User talk:Arcfrk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi there. I saw your reply to my expert request on the Artin reciprocity page and I look forward to any insight you might be able to add. Welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to drop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and see what other mathematicians are talking about around here. VectorPosse 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Arcfrk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
I was also very impressed by your comments on Hilbert space. Welcome indeed! Geometry guy 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome from me too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The English-language Wikipedia mathematics community tends to be a blissfully quiet backwater compared to the turbulence of the mainstream. Our articles are numerous, but vary widely in age, thoroughness, accuracy, and so on. Some of our editors are multilingual, but the typical Yank is not. Many of our editors have some level of university training, usually enough to help settle technical disputes. Good help is always appreciated, as is good company. Welcome. --KSmrqT 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Function
Fabulous edit to function (mathematics)! The article finally has a proper lead! You may face resistence from existing editors there, but I will back you up 100% and I hope others will too. Your edit shows great mathematical insight and the breadth of interpretation and knowledge that I believe such a general article should articulate. (See also my comments on the talk page of the article.) I wish I had had the courage to make such an edit myself - the article desperately needed a breath of fresh air. Thanks for bringing it. Geometry guy 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words! As a matter of fact, as I explained on the talk page, I was very much inspired by your very well thought-out comments. Arcfrk 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Been there, commented briefly, and made a few minor edits to your contribution (I hope correctly). I was very happy to hear that my comments inspired your efforts. Geometry guy 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Differential calculus
It sounds to me like you might also care (and know in some detail) about the category differential calculus. This category desperately needs help. At the moment the main article is Derivative: this is a nice introduction, but only covers derivatives in one variable. The calculus article is not as good, and there is essentially no introductory article on calculus in many variables. Your comments and edits would be very welcome. Geometry guy 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have any comments on my edits to Derivative let me know. I replied to your question on my talk page. Geometry guy 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed your very sensible restructuring of derivative (generalizations). The next stage in my plan for derivative is to add an elementary section on vector-valued derivatives and derivatives in higher dimensions. Geometry guy 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are too kind to my edits. The "generalizations of derivatives" article still needs a lot of work, probably, summarizing some content and moving it out to separate articles, it's a big hodge-podge with lots of bold font at the moment. I indeed looked at the Derivative, it's in much better shape than before thanks to your efforts. We are on the same wavelength concerning this whole topic, I especially liked your comment about "derivatives of functions of one variable and Banach space derivatives - some reality check needed".
Arcfrk 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I realised your edits were just a start, but we've got to start somewhere, and preferably in the right direction! I'm very glad that I am not the only one who has noticed the strange dichotomy between the elementary and inaccessibly advanced in the differentiation articles: if you want to know the pain I feel as a geometer, take a look at chain rule ;-) Geometry guy 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inner product space
Thanks for your comment. I responded on my talk page. Hopefully, I didn't make the article worse.--CSTAR 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reverts
We have both been spending too much time recently on rewriting or reverting each other's contributions. Perhaps it would be more productive if we both agree just to add to the other's work, and not remove or revert it (except as necessary for corrections). R.e.b. 13:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree. As you might have guessed from my earlier comments, I am a bit picky about the accuracy issues, which, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary haisplitting. Arcfrk 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Attitude adjustment
I felt I should pay a visit and offer some guidance, based on comments you left on my talk page and elsewhere. To say what I have to say, I must speak plainly; I hope you will not be offended.
As I mentioned in my previous welcoming message, many of us who contribute to mathematics articles here bring professional training and experience. However, we prefer to base our discussions on sound arguments and facts, not background and status. In fact, this is the professional way to behave, and tends to expedite our path to quality results.
Although I don't enjoy it, I can handle an occasional insult or slight. And I do understand that the Wikipedia process can be frustrating, even infuriating, and that we are all human beings with egos and emotions and other forces in our lives. But I think you will find it counterproductive to bristle if you are questioned, and very counterproductive to "throw your weight around".
I like to encourage an environment that is forgiving of mistakes, so long as someone does not make it a lifestyle. That includes emotional outbursts as well as errors in fact or blunders in copyediting. For example, I have quietly corrected mistakes that could have been caught by careful proofreading in edits you have made. Others have done the same for me.
If you have expert knowledge and experience to contribute, it won't take long for you to establish credibility and a good reputation in this community. I notice you do not state credentials on your user page; neither do I. I am satisfied — in fact, prefer — to have my contributions speak for themselves. And it rather forces me to convince with compelling arguments, not bluster.
I get the impression that you think a lot of your own opinion. Maybe that's justified. Maybe in time we'll come to think so, too. But if we do, it will be because of what we see for ourselves. So far, most of what I see is good; the rest, I hope, can be adjusted. --KSmrqT 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Apology" accepted. Arcfrk 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
I replied on my talk page. BTW, welcome to wikipedia, hope you enjoy your time here! linas 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
