with the article. I just wanted to let you know I'm typing some stuff up at the moment, it's fairly long, and I need to get it out of the way. I'd rather take my time and think as I go through the article, so if you don't mind waiting a bit longer I'll hopefully get that chance while this stuff is still fresh in your mind. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unit interval

Why shouldn't this be included in the lede (you know what I am referring to)? As you know, the compactness of the unit interval has many important consequences and so does contractibility and local contractibility. The lede should discuss its main role in mathematics and this statement is probably appropriate for that. Hence I am reverting.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement itself is unencyclopedic. One issue is that it is an unsourced opinion, which is discouraged by a number of content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. Secondly, the statement has no factual content of relevance to the article, aside from expressing the opinion of its author. It contributes nothing to the understanding of the unit interval. If you would like to lobby for its inclusion, then perhaps you should start a request for comment on the talk page of the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, these are important, but so are lots of other things. The real numbers for example, are even more important, but we manage not to patronize the reader

Also, with regards to integral: I am sure that you know that it is basic, yes? Integration is probably level 3 mathematics on a scale from 1-10. I am not going to revert your edit as I know you probably won't agree (and I know how you are like when it comes to edit wars). But I don't understand why you seem to be targeting the articles that I have edited recently. If you are going to make more such changes, I will most probably request that each one of them be discussed.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See basic mathematics. According to most definitions of "basic mathematics", calculus is not considered to be a part of it. In your own opinion, calculus may be quite easy, but we do try to write articles based on sources rather than the opinions of its editors. Realistically, this may not always work.

Dear Silly rabbit,

Integral:

Probability theory uses the Lebesgue integral which I would consider different from the 'calculus integral' (which is what the article discusses). Of course, the Lebesgue integral agrees with the Riemann integral on the real line if we assume that the real line is equipped with its natural sigma algebra and measure.

Partial differential equations use the 'calculus' (or more correctly, Riemann) integral, don't they? I don't know much about differential equations so correct me if I am wrong.

Integrals studied in differential geometry are in a sense different from the Riemann integral but of course agree in the natural setting. So technically speaking (and of course differential topology is also interested in classifying unnatural structures), this is not the 'calculus integral'.

Geometric measure theory, again, is the same as for measure theory.

Anyway, I am not interested in adding stuff to that article so I might as well stop. Perhaps you are right that my additions may give a false impression for 'laypeople'. But (on a different note) originally the article wrote that the integral was an 'advanced concept' in mathematics which is definitely false. In particular, I notice that quite a few people get the impression that calculus is the 'highest mathematics'.

Unit interval:

The real numbers are of course important but in topology for example, there are a lot of 'flaws' with R. The biggest flaw is of course compactness which the unit interval satisfies. I have read through all those policies but I still don't understand why it would not be a good idea to note that the interval is contractible and compact and in particular, why these porperties are very important in mathematics (for example, homotopy theory).

Topology Expert (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply gave examples. To say that the integral (Lebesgue integral/Riemann integral/"calculus" integral) is unimportant in mathematics is laughably absurd. What about numerical analysis, for instance? The point is, contrary to your own position as a "Topology Expert", the integral actually is used in mathematical areas besides mathematical analysis and calculus, and is more than just slightly important there. Saying that it is unimportant outside these areas is at best totally incorrect, and at worst highly misleading. If you want to argue the point, then that's fine. But saying it unqualified in the first sentence of the article without any further explanation is unacceptable. As for "unit interval", the statement in question is baldly and clearly unencyclopedic. I don't understand why we are even having this discussion it is so clear. Please take your gripe to the article talk page, where CBM has already commented. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that the integral was unimportant. Of course it is important! I don't even think I implied it. In fact, the only place where the integral is really important would be outside these areas. Not to say that it is not important in calculus. But for pure mathematics sake, calculus (that is what they teach in first year university or even second year for that matter) is not very important. The integral used in any other branch of mathematics is important (except for calculus but differential equations is not what I would call calculus). I certainly did not intend to imply what you have written. Topology Expert (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the term from "core" to "fundamental". Although the two words technically mean the same thing, the former suggests "deep", whereas the latter suggests "sine qua non". Ça va? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the integral really 'essential' to mathematics? I don't know whether you have experienced this, but quite a few people think that calculus (and 'integral') is the 'highest mathematics'. Do we want to support this? By saying fundamental, you are saying that the integral is one of the most important concepts in mathematics. As much as I have to agree for the Lebesgue integral, I don't like it very much! In particular, you are emphasizing that mathematicians still only do integration. As far as I am concerned, very few people research integration (in terms of the fields you have mentioned) compared to the other branches of maths. On that note, when I first learnt about differentiable manifolds, I was disappointed that they are only restricted to locally Euclidean spaces! Why isn't differentiability like continuity which can be defined for arbitrary topological spaces (don't have to answer that, I now know that there are more general manifolds)? But there is still a lot to do with manifolds so I got used to it. Anyway, my point is that perhaps you could change 'fundamental' to 'important'.

Topology Expert (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

0.999...

Hi,

Katzmik recently reverted my edits at this page under the suggestion that his version is agreed on by you. You hadn't explicitly said this, you simply edited the section after him, so I was wondering if you'd care to comment at the talk page.

Thanks Thenub314 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Arzela

I disagree with you. I will explain on talk page. Bdmy (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Please take a look at User:Bdmy/Arzela, where I wrote a slight modification of the proof that should, I hope, satisfy both of us. The changes are:

in the statement (I use only equicontinuity)

in the last twelve lines or so (having only equicontinuity gives a "true" open cover of the compact interval).

With best wishes, --Bdmy (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And may you have an adequate festivus! siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me

Yeah, that "enmity/emmity" actually looked weird to me, but that's not a word I ever use so I figured I was wrong. I won't give AWB the benefit of the doubt next time.—Chowbok ☠ 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Relativity

Beautiful!

Thanks,

Wild Surmise (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Relativity - "Relativity of Simultaneity"

But is it necessary to add here something to the effect that no reference frame is privileged or more valid than another?

Without this isn't the statement as it stands "trivial"?

Please advise,

Wild Surmise (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. In special relativity, I suppose that there are privileged reference frames: there are measurements that will distinguish between (for instance) an accelerated reference frame and a non-accelerated reference frame. I think saying that the observers can be inertial will resolve this particular ambiguity. Let me know what you think. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Just wanted to say thanks for your welcome on my talk page. I've been lurking on a few articles for about 6 months now and certainly appreciate the work that the science- and science-related folks are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietmarc (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)