User talk:Quondum

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

I invite interaction on [[1]] (moved from this page) from knowledgeable (especially mathematically trained) persons on the definition of Clifford algebras. Quondum^talk_contr

Which template are you using in your signature? Because you're introducing 3 parser functions every time you sign your name, a practice which is actually forbidden. I'm asking so that we can safesubst the template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using {{SUBST:su|}}. I'm a rookie at this, and there seems to be no obvious "user manual" for building signatures. I'd be happy to change it if you let me know what alternative I should use for a similar signature. Quondum^talk_contr 11:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made the template substitutable, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poynting_vector&diff=461715242&oldid=461714499

I think "through a surface" is more intuitive than "per unit area", but it gets wordy to include both. — Omegatron (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a first approximation, yes, but "through a surface" does not give enough information on its own and in particular does not imply that the area of the surface is relevant, and hence does not really say what it is meant to say. Encyclopaedic statements must (IMO) not sacrifice correctness purely to make them pedagogical. I think "directional energy flux density" is intuitive enough without the clarification; I did not remove the clarification because some may find it helpful. Quondum^talk_contr 05:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After searching through literature, I couldn't find any other authors that agree with my source (Bishop and Goldberg) on using "orthonormal" in the extended sense of allowing -1,0 and 1, so I did change Geometric algebra to describe that clearly, rather than overload the term "orthonormal". Overloading it is practical but only if it becomes well known in the literature.
• I have to disagree about changing the wording in the description of the standard basis. Every construction I've read so far adheres to "strictly ascending indices" for "standard bases". Allowing permutations in each element does result in a basis but that's overcomplicated. Rschwieb (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, I think it's nicely done. The standard overloading allowing ±1 is bad enough.
2. I think the wording "forms a standard basis" as you have it is semantically flexible enough to imply "is one way of forming...", which is fine. I was being unnecessarily picky: it is clear that showing the allowable variation at this point will be confusing at best. Quondum^talk_contr 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive you will be interested in this[2] if you haven't seen it already. Rschwieb (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lovely treatise on the subject of the product generalizations – definitely worth making a section of as you did (though I had a go at "adjusting" it, as you'll notice). It mirrors so closely what I've been saying that I feel I must have read it before. It may be worth noticing that the scalar product defined by Dorst is different from the one in Clifford algebra#The Clifford scalar product. This one is nicer in that it does match the bilinear form on every candidate generating subspace. I felt it was necessary to put in the depreciation of the "original" inner product: it is the best-known, and it makes sense for an encyclopaedia to define it and clarify its status. I'll debate the issue of direct sum in Talk:Geometric_algebra#Use of direct sum ⊕ in section Pseudoscalars, since this is of general interest. Quondum^talk_contr 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds like it was a success then. I have to depend on you to know which versions are more common... I have so few resources! Rschwieb (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you explain the part of your recent edit summary that says, "Still a minor issue: the column heading "Distance" doesn't apply." --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've partly explained in Talk:Speed of light#Trimming list of signal times. I'll put a bit more detail here. The column is headed "Distance", but no indication is given that the distance changed manyfold while the light was in transit. For argument's same, at the time the light was emitted by the furthest observed galaxy it may have been only 1 billion light years away, and now it is perhaps 100 billion light years away (illustrative figures: they're complete guesses). Cosmology is not part of the article, but is necessary for understanding this. So using this as an illustration of the speed of light seems a little problematic. Quondum^talk_contr 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's assuming that distance can only mean ‘cosmological proper distance’, when it can have other meanings as well, and in that context it's obvious which one is meant. (FWIW, I've seen the Wikipedia article about that galaxy, and the comoving distance is 31.7 billion light-years and hence it was 31.7/(1 + z) = 2.8 billion light-years back then.) ― A. di M.​  21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious perhaps to a cosmologist, definitely not to the average reader of the article. And light travel distance is exactly what I was calling tautological. Thanks for the better figures. Quondum^talk_contr 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just double checking something. Did you look at the section Speed_of_light#Astronomy before making your comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. It makes the simple point that the finite speed of light travel time of light puts observations in the past depending on distance, sometimes substantially, and the observational benefits thereof. This much is relevant and popularly understood. It does not make any reference to red shift etc. So if we bring in factors such as recession, red shift, expansion of the universe and subtleties such as illustrated in the proposed animation, we may be in for a lot of explaining: these cosmological factors probably come as a package deal because they're so tightly connected with each other. See Metric expansion of space#Understanding the expansion of Universe for a nice graphic illustrating exactly the same thing as the animations does in a different form, plus a reasonable explanation. Quondum^talk_contr 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that that the animation has more information than what is presently in the section, since after all, that was its purpose. But not to the extent that you are mentioning, for example red shift??? And the "nice graphic" that you were referring to is extremely difficult to understand and in no way compares to the simplicity of the animation. It's as if you have had some history regarding these issues or some discussions other than the recent ones on the SoL talk page. Is that the case? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine red shift or similar concepts having to be introduced simply to explain what the animation illustrates. History as you suggest? I'd say no. Perhaps I express my opinions too intensely, but I regard these as opinions merely to be considered, no more than that. Since the inference here seems to be that something other than a collective editorial decision is at issue, I'll stand back from the Speed of light article. Quondum^talk_contr 06:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was planning on standing back from the SoL article. : ) Sometimes interactions through just writing, without the added communication of body/face language can be problematic. I don't know if the following will be helpful but let me say that I felt like I was interacting with two considerably different personalities in your messages. At first your messages seemed to me to be quite reasonable and open to considering others' ideas, then your messages seemed to be aggressive and closed to my ideas to the extent that the messages seemed somewhat hostile, and now your messages here seem to be returning back to the personality that I originally perceived. Now this is just my impression, which is all I can express, and I hope you recognize it is not meant to be argumentative or critical by rather to give you an idea of my perception of your messages.

Regarding the problem of digression in general from the topic of SoL, this is a consideration that I have had myself and I have expressed it in my messages and actions at SoL. A concrete example is when I trimmed the paragraph about the recent neutrino experiment. Regarding your concern about the animation leading to a digression, one might consider doing the same thing I did with the neutrino experiment in SoL, i.e. refer the reader to another article instead of discussing the information in the other article here.

But from your messages, I think there may be some additional problem(s) that you have with the animation which may or may not be apparent to yourself, but that's just speculation on my part. Please note that my comments at talk SoL regarding resistance wasn't directed just towards you but were just as much directed to the other two editors on that thread, although one editor withdrew his comment.

SoL has had a troubled editing past with some editors having their accounts blocked for long times. I don't know if you were around then, but I know that some other editors currently active were, and that may be influencing their actions, or their intrinsic nature may have contributed to the troubles in the past and may continue to surface. As far as how I handle these situations, I recognize that Wikipedia is a big place with a diversity of editing environments, my participation is completely voluntary, and that we are all human with all the strengths and weaknesses of that condition. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I express myself may be variable; the degree of variability is difficult to judge subjectively. I think that we were each failing to respond to some points the other made. The occasional misinterpretation may have played a part.

I'm with you on using links.

On the animation, I'm not wild about it. But this is secondary to relevance.

My first edit on SoL or its talk page was on 2011-10-28, so no, I wasn't involved. I only became aware of the article a little earlier. I enjoy Wikipedia as an environment for collaboration and learning, including the diversity of personalities. I think this is largely due to its inherently voluntary nature. Quondum^talk_contr 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps me understand the situation better. Bye, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope your holidays went well. I was wondering if you had any recommendations for computer programs for GA? I saw the list on the webpage but it doesn't tell me much. Rschwieb (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own experience in this regard has been entirely negative. I have not yet found a single package or library that I could get running, party through lack of perseverence, I suppose. I am not prepared to buy Matlab or similar runtime requirements for what is an exploratory exercise, and with C/C++ libraries I have not figured out how to use them (identify the interface and how to instantiate them with my non-Linux system) before losing patience. I also have experience with graphics interfaces that is indistinguishable from nil. The closest I have come is a little experimentation in writing my own C++ classes for a CA, including writing a fairly efficient inversion routine for general multivectors in a real CA with a generating vector space of up to 5 dimensions. It does not help that my brain feels like it has turned to mush every time I try to derive a projection of a vector onto a bivector from purely geometric principles. So, sorry, not much help from me, unless you want to co-build something from the ground up. I would be interested in anything you find. — Quondum^☏✎ 04:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general lack of experience with computer algebra systems, which I'd like to change. I've been looking into the free systems available online to become more familiar with them. Most of my experience is with Matlab, through institutions I teach at. I've never really worked with a graphical interface (other than graphing calculators and on Matlab) but I suppose if one wants to learn geometry it should be incorporated into the program. Mainly I think of a program doing tedious computations. Or as a fast way to check my tediously done hand computations. Rschwieb (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a program occasionally also helps me to clarify subtle thoughts about abstractions. But in this context, a benefit would be as a visualization tool. In your position, I'd be writing for Matlab. What were you wanting to do with a GA computer program? — Quondum^☏✎ 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have no solid goal in sight! I'm still in the beginning stages of getting tensor calculus, relativity, electromagnetism and differential geometry under control. I lack of programming experience and lack experience with computer algebra systems, and I guess I just wonder what I'm missing out on. I'm looking to enhance my research capabilities with these things. The most interesting project I carried out in Matlab was to build a few strange finite rings that I found in a paper. I'd especially like to be able to look at infinite objects this way in other CAS's somehow. Rschwieb (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be many CASs listed on Wikipedia, but the sample of interesting ones seem to produce a lot of dead links. One that looks interesting for my purposes is SymbolicC++, but it apparently does not yet support anything particularly abstract; it only goes as far is sets, quaternions, vectors and matrices. No CA. But it does have symbolic manipulations, including non-cummutative algebra. For it you need a C++ compiler. And it can be extended by writing your own code. — Quondum^☏✎ 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many things to learn and so little time... Rschwieb (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to a C++ compiler? I've downloaded and built SymbolicC++ on Visual C++ 2010 (with a minor hiccup), but so far it is showing promise. I have yet to actually make it do something. They make mention of working with exterior algbras using the CAS, so perhaps we could apply it to geometric algebra. Do you know of a Template:TEX-like text format that accurately encodes expression semantics? — Quondum^☏✎ 11:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a C++ compiler on a disk here somewhere, but I have no idea how to use it. I just recently read that Xcas and Axiom have LaTeX compatibility, but I don't know any details. Rschwieb (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the expression format is concerned, I was wanting a format to store and transfer expressions in so that they could be algebraically manipulated after input. LaTeX does not seem to be suitable (it discards huge amounts of semantic information that humans still infer). I imagine some XML format will be necessary. It's not important at this stage. Producing LaTeX for display should not be too difficult. If you have a Windows system and are interested in this route, you might want to get Visual C++ 2010 (no cost from Microsoft, just bandwidth). I'll play around with it a bit and see what I can get it to do. — Quondum^☏✎ 12:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll grab a copy of that. It sounds functional! I have almost nil experience storing expressions: the closest I got was that Matlab allows you to save variable to a file for retrieval later. What I want to find is a program that can multiply generators symbolically. In the past, I've just numbered the elements of the finite ring/group I was looking at, and made multiplication and addition tables to deduce the ideals. Really, that, and some sort of special tools for examining ideals and modules would be great. I wonder what capabilities these things have for looking at infinite rings and groups... Rschwieb (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeoGebra is also another fairly well known geometry program. It's written in Java. Does that have any potential to be adapted for GA? Rschwieb (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from glancing around at GeoGebra and what it links to is that it is aimed at high school students: Geometry, algebra, graphs, differentiation, integration. It seems to be a teaching tool rather than a research tool. My guess is that even with the source, to adapt it to GA would be a huge task.

I've had a little more of a look at SymbolicC++. It has some rough edges, and aspects of it are perhaps a little crude. For example, it seems to handle all symbolic manipulation as strings, not as optimized data structures, forcing a huge amount of parsing. This results in it being tremendously slow. There are one or two bugs (e.g. its very-big-integers, also handled as decimal digit character string, crashes when a subtraction yields zero - easily fixed but symptomatic of software that is not very mature). It is not too obvious how one specifies general rules, such as cos²x+sin²x=1 for any expression x of a given type; their example specifies it for a given variable, and it only works with the expression being that variable. They implement a Grassmann algebra in an example (which is trivially modifiable to a Clifford algebra) by specifying the manipulation rules (by means of substitutions) for the standard basis. After specifying the result of every pairwise multiplication between elements of the basis of the vector space, they throw an expression (the product of four 1-vectors expressed in terms of the basis) at it to simplify, and as you'd expect, the result is a 4-vector. I've got a feeling that it does an awful lot of brute-force substitution using rules, and that it will become very slow when the number of rules and/or the size of the data gets large. The tensor example they have does not treat tensors as an algebra, but rather as a large number of components. I'm progressively starting to think that SymbolicC++ was a thesis project and not a serious research tool. Oddly, they've published a book about it. Maybe I've missed something. — Quondum^☏✎ 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just located a review of the SymbolicC++ book by Francis Glassborow, a person who is in my estimation highly competent in the C++ field. His verdict: "not recommended". In fact, he slates it, though he does not go into the CAS side much. So my impression from looking at the code was not far off. It seems this is one for the dustbin. — Quondum^☏✎ 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what tools can we expect to have at our hands, in a good GA program? You can delete the stuff above here and expand this list:

• Given two multivectors, compute their geometric/wedge/contraction product
• Given an invertible multivector, compute the inverse
• Given generators of a subspace of V, determine a blade/pseudoscalar
• Given a vector and angle a rotated version, determine the corresponding rotor rotation multivector
• Given a basis and a rotated version, determine the corresponding rotor
• Given a rotation plane/bivector and an angle, determine the corresponding rotor (i.e. exponentiation)
• Rotation, Projection, and reflection operations
• (more)

ALSO take a look at another C++ CAS Plural Rschwieb (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Singular/Plural website has so little on it that I find it difficult to judge. This suggests that it does not yet have much of a user base.

Your approach of the list raises a few questions. Would you want something that can do straightforward numeric manipulations (e.g. +, −, ×, inverse)? Or do want symbolic manipulation (I would want that, especially coordinate-free symbolic manipulation)? Display for visualization? All of the operations items on your original list are straightforward to implement numerically in a crude program or calculator, except for inverses in higher dimensions and handling ill-conditioned cases. Exponentiation and logarithm is probably a bit tricky (though a Taylor series would do the job for exponentiation).

Something like Geometric Algebra for Computer Science may be good if you have time and money, and do not want the CAS side. — Quondum^☏✎ 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I'm not sure what to expect from a program. I never really feel the urge to see graphics so far. Part of this is just finding out what can be done. Rschwieb (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty infering what would be of interest to you. You will obviously know that addition, subtraction and multiplication in terms of numeric components will be straightforward and computationally stable. The standard basis CA/GA representation of vectors, rotations and the like is one of the most stable of all representations; it does not exhibit gimbal lock, but there are still some inherently ill-conditioned problems. Provided that the input/output requirements remain minimal, I could customize a "calculator", adding what we need. Eventually graphic capability may be possible. Entering symbolic expressions should not be difficult, but manipulating them symbolically is another story. Some of the things such as "determine a rotor" you will want to deal with algebraically. — Quondum^☏✎ 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should give an example of what I was thinking of for symbolic computation. I would like it to be able to take a list of symbols "a,b,c" and a list of relations (say ab=ba, ac=b ...) and then accept inputs consisting of powers and products of a's b's and c's, and then be able to use the relations to multiply and sort the generators alphabetically. Programs of matlab do this of course when they handle polynomials, but that's just one particular example of a group/ring, and I wonder how to implement more. Especially those with infinitely many elements. Rschwieb (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SymbolicC++ does pretty much this. You give it relations like you describe, and you can turn off commutativity. Using these relations, it can then simplify a symbolic expression. How about giving me an example of defining relations and several expressions you want simplified, and we can use it as a trial? — Quondum^☏✎ 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple example would be to implement the multiplication table for a dihedral group of a given size. Maybe a more sophisticated application would be this: for a free algebra on given generators, with given relations, given an element x, determine the form of elements in the right principal ideal xA.

Another thing: I'm looking for a list of programming projects that one can exercise in any language. The idea is that they should help me learn the generic aspects of programming necessary in C++ and maybe Python. Rschwieb (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to coax it to produce the following table for Dih₅.

            Dihedral group with n = 5 (Dih₅)

            rules:
            [ r^(5) == 1,
              s^(2) == 1,
              s*r == r^(-1)*s,
              r^(-1) == r^(4) ]

            [ 1 r r^(2) r^(3) r^(4) s r*s r^(2)*s r^(3)*s r^(4)*s]
            [ r r^(2) r^(3) r^(4) 1 r*s r^(2)*s r^(3)*s r^(4)*s s ]
            [ r^(2) r^(3) r^(4) 1 r r^(2)*s r^(3)*s r^(4)*s s r*s ]
            [ r^(3) r^(4) 1 r r^(2) r^(3)*s r^(4)*s s r*s r^(2)*s]
            [ r^(4) 1 r r^(2) r^(3) r^(4)*s s r*s r^(2)*s r^(3)*s]
            [ s r^(4)*s r^(3)*s r^(2)*s r*s 1 r^(4) r^(3) r^(2) r ]
            [ r*s s r^(4)*s r^(3)*s r^(2)*s r 1 r^(4) r^(3) r^(2) ]
            [r^(2)*s r*s s r^(4)*s r^(3)*s r^(2) r 1 r^(4) r^(3) ]
            [r^(3)*s r^(2)*s r*s s r^(4)*s r^(3) r^(2) r 1 r^(4) ]
            [r^(4)*s r^(3)*s r^(2)*s r*s s r^(4) r^(3) r^(2) r 1 ]

This will work for any size group, if you're prepared to wait. I can probably get it to substitute back the 2n names back after it has worked out each entry. You will notice the redundant (last) rule: this is because it appears to work by literal substitution. You have to provide rules for literal substitutions, and it does not seem to be able to apply inference to make related substitutions. Rather pathetic, but it can at least generate tables.

To get the right principal ideal xA, I presume one would generate the ring A as a set, and then left-multiply it by x. Redundant elements in the result would then be eliminated from the set. One might be able to do this with SymbolicC++ with small finite rings. But it is really a bit pathetic for serious use.

On programming problems, almost all language can do anything the others can, it's simply a case of what is more natural in each. I have no experience of Python. They all take a while to learn with some proficiency. — Quondum^☏✎ 20:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you know, we should be looking at software developed for studying Rubik's cube. While it's not infinite, it's certainly big and complicated enough to require specialized tools. Rschwieb (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for anything serious I don't think that SymbolicC++ is useful - it seems to do little more than a find-and-replace string editor could do with suitable rules. To deal with Rubik's cube needs something far more sophisticated due to the size of the group. To get to know what can be done with each of the packages will be laborious. Wikipedia does not give a realistic sense of what they are. So I don't think we've achieved much so far. — Quondum^☏✎ 13:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure whether x = π is the ideal choice for the illustration, though I'm aware that it is simply what was available as a GIF." I made the GIF for Euler's identity of course, not really for Euler's formula. I'm happy to make a new one with a different x. It's very easy, I just change one or two lines of the program. What value of x do you suggest (and why)? :-) --Steve (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of giving a general sense for the Euler identity, I'd say it should end up as an obviously general complex value (i.e. not on or close to any of the axes, and hence x should not be a multiple of π/2). For reasons of simplicity of illustration and understanding, it would probably best fall in the first quadrant (0 < x < π/2). Also in the first quadrant the scaling would be better, showing more detail. Putting x = 1 feels good and fits well with the illustration in the template {{E (mathematical constant)}}, but you may want to use a more "nonspecial" value, such as 1.1 or 1.2. The template diagram seems to be about 1.2 radians. Oh, and while you're at it, it would be nice if the name N in the diagram could be changed to n to fit the formula in the text. — Quondum^☏✎ 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, one that people may be able to relate to easily is x = π/3, because it satisfies all the above and can be easily analysed in terms of trigonometry and geometry/Pythagoras. — Quondum^☏✎ 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Thoughts? :-) --Steve (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think it works well – I find it quite intuitive and pretty as a geometric visualization of the limiting process. It gets a thumbs-up from me. — Quondum^☏✎ 05:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another fellow outside of wikipedia interested in discussing GA. I've been corresponding by email, and I'm setting up this page for all of us to discuss things. (I don't mean to limit the discussion to that page, I just wanted a place to start.) Rschwieb (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I've added it to my watchlist. BTW, what about keeping most of the chat on the associated talk page, to act as a journal, with the user page holding the distillation/reference material that we are talking about, much like in the main article space? That way one rarely has to search back through the discussion. — Quondum^☏✎ 07:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice which I will plan on following. Rschwieb (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever talked to User:Chessfan? Based on my reading of his contribution history he's quite active in topics of geometric algebra. Even better, he appears to have a balanced view of the state of GA today, and he doesn't appear to be a crank. Unless you have any bad reports on him I was considering inviting him to the page. Rschwieb (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'll still be looking at our old talk page. I figured it would be good to keep that one as a "two person" page, and this new one could be the community page. It will no doubt be a little bit more chaotic. Rschwieb (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never had any interaction with Chessfan, but have seen the signature occasionally. A glance suggests a lot of work on primarily three-dimensional representations and rotations, and a liking of GA. I would welcome the additional input. Any chaos can be managed perhaps by splitting pages into fora and/or topics if this should ever prove necessary. — Quondum^☏✎ 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This phrase jumped out at me too, when I looked at the page a couple of days ago for the first time in months. As currently written the phrase is not good, and can indeed be expected to trip people up.

So you're quite right. What directly corresponds to a sphere in the original space is a 4-vector blade (or tetravector, quadvector, ... ? -- 4-vector usually means something else), which can be composed by wedging together vectors g(x) corresponding to four points x on the sphere.

But, per your table on my talk page, as well as the "CGA representation", it's almost as important to hold in mind the "CGA dual representation" which are just their duals in the CGA space. So the original sphere also has a dual representation which is the vector orthogonal to the quadvector we've just been talking about. Wedging together two such vectors (using the usual wedge product) gives a bivector, which is the dual representation of the intersection of the two spheres.

It's a while since I looked at this, so I can't remember exactly what's in Richard Wareham's PhD. I do remember finding the treatment in Perwass's quite useful and concise.

One thing that could also be brought out more is the way that we can now use GA sandwich structures for transformations of the objects that makes so much of this possible -- that the way p ∧ q transforms is equivalent to wedging together the transformations of p and q, which is one thing that leads to these equations having such simple and consistent forms. Jheald (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email through the WP email system. Do let me know if it got through all right. Jheald (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I'll reply directly to the email so that you have my direct email address. — Quondum^☏✎ 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the wiki email work? And what, may I ask, prompted you to modify the contraction symbols at the GA page? Nothing wrong with it, just curious if the new look appears more commonly somewhere. Rschwieb (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you're on someone's user page, expand the "Toolbox" option on the left, and you should find "E-mail this user" if the user has wikimail enabled in their options. This gives a way of contact that eventually results in the direct email addresses being known to both cooperating parties, but without publishing these on Wikipedia. Your first email comes from the email address you have set under your own preferences.

I previously came across the symbols looking more like I have modified them (though I'd have to dig to locate the reference again); if people object of course they can be changed back. Dorst is the first (only?) one I found with the extremely vertically stretched version; I assumed Dorst et al had the same problem we have with our <math> Template:TEX: there is no suitable symbol. A search of Unicode Supplementary Mathematical Operators yields U2A3C ⨼ INTERIOR PRODUCT and U2A3D ⨽ RIGHTHAND INTERIOR PRODUCT. I'm taking a bit of a leap, but I'm assuming these are actually where Dorst's symbols derived from, and they could only find the Template:TEX \rfloor and \lfloor symbols (which I dislike because they're liable to clash visually with other bracketing symbols, most particularly with the ones they're copies of). I also think this is semantically a good overload of these Unicode symbols. The symbol I've used is somewhere in between (imagine the shock to the system if I'd used the very flattened symbols shown here), and is also on the wiki edit bar for use in normal inline text formulae. — Quondum^☏✎ 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pertti Lounesto (2001) Clifford Algebras and Spinors uses the symbols ${\displaystyle \lrcorner }$ and ${\displaystyle \llcorner }$ (in contrast to Dorsts use of ${\displaystyle \rfloor }$ and ${\displaystyle \lfloor }$), though I'm pretty sure I first saw it elsewhere. A few others that have adopted Dorst's symbols. Many use the centred dot ${\displaystyle \cdot }$ for their preferred inner product extension, whether this be the left contraction, the "fat dot" inner product or Hestenes's quirky inner product. The field is clearly very young: no-one but Perwass seems to have noticed the massive simplification (to the Clifford group and general versor equations) that results from defining the "fundamental reflection operation on a vector" to be a ↦ nan instead of a ↦ −nan. And only Dorst et al and Macdonald seem to have bothered with the question of the relative merits of the various possible extensions to the inner product. — Quondum^☏✎ 06:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally getting around to skimming a book I bought a while ago: Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem by Dwight E. Neuenschwander. You might be interested, and it is very affordable. The intro says it's "written for physicists...[abstract algebra] is another language, one less accessible to a student more at homewith energy, momentum and intertial reference frames." Boy does that sum up how I feel about the gap between me and physics! I am currently trying to google for documents on "how to think about physics" and "How to think like a physicist"... Rschwieb (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I have ordered it and should have it in 3–4 weeks (delivery is kinda slow in this part of the world...). I have long been intrigued by Noether's theorem, but have generally bogged down with excessively technical approaches. We'll see how readible I find the book – I'm a layman when it comes to physics just as in maths, and it sounds like a fairly solid physics background is needed. Anyhow, maybe we'll have some interesting discussions. — Quondum^☏✎ 10:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't read too fast though :) I'm going to be very slow about it. I wish I could duplicate my learning process of algebra with physics, but I really don't remember very much about learning algebra. My theory right now is that if you solve enough problems from a text, you will eventually duplicate the thinking process of the author. Rschwieb (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have a headstart on me, and I'm sure I'll bog down on the exercises, which I'll need to do. — Quondum^☏✎ 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started collecting some of my notes at User:Rschwieb/Physics_notes. Rschwieb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on my watchlist. Pose any questions you like there if you want comment. It's looking very good so far; to nitpick about trivia (e.g. referring to "surface" presupposes a 2D manifold) at this point would detract from where it's headed. — Quondum^☏✎ 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I can tell a lot of articles use the term in this narrow sense. What do they like to call n-dimensional surfaces? Rschwieb (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no authority on this, but people like Penrose seem to avoid ambiguous terms such as "surface". With an n-manifold, terms like hypersurface (having n−1 dimensions), hypervolume (implying n dimensions), or k-surface or n-volume are used. Other authors may take different approaches, but would probably define their use of a term if there was any ambiguity. — Quondum^☏✎ 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, the way you've used it, the word "manifold" would be used, e.g. it becomes necessary to "flatten" the manifold at points. — Quondum^☏✎ 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got through the first half of the book, past the main theorem. I didn't pause to do any exercises yet, because I think I need to take the time to do some simpler ones. Got to learn to think in terms of energy and momentum I suppose! By the way, I'm looking for another thing I linked you to, and I can't seem to remember where I put it. Do you remember where the link to a big quadratic forms paper is? I think the author was Conrad? Rschwieb (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I 've just received the book. I've read the first two chapters. The preface makes it feel daunting ("The reader I have in mind is..."), but the "primary an auxiliary questions" are exactly right to interest me, so I expect it to be rewarding. You placed the link [[4] at User:Quondum/sandbox/Trial_ideas#Orthogonality. Another link in the same section may also be of interest, but probably not as good. — Quondum^☏ 05:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo it? 46.49.3.65 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to [5]. If you read the description carefully, you should see. For example, given a point (x,y) = (0,1), rotate anticlockwise by θ = π/2 radians (or 90°), produces the point (−1,0). This corresponds to the new coordinates (x cos θ − y sin θ, x sin θ + y cos θ), not the formula you had changed it to (which corresponds to a clockwise rotation rather than the stated counterclockwise rotation). — Quondum^☏✎ 18:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it with an example. Now it makes sense. My bad, I was rotating X axis counterclockwise while you are rotating (x, y) point. And formulas i wrote are certainly right in this case.

P.S. I spent like one hour debugging my code ( copied formulas without reading the sentence properly). Thanks again one more time, people like you, are awesome to keep wikipedia clean. 46.49.3.65 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. I thought it might be something like that – what is being rotated makes all the difference. Happy editing. — Quondum^☏✎ 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the article after me, you did fine! =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your corrections, I should explain the sandbox page will generally be incomplete and there will be inevitable mistakes. A note will be added to the top of that page. Thanks F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no implication that it your sandbox should be either complete or correct – pretty much by definition. I find it difficult not to "correct" something (not always correctly!) when it seems to it can trivially be made more rigorous or systematic. So when I make simple changes, it is more to do with my own "nervous tics" than with the quality of what I change. I'm happy to be guided on how much "interference" you will tolerate in your user area; what is not intended is any implied criticism of what you've done. — Quondum^☏✎ 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very altruistic of you! If its knowledgeable editors like yourself and Rschwieb (who I know), I have no problems with you making edits to the sandbox since they will improvements (provided edits summaries are filled in, but you two do that anyway so no problem). On the contrary an IP randomly showed up and added an AfC template in this edit [6] (don't ask, I just reverted it...). =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to have had a warped sense of humour. I'll probably be tempted to make tweaks, especially in the section with the tensor formulation of relativity – largely because it is exactly the kind of reference I occasionally seek to get my signs right and the like. As to "knowledgeable", I hope it is understood that I have only a cursory undergrad exposure and the rest is informal reading and probably overconfidence in the way I express myself. I'd be most comfortable if you treated me as at undergrad level, even though some time has lapsed since then. — Quondum^☏✎ 10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am also a 2nd yr undergrad, but you (and Rschwieb) certainly have more experience than I have (which is important). Anyway to the point - please do feel free to edit my sandbox. Admittedly, some parts I may have added very quickly should be mostly correct from memory, but (as you say) some signs/symbols will be mixed up/cut and pasted and I might have been too lazy to correct at the time, intended to correct and amplify those bits later. Before all else - the structure to the page has and is being developed: and sections are still experimental, and concentrated on that than getting every detial correct.

Btw, Rschwieb liked it also - so the talk page for it will be started and we can discuss things specifically about the page there, if its easier. Best wishes for now, F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing and fixing my incomplete errors...

Just out of interest, what do you think of the presentation of index notation here on wikipedia? It can and should be better. I have yet to see an article which includes the summary in that box, even if readers didn't understand the notation at least its in one place so they can see what will appear in some equations, and make it easier for editors to link there...

F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - you answered there so we'll keep it there. Thank you for response. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have already seen this, and the content is probably very old news to you, but I thought it would be worth bringing it up. I've been reading the Joachim Lambek article mentioned in the quaternion article (If Hamilton had prevailed), and IMO it's quite a good presentation. A mathematician I admire (T.Y. Lam) admires Lambek, and now I can see why. The explanation is very good. I'm seeing now that before I learned very much Clifford algebra, I should have spent time boning up on everything about quaternions Rschwieb (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have access to the article. I suspect you'll find me a little prejudiced on the matter (though I'm open to persuasion) – Cl_3,0(ℝ) seems to be more natural than quaternions for a geometric purpose, because quaternions need a slightly artificial (and clumsy) mapping to fit the purpose. The idea of quaternions not having prevailed over Gibbs's algebra in the historical perspective is something I do find unfortunate though, and still would like to see Cl_3,0(ℝ) doing so as the geometric algebra of choice. From the historical perspective, the geometric application of quaternions is IMO a worthwhile object of study. — Quondum^☏ 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I try to absorb what everyone wrote at User:Rschwieb/GA Discussion/Comparison of methods: rotations, I still find it too abstract for me at this point. I wish I could see a plain quaternion example (I've suggested a "baby" problem at the page). Could you find time to supply the concrete representation of the problem in quaternions and its solution? I would really appreciate it. Rschwieb (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprizing: we'd not not provided much by way of a quaternion treatment. I'm not familiar with quaternions per se, and so have rather embedded the quaternions in the GA that I have a feel of, and have put my working where you posed the problem. Let me know if I've missed something either logical or pedagogical needed from your perspective. Correctness verification is left as an exercise . — Quondum^☏ 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed it and it looks great. I will be sure to read it thoroughly (after I get done grading tests, and designing final exams *sigh*). I am thankful you wrote down some of your thought processes too, because I need those. Rschwieb (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that "does not imply" means "does not prove" in some situations (like a math proof) and "does not suggest" in other situations (like normal conversation). I don't think "does not suggest" is appropriate ... there is a gentle suggestion. The only known explanations of charge quantization (in my understanding) are monopoles and GUTs, and the latter require monopoles anyway. That doesn't mean there isn't an unknown explanation of charge quantization that does not imply monopoles ... but anyway charge quantization is at least a suggestion that there are monopoles. So anyway I think "does not prove" is better. :-) --Steve (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the logical context, "does not prove" means "is not a logically consistent argument of an implication", and here we are talking about deducability. Hence, assuming a formal interpretation as a logician/mathemation/physicist would apply, "does not imply" is actually what we want to say.

In the informal context, "does not imply" has a problem as you say, but then "does not prove" suffers from similar problems – it means there is no convincing evidence, also a weak statement.

Who the typical reader is is also debateable. I tend to prefer precise language especially for math and physics articles, but I'm not the typical reader in this sense, so I'm happy to let others decide provided there is limited scope for actual confusion. — Quondum^☏ 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article is awesome, the first time I have seen such a complete and transparent summary for this concept.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		This is to be shared between: F=q(E+v^B) - the original author, LutzL - historical content, accuracy and sources, Quondum, JRSpriggs, TimothyRias - corrections and mathematical accuracy, clean up, clarification etc. Maschen (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and thanks to you all, and sorry this is so late (I would have awarded this earlier but don't get on WP much anymore). Best, Maschen (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Maschen – this was certainly an enjoyable collaboration. Kudos to F=q(E+v^B) for spearheading and driving the article. — Quondum^☏ 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quondum, how have you been? I've been fairly busy lately, just dropping in once in a while. I managed to catch this kerfuffle over Joy Christian at the math and physics projects. It makes me a little queasy to see he is using geometric algebra in his proofs[7]. I sure hope he doesn't make geometric algebra even more unpopular... It might actually be a good exercise to see who did the algebra right and who didn't. Actually I just checked, and this guy does come off as a pro crackpot, so reading it might be a headache. Rschwieb (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a nice hike along the Mozambican coast, so feeling very rested. The paper seems to make some early mistakes, so I did not go into detail. For example, the choice of the term "righthanded frame of basis bivectors" seems spurious. The choice of basis of the ℝ⁸ space of Cℓ_3,0(ℝ) is arbitrary, subject only to it being a basis of the vector space. The choice of the term "handedness" in this context is in any event ill-advised, and has no relevance in a Clifford algebra without an externally imposed sense of handedness (unlike in vector calculus). My first impression is that some significance is being attributed to the arbitrary choice of basis, as though that confers some fundamental mathematical distinction to the space for which the basis is being chosen. I have no idea how this is extended to relate to Bell's theorem. This sort of nonsense is hopefully simple-minded enough that it will not impinge on GA.

In all, the fight should not be about the technicalities, but should focus on the repeated pattern of using Wikipedia for self-publication of fringe science by various people. The argument of prejudice against Joy Christian is immaterial, and does not trump WP policies. If references to Christian's work get edited in repeatedly, blocking should be invoked administratively. But I wouldn't bother arguing anything but the simple WP policies. — Quondum^☏ 10:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has come up, I find myself wondering who, if anybody, is aligned with him in the GA community. In fact, I find myself curious about the entire spectrum of crackpottery in physics, now. It's kind of scary to learn that a listener could inadvertently take a pseudoscientific conversation seriously, if the speaker was sneaky enough about it.

I've been finding Penrose's book very helpful, although I have not been able to read it lately. Occupational demands are catching up with me, making my ambitious self-education plan difficult to execute. Rschwieb (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw only one editor (Fred Diether with edits only on that talk page) in active support, though I only scanned through briefly. So: no real alignment. The proliferation of pseudoscience is widespread, and extends to maths, nutrition etc. I guess one could say it is scary how many people will follow the fringe directions. It is pretty pointless worrying about protecting people from it; it makes much more sense to make more trustworthy stuff accessible for those not predisposed to a fringe bias, and allow the crackpottery to find its own equilibrium. WP seems to be pretty good at providing such a pool of information.

I too have not been reading or editing much of late, though I cannot blame work for this. — Quondum^☏ 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten what programming languages you have tried your hand at... could you remind me? Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C/C++ is my primary programming area. My marginal/rusty experience in a raft of others allows me to interpret, but not write in them. — Quondum^☏ 13:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope to brush up my distant memory of C++ soon, so I may start asking you questions :P I have not touched it in 10 years. Rschwieb (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free – I'll probably enjoy it. Email will naturally be the best medium. I might give a bit much detail about semantics in C++; if so just rein me in. — Quondum^☏ 05:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have an aversion to tensor densities, I would like to explain how the idea arises naturally from tensors. Sometimes people have to work with tensors which are anti-symmetric in several indices. For example, suppose A_{a b c} is anti-symmetric in three indices. Rather than speak about 64=4³ components which have only 4 independent values among them, it is easier to redefine A as a tensor density A^d where d is the unique dimension different from a,b,c (assuming that these dimensions are all distinct from each other, else the tensor is zero). Thus the new A^d is equal to (1/6)ε^{a b c d}A_{a b c}. Here I have defined ε^{a b c d}=δ^{a b c d}_{0 1 2 3} using the generalized Kronecker delta. Thus tensor densities can be regarded as tensors which have hidden anti-symmetric indices. The rules for transforming tensor densities arise from that concept, but have been generalized further. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is the Hodge dual, except that the Hodge dual uses the tensor equivalent of the Levi-Civita symbol. It is not surprising that a tensor density results when a tensor density is artificially introduced (as in this case, by selecting components of the generalized Kronecker delta).

I could go on at length to demonstrate why I believe tensor densities can always be eliminated from any fully covariant theory.

Thanks for fixing my error on the generalized Kronecker delta, and your addition. As you may see from my sandbox, I think it is notable enough for a main article. — Quondum^☏ 11:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tensor density is not "artificially introduced". The numerical values of the four components of A^d are exactly the same as those which appear three times each among the components of A_{a b c} along with three each which are their negatives and forty zeros. So this is merely selecting a subset of components which represent the independent information in the original A.

If someone naively attempted to use Maxwell's equations in a curvilinear coordinate system or in the presence of significant amounts of gravity, then he would find that they still work in that context (except for the constitutive equations which relate D to E and H to B). How can this be explained in your ideology? It only makes sense when one realizes that some of the quantities are tensor densities.

So please see that I am not adding tensor densities to make life harder. Rather I am finding that they already exist and permitting their use to avoid the extra and unnecessary work of converting everything to ordinary tensors. Why multiply by the metric when you do not have to? Why use the Levi-Civita connection when partial derivatives will suffice? JRSpriggs (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that tensor densities may be useful for simplifying certain expressions, as can generally equivalently be done by a suitable choice of basis such that g=−1 without use of densities. However, inserting mathematical tricks like this into articles such as Riemannian curvature tensor remains undesirable in my opinion. I think Tensor density is the place to discuss such things; as a concept it is notable enough to merit an article.

I am finding this somewhat exhausting, and intend to leave you and the other editors to it. — Quondum^☏ 10:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my attitude disturbs you. I wish we could cooperate on these topics.

g=-1 is a coordinate condition which may be inconsistent with some other desirable coordinate conditions. So it is not always practical to use it. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRSpriggs and Quondum, I'd like to interject with a few comments. I'm not very clear on the use of tensor densities, and I don't know all the sections concerned. During an intensive self-study of tensors a while back, I did not encounter tensor densities at all. I trust the usefulness of tensor densities (in some places), but I would be worried if they showed up in too many places. Their scope in WP should reflect the scope of use in the literature (as much as possible). Tensor densities definitely deserve an article of their own: is there any clear reason they need to appear in any another article? Rschwieb (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the articles on Covariant derivative, Lie derivative, and the Riemann curvature tensor would be incomplete, if they failed to mention the effects of those operations on tensor densities. The existing references to it are quite short, not obtrusive. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to things unrelated to Wikipedia I should not be getting into debates now. I would normally have enjoyed a lively debate on such a topic, but not so now. So I apologize for the spill-over into my interaction of Wikipedia, and I beg leave to step out of the whole thing, possibly to return to the topic when I am more myself. — Quondum^☏ 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hope your personal situation improves. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what JRS said, Q. And thanks both for the crash course on tensor densities. Rschwieb (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and its not me, its a new user:Hublolly. =( Just thought to let you know... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DROP IT. Stop trying to dominate the article just becuase you did create it and it was your idea or whatever. Let other's get involved. :-( Hublolly (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK isn't exactly relevent (yet), also I have let everyone get involved. Please do not continue this discussion here - it is User:Quondum's page, none other's. Take any further complaints to the relevent talk page. Thanks. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's relax and assume good faith. And in particular, let's move past previous personal animosity; we all learn from our past interactions and become easier to interact with. I have come to value and enjoy F=q(E+v×B)'s interaction and contributions. My experience is that F=q(E+v×B) certainly involves and considers the input from others. — Quondum^☏ 06:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. The thread is Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. Thank you.

(I had to include you by WP:ANI guidelines, sorry...)

F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will watch, and comment where I feel that it'll be constructive. — Quondum^☏ 06:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck this - User:F=q(E+v^B) and user:Maschen are both thick-dumbasses (not the opposite: thinking smart-asses) and there are probably loads more "editors" like these becuase as I have said thousands of times - they and their edits have fucked up the physics and maths pages leaving a trail of shit for professionals to clean up. Why that way???

I will hold off editing untill this heat has calmed down. Hublolly (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same message almost(?) word for word on my talkpage too. That's fairly lazy trolling :) Rschwieb (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, trolling is apparently a big component. It's difficult to determine the underlying motive, and hence whether there are creative ways of redirecting all this energy. — Quondum^☏ 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be aware, but this editor has cut and pasted onto other pages to ours:

• user talk: JRSpriggs#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk: Patrick0Moran#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• user talk: Sbyrnes321#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly,
• User talk:Qwyrxian#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly

It is SO frustrating... =( ... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]