User talk:Peter Schmitt/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Schmitt |
imported>Sandy Harris |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
: Thank you for asking, Sandy. But unfortunately I had not enough time (and energy) to look at these while all these policy discussions took place. I have to ask for patience, I am sorry. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) | : Thank you for asking, Sandy. But unfortunately I had not enough time (and energy) to look at these while all these policy discussions took place. I have to ask for patience, I am sorry. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
:: Not a problem. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== The approval == | == The approval == |
Revision as of 04:22, 18 October 2010
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
Where Peter lives it is approximately: 00:47
< | 2009(May19-Dec31) / 2010(Jan01-Aug28) / Sep 2010--2011 |
---|
You've won the lottery for an invitation !!!
Peter, you just won the opportunity to take a look at the new Volatility (chemistry) article and apply your proof reading skills as well as your skill at writing comments on the article's Talk page. It also gives you the opportunity to tear yourself away from the forums. Enjoy !!! Milton Beychok 16:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is only a matter of style, but for my taste the "For more information see" is overdone: The same terms are linked just below them, and they are also listed as "Related articles. --Peter Schmitt 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Peter, for all the items you picked up ... I knew i could count on you. Milton Beychok 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
My bio
Peter as always I have great respect for you and your contributions. I hope this friendly discussion won't tarnish that. Here's what I posted to D. Matt Innis' talk page: The correct procedure would have been notifying a Constable of a potential infraction. It is the job of the Constable to take care of such matters. If every Citizen is allowed to "police" or correct other user pages mayhem could ensue. This is not the only time David Finn is offered to "correct" me and I have politely responded to his "corrections". In actuality, I probably have a bit more CZ membership time than he does, but I do not go around offering "help" unless asked. I posted this to Peter's page. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
CZ Authors
Anthony, by accident I noticed that you changed your "CZ Authors" category entry. You are now listed under "A" in the alphabetical list. --Peter Schmitt 23:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, I didn't 'change' the entry, I tried adding it, to see if I would show up in both the "A" and "S" alphabetical list. Didn't work. Fixed now.
- Had thought about Aleta's question re easy way to find someone's user page when, say, she only remembered the first name. But experiment didn't work. Thanks for alerting me. Anthony.Sebastian 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You've been Nominated!
Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium. They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[CZ:Nomination page|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC). Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:
Article 54
- In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
- Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
- Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
- Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
- Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
- All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
- In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.
If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.
Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.
D. Matt Innis 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I may not be available till Sunday, Oct. 10
--Peter Schmitt 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Order
Peter, did you see Order (relation)? Do you like it? Here are some possible scenarios.
- (0) Do nothing.
- (1) One of us approves it, the other helps.
- (2) One of us splits it (into "order" and "lattice"?), the other approves "order".
For now I am familiar with everything before "Dilworth's theorem". In order to approve it all, I have to take some books and learn. Also, lattices may be treated as partially ordered sets, but alternatively they may be treated as algebraic structures (with given operations, not relations). Boris Tsirelson 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer splitting for two reasons:
- (a) I think it is didactically better to avoid putting too many material in one article,
- (b) As you say, lattices are algebraic structures, orders are relations. They are related and induce each other, but they are different concepts.
- Moreover, I think that "order relation" is a better title for the first part of the article which concentrates on introducing mathematical terminology and concepts. An article on "order" could be a non-technical introduction (or should be added to "order relation").
- As for Dilworth's theorem: It is rather isolated in the current article. It could get its own page, or be included in some page on the structure of ordered sets. (Dilworth's theorem is equivalent to the marriage theorem on bipartite graphs, and the flow-cut(?) theorem on networks.)
- --Peter Schmitt 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. So, who is the splitter and who is the approver? Boris Tsirelson 06:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- We should care about "lattice", it has other meanings. Boris Tsirelson 07:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not mind to perform the split. But if you prefer to do it I do not mind, either.
- Yes, "lattice (algebraic structure)" or "lattice (algebra)"
- --Peter Schmitt 12:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nice; just do the split.
- "lattice (algebra)"? Is it "our" lattice, or a discrete subgroup..? Boris Tsirelson 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mmmh, you are right, the second version would still be ambiguous. I only thought of "lattice (number theory) or/and "lattice (geometry)". But the first one is better, anyway. --Peter Schmitt 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Still a problem: I am not sure that Lattice (discrete subgroup) belongs to number theory or geometry rather than algebra. WP suggests "lattice (order)" and "lattice (group)"; not very satisfactory, but is there something better, or not? They both can be treated as algebraic, in one sense or another. Boris Tsirelson 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics (Math. Soc. Japan), I see in the subject index:
- Lattice (=lattice ordered set)
- Lattice (of a Lie group)
- Lattice (in Rn).
- Boris Tsirelson 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mmmh, you are right, the second version would still be ambiguous. I only thought of "lattice (number theory) or/and "lattice (geometry)". But the first one is better, anyway. --Peter Schmitt 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you request a page deletion?
I left this message on the roast turkey talk page:
No, Peter I did not know that an author could request a page deletion. How do you request a page be deleted? I plan no more work on this article as it does not meet Citizendium standards. The one thing I learned in life, so far, is to know when to cut your losses. I am moving onto to other articles to write. Again, how do you request a page deletion? I searched Citizendium and could find nothing to enlighten me on this subject. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Crypto/math articles
A while back I asked for comment from math editors User_talk:Peter_Schmitt/Archive_2#Three_active_math_editors... on some crypto articles. The only reply I got was a favorable one from Boris.
Are any of those — discrete logarithm, Diffie-Hellman or RSA algorithm — approvable? If not, what do they need? Sandy Harris
- Thank you for asking, Sandy. But unfortunately I had not enough time (and energy) to look at these while all these policy discussions took place. I have to ask for patience, I am sorry. --Peter Schmitt 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Sandy Harris 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The approval
Peter, you are silent on Talk:Schröder-Bernstein theorem#Toward approval, why? What should I do: wait more? approve the old version? Boris Tsirelson 06:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Boris. I didn't have enough time during the last few days. And that time was taken by the forum discussions (and a few disputes I got involved into). Of course, you may approve the "old" version, or you may wait for some more edits on the history. I would not take the current, intermediate version. And I think that it will not hurt to wait a few days. --Peter Schmitt 08:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)