User talk:Floorsheim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks. These holomovement articles are very discouraging. Also have a look at the history of Many-worlds interpretation. The article is OK now, although I had to negotiate by leaving a link to holomovement.CSTAR 02:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] New holomovement redirect
Yes, this new article is an enormous improvement. The previous holomovement article was worthless (IMHO).CSTAR 15:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- What happened to the redirect?CSTAR 04:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Rfc / Neutrality [1]
Just an FYI for you, from Rex071404 16:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC):
Neutrality was admonished recently for moving evidence that was not his from an Arbitration page to a discussion (talk page). He did this twice! And when reported to Arbitrator Fred Bauder by me (the victim of his actions), Neutrality was admonsihed by thusly:
"User:Rex071404 is permitted in his section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence to make whatever he feels is an appropriate statement or presentation of evidence. He is a full participant in the arbitration. (A status you have granted him by filing a complaint against him.). He is entitled to present his views, provided they are in a clearly marked separate section, in whatever form he choses. Moving his statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 12:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality"
[edit] Your vote needed at George_W._Bush
Please go here, ASAP and vote.
Rex071404 07:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] New Bush vote now under way - please vote
Here [2]
Rex071404 15:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Holomovement
I my limited exposure to "redirects", I have seen potential for misuse. However, I am not in any way suggesting that here.
Even so, since Holomovement issue is complex, please tell me in brief your (3) best reasons why I should support your desired redirect.
I will give the matter my full attention as soon as you provide the three reasons.
Rex071404 16:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Holomovement
Hi. I'm not really the best person to help on something like this. All I can suggest is that you move the inappropriate parts of the article to the talk page and ask for sources to be given before it is replaced. This will ensure the content is real, and not one person's POV. Have a look at Talk:Time Cube and Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory for similar problems with people defending their own POV on their pet theories. Perhaps you could leave a note on those talk pages suggesting that the people involved there look at the Holomovement issue. Don't let it stress you too much, and try not to resort to calling people crazy, even if they are. Angela. 16:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Holomovement
Why don't you do the redirect, but also perhaps, have concise sub-section summarizing the "Holomovement" concept, so as to pacify the guardians of the current page?
Rex071404 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Due to limited formal education on these concepts, I am not sure why it's important that a "Holomovement" page as currently comprised, is bad for the general welfare of the readers.
Rex071404 00:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Non-separable Hilbert space
Let X be uncountable. The space
of complex-valued sequences φ such that
is non-separable. Most Hilbert spaces that arise in analysis and geometry are separable, but non-separable ones are sometimes unavoidable.CSTAR 23:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- As I mentioned previously, most spaces which occur in Analysis are separable. However, in some sense, non-separable ones are unnavoidable. For insatnce, the the algebra of all operators on a separable infinite dimensional space has naturally occurring irreducible representations on non-separable spaces.CSTAR 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Axiom of choice
How do show the family
exists which satisfies your conditions? It boils down to the same question.CSTAR 22:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
If you think about the problem procedurally, then how do you write a procedure that actually "picks" an element from a set? Note that most mathematicians don't worry about this problem (or even regard it as a problem). But this is something that you cannot ignore if you try to think carefully about the nature of mathematics. What does it mean to say that a solution to a problem exists? In what way does it exist -- or naively where does it exist? If you think of it the problem procedurally, you have a systematic way of providing an answer. Otherwise, you may end up mired in other more idealist (in the sense of philosophical idealism) answers. These aren't necessarilly bad, but they're harder and you thus provide material demand for a not very socially useful academic industry. I myself use the Axiom of Choice shamelessly. CSTAR 17:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Proof using or not using the Riemann hypothesis
- "Even after Riemann's conjecture is proved, the fact that some theorem has a proof not using it is important" I disagree. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, assuming its negation is a contradiction; and anything follows from a contradiction. Also, if Riemann's conjecture is true, assuming it to be true is a tautology; and anything that follows from a tautology is, itself, a tautology. It would definitely be interesting, though, to see a proof of the theorem you referenced that didn't go along the lines of A٨¬A → {A, ¬A} → {A٧B, ¬A} → B, but it wouldn't establish anything unknown. –Floorsheim 21:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"A proof not using the Riemann hypothesis" is not at all the same thing as "a proof using the negation of the Riemann hypothesis." Suppose A has a short simple proof using the Riemann hypothesis, and a short simple proof not using the Riemann hypothesis. If the Riemann hypothesis is hard to prove (as appears to be the case), then wouldn't the short simple proof of A not using the Riemann hypothesis make the proof of A accessible to those who haven't worked through the proof of the Riemann hypothesis? And might it not be important for that reason? Michael Hardy 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Regular representation
A similar fact that is true for compact groups, BTW. Every compact group can be separated by finiote dimensional ones. Incidentally the left regular representation contains each irreducible representation of dimension n, n times.CSTAR 15:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Implicate and explicate order
I have been working on a substantially new version of the article, incorporating the great examples but attempting to elucidate the core features of Bohm's views. Any objections? Let me know Stephenhumphry 05:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kissing Swans
Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note re the swans - good picture isn't it! I took this about 10 years ago and this was scanned in using a high resolution scanner. I can email you the larger photo as scanned if that will help. Kind regards :) The curate's egg 12:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] {{User Pennsylvania}}
I was clearing out Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pennsylvania. I added this template to your page. Feel free to remove it, and thanks for understanding. --evrik 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
