User talk:Prumpf

Hello Prumpf, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Spiritus Lenis entry.

Greetings,

I am curious as to the source for the statement, 'Some think it signifies the glottal stop some languages use to avoid initial vowel sounds' in the definition of 'Spiritus Lenis'.

Thank you,

Tracey Lane tlane@kingsseminary.edu 818.779.8421

I couldn't find one. I think I read it in one of my Greek textbooks when I was in school, and I don't have those anymore, so it should probably be considered apocryphal information.

Prumpf 18:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bohr compactification

I reverted to what I had written earlier. The edits you made are simply not correct. I agree the article has to be a little more informative. I will try to add something useful later.

You said the canonical "Bohr" map always bijective, but need not be a homeomorphism. It certainly is injective for abelian groups, but injectivity is holds only for so-called "almost periodic groups" those which have a seprating family of finite dimensional unitary representations. non-compact semi-simple groups for instance SL(2,R) only have non-trivial representations which are infinite dimensional. CSTAR 17:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let G_ch be G with the chaotic topology (i.e. only G_ch and the empty set are open in G_ch). The identity map f: G -> G_ch is a continuous homomorphism, and G_ch is compact, so by the universal property of the Bohr compactification there is a map from βG to G_ch that's the identity on the embedded copy of G. Thus, the map from G to βG is injective.

Am I still confused about this? We might want to clarify that the Bohr compactification need not be Hausdorff, but I think considering the Bohr topology as a topology on G that might just fail to be Hausdorff rather than a topology on a quotient of G that always is Hausdorff. Prumpf 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, maybe one should say mappings into compact Hausdorff groups. The Bohr compactification in the sense of mappings into more general quasi-compact (i.e. compact but non-Hausdorff) topological groups is hardly useful. CSTAR 19:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is it not useful? I seem to remember it as the more popular definition and it makes more sense to me (the Bohr compactification, in my sense, is an actual compactification of a topological group that is very similar to G, but has a potentially coarser topology. I'm rather tempted to be bold on this, at least as far as restoring some of my edit is concerned. Prumpf 07:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Bohr compactification in the sense of being universal with respect to mappings into more general quasi-compact groups is not useful because it does not have a Haar measure! That's one of the main points of the Bohr-compactification: the mean value of almost periodic function f is exactly the integral of the extension.CSTAR 16:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cat:Math

I did not appreciate your reversion of Mathematical constant without explanation. I am trying to keep Cat:Math relatively free of articles and I think the articles should belong to one of Cat:Math's subcategories. If you did not like the categorization I made for the article, could you please then categorize Mathematical constant into a relevant subcategory yourself. Dysprosia 22:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I saw the problem, sorry bout the inadvertent removal of interwiki links... Dysprosia 22:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain. I did look at the diff, and it seemed to consist of two things: 1) moving the article into Category:Numbers, where it does not belong, since it's not about any number (this is my understanding of the plural naming convention for categories) 2) what appeared to be a removal of all interwiki links. I realised I was wrong about 2) since they got duplicated beforehand, which wasn't obvious from the diff, of course, so I removed it again.

My apologies for reverting without explanation; as I just said, at the time it looked to me as though some of the reverted changes were borderline vandalistic. I still don't believe the article belongs in Category:Numbers (I suppose a table of mathematical constants might go there, but an article about what mathematical constants are shouldn't). I think the total Stiefel-Whitney class and similar constructions could reasonably be called "constants" without even being numbers.

So my proposal would be that Mathematical constant is a non-formalised mathematical concept, like pathological (mathematics) and well-behaved. A new category for those, maybe?

Again, sorry for the hasty revert. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future.

Prumpf 22:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Argh, sorry for deleting your comment. I'm not sure how I managed that, actually, since we had an edit conflict and I didn't get a conflict warning. Prumpf 22:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

more on Natural Units

could you take a look at my talk page? i posted a more current version of that sci.physics.research article that i called "The Most Natural Physical Units". i really believe that the Planck current is wrong on the Natural units page. but, in addition, more thought should be put into the concept of Natural Units and not simply equate them to Planck Units.

r b-j 03:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Group algebras

Could we break up the Group ring article into two articles? (e.g. general group rings over fields and the group C*-algebra or some such division)? If you agree, would you be willing to take a crack at it or should I do it?CSTAR 16:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the natural division would be "group ring" vs "group algebra (with a topology)" or group algebra of a discrete group (discrete or von Neumann) vs group algebra of a topological group. That we seem to have two definitions of the group von Neumann algebra of a discrete group now (and I don't think they coincide - unless the enveloping von Neumann algebras of the reduced group C* algebra is always isomorphic to that of the non-reduced one?) doesn't really help.

We really should make it very clear in the group ring article that a group ring can be considered over any ring, Z in particular. Undergraduates will most likely see group cohomology or (topological) cohomology with local coefficients at some point.

So, my (new) suggestion is a fairly basic article at group ring, and moving the current article to group algebra. I shall do it as soon as I'm convinced it really wouldn't be useful to treat group rings and the group C* algebra all in one article. Feel free to be bold and make that decision for me (to criticise ;)), obviously. Prumpf 00:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lens space Cat.

Hi. I was just wondering why you removed this from algebraic topology, but left it in differential such. mat_x 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it doesn't belong in category:differential topology either, but I'm not sure. However, I don't see any connection to algebraic topology other than that lens spaces happen to be good examples for some phenomena there. Prumpf 00:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know, or in fact care about, the eligability criteria for being in a category. If you think this does not warrant an entry, that's fine by me. Infinite-dimensional lens spaces are $K(\mathbb {Z} _{m},1)$s though... mat_x 14:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I was just a bit worried about category:Algebraic topology growing too large, and I didn't notice that fact in the lens space article. I suppose category:Eilenberg-MacLane spaces would be a way to deal with those articles ... Prumpf 14:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand; I don't think anyone has got round to adding that fact yet. I certainly overlooked it when the article was created. Good suggestion though ;-$

more on Natural Units

hi Prumpf. just to let you know that there is a response to your last message on my talk page. also, my intention has been to be completely respectful and open-minded. i hope i've lived up to that and if i haven't, feel free to tell me. again, i ain't in the same league as you so, unless it's impossible, we need to make the arguments at the level of an EE grad student or a physics junior or i will likely not be able to understand it. thanks for paying attention to the issue. r b-j 00:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

oh, feel free to delete this from your talk page, i just wanted to get your attention.

Thanks. No need to worry, I'm just a bit busy. I'll definitely get back to you once I've worked out what exactly happens to Maxwell's equations in my proposed unit system. Prumpf 03:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cool. our differences regarding which form of Planck's constant (with or without the 1/(2*pi)) will make no difference on Maxwell's Eqs. (but it *will* make a difference on Schrödinger's equation) but you won't get Maxwell's Eqs. (and Lorentz):

  div(E)  =  rho/epsilon_0         = c*Z_0*rho
  div(B)  =  0   curl(E) = -(dB/dt)/c
  curl(B) =  (dE/dt)/c + c*mu_0*J  = (dE/dt)/c + Z_0*J
                                   = (dE/dt)/c + Z_0*rho*velocity
  F = q*(E  +  v/c x B)

as simple as:

  div(E)  =  rho
  div(B)  =  0
  curl(E) = -dB/dt
  curl(B) =  dE/dt + J   =   dE/dt + rho*velocity

  F = q*(E  +  v x B)

without normalizing both epsilon_0 and mu_0 (or equivalently both c and Z_0). that means there is a 1/(4*pi*r^2) in the inverse-square laws such as Coulomb's and Newton's.

r b-j 03:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who says curl and div are natural? They're (usually) defined in coordinates, and in cleaner notation depend on the isomorphism of smooth functions on a manifold with volume forms, which should have an added factor of 4*pi in it somewhere.

My (current) idea of naturalness is to start with a natural set of measures on a (semi-)Riemannian manifold -- the Hausdorff measures will do just fine. I'm willing to accept d/dt as a natural operator, since time is special. However, the same argument doesn't apply to d/dx aso, since that would mean choosing coordinates -- something I'm (so far) trying to avoid.

I haven't lost interest in this, just really haven't found the time of sitting down and making a list of all the equations we want to naturalise, and where what kind of measure/unit comes in.

Prumpf 18:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bell curve

I have redirected Bell Curve (with capital letters) to bell curve (with lower-case letters) and made the latter into a proper disambiguation page with links to normal distribution and to the book. Therefore, no one following the link to Bell Curve will find the normal distribution article and there should be no need for a notice informing the reader of the existence of a book whose title is not similar to that of the article and that has little relevance to the article's topic. Michael Hardy 23:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Notice

Hey. What's the deal with the ad for cafe press under the fund drive message? ISTR a policy of not running ads on wikipedia, and it's pretty annoying to boot. If there's a good reason for it (maybe cafe press is supporting us or something?), it might be a good idea to at least link to an explanation rather than just alienating random editors. It's not even entirely clear (to me) who put that message there, but your user name (Eloquence) shows up on the cafe press page.

Hello. This is not really an ads. The benefits of the sales get to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and in exchange editors get nice tee-shirts, mugs etc... with the wikipedia logo on it.

The decision to put this comment was made by the CFO of the board, and as part of the board, I approve it. You may consider it as part of the fundraising.

Eloquence gets no benefit of the sales, but his name is mentionned because he nicely set that shop for the Foundation possibly a year ago.

Cheers. Anthere 19:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Vice-chair Wikimedia Foundation Inc.

Thanks for the speedy reply. I do not see how this is not an advertisement, in that it tells users to purchase products from a for-profit company. In saying that the benefits of the sales go to the Wikimedia Foundation, are you saying that Cafe Press does not benefit from sales made through the link?

I did not want to imply that Eloquence profitted from the advertisement, or that it was added out of anything but the best intentions.

I assume that's Daniel Mayer? Thanks for telling me that, I will talk to him if this continues to be an issue.

Thanks again. Prumpf 19:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

tagesschau

Look to the german wikipedia and tagesschau.de . I corrected the article. The ARD tagesschau is not capitalised. --ThomasK 04:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

tagesschau.de is not. Tagesschau is. The page title of tagesschau.de/index.html is Aktuelle Nachrichten - Inland Ausland Wirtschaft Kultur Sport - ARD Tagesschau. Note capitalisation. 15:32, August 21, 2005 Prumpf

You are wrong. I corrected the article, because the tagesschau of Germany (both) is not capitalised. --ThomasK 12:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Let's move this to the proper discussion page. Prumpf 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)