User talk:Arjun r acharya

Welcome, but caution about possible spam

Hello Arjun, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have to draw your attention to a discussion I started at Talk:Entropy#An editor put an Arxiv_paper in Further Reading. Although that paper may be of interest, it's not clear that it belongs in an introductory article like Entropy. When in doubt, it is always best to propose new items on the Talk page first to allow other editors to advise on whether a new item belongs. This is especially true when the paper is not cited within the article itself, and is not being used as a reference.

You are welcome to add your own views at Talk:Entropy if you believe the paper is important enough to be included there. If so you might consider if it is important enough to justify adding new text to the article as well. You might wish to propose appropriate text. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to : Welcome, but caution about possible spam

Thank you for your comments EdJohnston. Your concerns about spam are completely unwarranted. See the discussion page of Entropy[1] (entitled Response to "An editor put an Arxiv paper in Further Reading") for a more indepth reply. Arjun R. Acharya

Response to Topology Edit

I understand that your edit was made in the interest of clarity, but I reverted it for consistency reasons. The article had at that point made no other mention of ${\mathcal {T}}_{X}$ and ${\mathcal {T}}_{Y}$; a person familiar with that notation would understand that they are the topologies carried by X and Y, but you did not bother to explain that. A better way to word it would have been "$f:X\rightarrow Y$ where X and Y carry the topologies ${\mathcal {T}}_{X}$ and ${\mathcal {T}}_{Y}$, respectively". However, even writing this would still be pointless, as the article would then go on to make no other mention of ${\mathcal {T}}_{X}$ and ${\mathcal {T}}_{Y}$; it defines continuity without using these symbols. If you want to do it that way, you have to change more of the article to fit. IMO, a better way to make the point you seem to be intending would be to simply add in a sentence noting that whether or not a function is continuous depends on the topologies involved, and not just its nature as a map of sets. (As a side note, parentheses, not braces, are called for when pairing a set with a topology on it. Yes, the axiom of foundation makes braces OK, but 1. it'll still confuse people, and 2. you shouldn't rely on the axiom of foundation!) Sniffnoy (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)