User talk:Peter Schmitt/Archive 2

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Peter Schmitt

Current talk page

1, 2, 3

 Where Peter lives it is approximately: 19:33

<						2009(May19-Dec31) / 2010(Jan01-Aug28) / Sep 2010--2011

Charter: Draft Feedback // C1 C2 C3 C4 // my comments on current draft / my draft / my NEW draft / my feedback

---

Catalog discussion

Hi, Peter, you might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Singer-songwriter#What_.22Catalogs.22_are.2C_or_can_be where we're also discussing Catalogs. Hayford Peirce 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hayford, but I know. It is my fault that it spreaded to crime fiction, I fear. --Peter Schmitt 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick's talk page discussion

I replied on Nick's page. D. Matt Innis 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

tennis template

Hi, Peter, thanks for the help! If you look at the final result at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/Famous_players things now look just about perfect. Except, I think, there's no very pale blue in the National #1 Player box, (it's hard for me to tell), and there's also an unnecessary horizontal line across the Biographical section. Both can be left as are. If they can be corrected, so much the better but it's not, in my judgment, essential. Right now, I'm through fiddling, so if you want to try to fix those two other elements, I won't be conflicting with you. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again, it looks as it you've got it! Hayford Peirce 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

write-a-thon

Thanks for helping Aleta, I was just off to do it and found that you beat me to it. :) Chris Day 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than we thought

Peter, head on back to my talk page. I'm going for coffee--or one of Hayford's martinis! Aleta Curry 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct 8

I think I got it all. I don't do it often enough, so you might want to double check. Had to move and merge all the subpages, too. D. Matt Innis 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Subpages and Properties

Hi Peter,

Just thought I'd post this:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3054.0.html

here for you in case you were willing to relocate our discussion over there...--David Yamakuchi 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at revised lede for pH and explanation on Talk page

Peter, I revised the led for the pH article somewhat and explained why on the Talk page. You may be interested in that. Milton Beychok 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Google/stupid

Or possibly even Sociology instead of Media in the workgroups. Does this relate to media more than education? Chris Day 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know -- the influence of the web/internet is certainly a central topic, thus "media". But when I look at the existing "media" articles it is more on the business or technical side. (It seems "Media" is not too well defined ...) On the other hand, is it "Education" proper? Or (general) education as included in Sociology? But I really think that Psychology and Sociology are the the two most appropriate groups. --Peter Schmitt 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Psychology and Sociology are probably the two main groups. The third is probably a toss up and I don't have any strong opinion. Chris Day 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Offline

Notice: I shall be offline for one week until the end of February. --Peter Schmitt 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks and lemma articles

Hi Peter, I saw that you have been critical of CZ:Lemma articles, so I would appreciate your comments on this thread at the Forums. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been away for one week, but I will try to catch up with the formum (and elsewhere).

I would not say that I criticized lemma articles -- it rather was that I did not see a real purpose that could not be also done with stubs. But Howard convinced me that -- for some topics -- they are really usefully (though I am not yet sure if I fully understand why). --Peter Schmitt 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Munchausen

Peter, user:Bessel Dekker pointed out that the fictive character has a name with two spelling "mistakes" (if one may say so in a name). The mistakes are: no umlaut and single h. I checked it and think Bessel is right. You moved the article, but don't you think it should be moved back?--Paul Wormer 09:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First I only noticed it as a typo. But then I tried to check it: WP uses the correct German spelling, and Google shows that several versions are used in English (though it always seems to be the "Munchausen syndrom"). Thus, I think it best to let the various versions point to the original. (But even without this argument I would prefer it this way. I think it is more consistent and "professional".) --Peter Schmitt 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, look at the article, it reprints the title page. The author (Rappe) chose the name of the fictive person different from the name of the historic person. He could have changed the name even more, say Möncheuser, would you then still insist on the name of the historic person? --Paul Wormer 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected: You are right. I was not aware that the English book was the first using the name. Moreover, the articles in WP -- both the English and the German version seem to be inaccurate. Even my "Kindlers Literatur Lexikon" spells the English title as "Munchhausen"... --Peter Schmitt 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need your help with Fluid dynamics article

Peter, I need your help with the Fluid dynamics article:

• Look at the reference/footnote 3 which is a one-sentence definition of what is meant by "well-posedness" in mathematics. Is it correct? If not, please correct it.

• The article needs a similarly brief definition of what is meant by "smoothness" in mathematics. Can you please let me have your brief definition (one or two sentences) of "smoothness"?

Thanks very much for any help you can give me. Milton Beychok 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Games Workgroup

Hi Peter, You're currently listed as the only active Games Editor, however your page and editing history doesn't seem to indicate much interest there. I was just wondering if you still consider yourself affiliated with the workgroup and if so in what areas? Chris Key 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Chris! Games are also a topic in mathematics. That was the main reason for checking the "Games" box when I registered. However, I indeed have some interest and some experience in board games (and similar). (I was a reasonably good amateur in Go.) My knowledge and experience in computer games is restricted to some very early games. Nevertheless, if needed I'll try to help as an Editor as good as I can. (Until very recently there was no activity in Games at all.) --Peter Schmitt 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed the lack of activity in the Games section. Whilst I am new to CZ I am throwing myself into it and see this as a long term hobby rather than just a short 'something to do'. I am going to try to drum up some interest in the games workgroup, perhaps get things going a bit. It does however seem that an editor is required for several things, which is why I wondered how much your editorial interest in the area. I considered applying for editorship myself, at least in the area of video games if nothing else, however I don't think I meet enough of the criteria in non-academic editor requirements. Chris Key 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Video Games Subgroup

Hi Peter, You may have noticed that I recently set up the video games subgroup. I did this for a few reasons:

• Video games inherently are a crossover of the Games Workgroup and the Computers Workgroup.
• People with an interest in video games often (definately not always) have relatively less interest in non-video games. When they see a workgroup full of discussions about chess, poker, blind mans buff and barbie dolls they can be instantly turned off becoming involved.
• Video games require their own categorisation that do not apply to other games (eg first-person shooter, sideways scrolling playform, etc)
• It would be useful to get some standardisation amongst all video game articles. However, these standards would not apply to non-video games.

I intend for this subgroup to be affiliated with the Gaming and Computers workgroups. As you are the only active editor in the games workgroup, you are the only person authorised to [and implement the affiliation] for that workgroup. If you do indeed approve of the affiliation, then please could you do this? If you feel happy to approve of the affiliation with the Computers workgroup then I would appreciate it if you implemented that one as well. Thanks --Chris Key 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, Video Games are certainly a legitimate subgroup. But I'll have to do some reading first, about what I have to do and how. --Peter Schmitt 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting topic for articles. I used to play strategy video games such as Empire, Age of Empires, and Twenty Wargames. Cool topic.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I think you'll find all the information you need here. Seems reasonably straight forward. --Chris Key 08:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plane

Peter, I wrote plane. Could you comment on it? I like to insert it into plane (geometry).

Offline

Notice: I shall be offline all or most of the next (up to about) 10 days. --Peter Schmitt 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I think I'd rather spend 10 days in a coma! Enjoy! Hayford Peirce 00:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you travel? --Peter Schmitt 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks! (If we don't like the weather we may be back earlier ... ) --Peter Schmitt 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveling these days is so actively unpleasant that I'd definitely prefer to be in a coma! Unless I could be teleported to the Georges Cinq in Paris, perhaps.... Hayford Peirce 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

10 hours offline is hard enough... have fun though! --Chris Key 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring us back something? Hmmm, what would we like. Hmmm. Pictures? Have a good time.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks to all"
A delayed reply: If you are talking about travelling by plane then I agree (almost): It is (and always was) unpleasant because I often felt like a piece of luggage ... and it has become even more unpleasant because of all these security restrictions and checks. (But for some purposes one has to fly, nevertheless.)
Travelling by car, on a day by day basis, from a sight to a museum to a good restaurant ... can be rather pleasant. --Peter Schmitt 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter, how about a travel (by car on a day's trip) to Boltzmann's grave and bringing us back a souvenir?--Paul Wormer 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I haven't forgotten this. But I don't like to do it in bad weather (it would be by tram and on foot, on the other side of Vienna), and I am also waiting for a convenient occasion. But it could well be before the Charter is ready :-) --Peter Schmitt 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptography

Welcome back. Could you have a look at Cryptography? It is in a near-approvable state, I think, but needs a look from a mathematics editor. Sandy Harris 02:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I have only browsed the article (it is quite long), and shall read it more thoroughly in the next days. But probably I shall have a few comments, at most. It is a general article, not a mathematical page. There could be a Mathematical cryptography accompanying it. --Peter Schmitt 11:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there could. I'm not sure it would be needed, though. A lot of the math goes in other articles, some of which are written and in need of review — RSA, Diffie-Hellman, birthday attack, ... — while others incomplete — cryptanalysis, stream cipher, history of cryptography, .. — and most of the ones that need really heavy math not even started — linear cryptanalysis, differential cryptanalysis, ... Sandy Harris 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look at my comment about the "Examples" section on Talk:Greatest common divisor

Hi, Peter. Please take a look at what I wrote about the "Examples" section of Greatest common divisor. I would value your thoughts about my suggestion. Milton Beychok 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo Boltzmann

Hi Peter, I would choose photo B for the entropy article (it gives the formula and the the life span of Boltzmann). For an article on Boltzmann as a person I would probably prefer the whole grave including the tulips. Will you adapt entropy (thermodynamics) (note 15)? Thank you.--Paul Wormer 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I put your name in the credit line and gave it PD (other options are CC and C).--Paul Wormer 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellipse

Peter, did you think about approving the Ellipse? Boris Tsirelson 06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The template used in Psi (unit)/Definition

The Psi (unit)/Definition lemma article reads:

In physics, the abbreviation of "pounds per square inch": A non-standard unit of pressure; 1 psi equals 6.895 kPa (kiloPascal); see: U.S. customary unit.

That has a minor error in that the referenced article name is U.S. customary units. U.S. customary unit is only a redirect. If one wishes to correct that error and goes to the Edit page at here, one finds:

In physics, the abbreviation of "'''p'''ounds per '''s'''quare '''i'''nch": {{def|pounds per square inch}}

and one cannot correct the error because there is no instruction as to how to find that template at the end of the sentence. It is somewhere in the bowels of CZ. And even if found, would one know how to change the template? If a newly devised template is used, then there should be at least a commented section explaining how to find the template and how to revise it. By a commented section, I mean :

<!-- The above template can be found at xxxxxx and this is how to revise it if needed: xxxxx -->

I realize that the difference between using the correct article name or the redirect is trivial. But this devising and use of a new template with no discussion or explanation of where it is located or how it works is is not trivial. It is very frustrating to find that one cannot go to the edit page and make a simple correction because it is in a template. It is very poor practice and should not occur. Peter, I hope that you agree with me. Milton Beychok 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Peter however I have fixed the link for you. Whenever you see a template in use it will be in the format {{templatename}}, {{templatename|variable}}, {{templatename|variable1|variable2}}, and so on. You can then edit that template by going to Template:templatename, so in the case of {{def|pounds per square inch}} you would go to Template:def. However, that particular template retrieves its information from the /Definition page of the article that is named after the pipe (|). Therefore, the page needed to edit the link is pounds per square inch/Definition. Hope that helps. --Chris Key 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Milton, I am sorry that I did not recognize that I linked to a redirect (I think I copied the link from the definition and only moved it to a new place). I agree with you (and have made comments in this sense) during our discussion. Obviously I overlooked the "redirected" message on top of the page when I followed it.

However, I did not use a new template, {{def}} is an old template -- a variant of the r-template -- explained on CZ:Definitions. As Chris already explained, it is the definition that carries the content -- the template only displays it.

--Peter Schmitt 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)Chris, thanks much for your help. I'm sure that for someone with education and training in computer science (like yourself), the fixing of the error was very easy and very simple. But we are not all computer gurus. When I go to Template:def and to its edit page, I cannot see how in the world you figured out that one had to go to Pounds per square inch/Definition ... I wasn't even aware that there was a Pounds per square inch/Definition as well as a Psi (unit)/Definition. This gets more and more convoluted.

Rather than all of this confusion, redundant lemma articles and detective work, I am going to revise the edit page of Psi (unit)/Definition to read:

In physics, the abbreviation of "'''p'''ounds per '''s'''quare '''i'''nch": A non-standard unit of pressure; 1 psi equals 6.895 kPa (kiloPascal); see: [[U.S. customary unit]].

The resulting display on the main lemma page will remain exactly as it now is and without using a template. In this case , writing out what is wanted rather than using a template is much more simple and less confusing.

Peter, don't you think that the Pounds per square inch/Definition can be deleted? Why have both Pounds per square inch/Definition as well as a Psi (unit)/Definition? Milton Beychok 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Milt, you are right. It was unnecessarily complicated to use the Def-template. The intention (and advantage) is small: to synchronize the definitions. I did not want to confuse you.

It was Daniel who created this definition, so it would be better to ask him. I only happened to take it as an example for our forum discussion on lemmas and links. I do not have any specific interest in this particular definition.

However, personally I think that it does not hurt to have this definition. Someone might want to use it on a Related Articles - and that's what they are meant for. (They might, in the future, also be used to build some structured index.)

As for the page: My personal order of preference is (1) delete it (creating a red link), (2) redirect to the definition (give the essential information, and let the user choose between forward and backward), (3) redirect to the section (as you did), (4) and least: a lemma article. But this is just my opinion. I will not meddle with it. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need identical versions of Pounds per square inch/Definition and Psi (unit)/Definition, so I will make a suggestion as to how to structure them (learning by doing; it's good to exercise this with one example first) and also catch up on the forums discussion. Both later, not today. --Daniel Mietchen 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhood (topology)

Good job, Peter! Keep writing!! D. Matt Innis 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Countable set

Peter, Countable set is to approve. Please look the section "Real numbers"; there it is written once (in text) $0<r<1$ and another time (in the display) $0\leq r<1$. Also, the lead: is it clear enough that the one-to-one mapping is just to ("into"?), not necessarily onto? And "from the set" could be better (? or not?) "from the given set". Boris Tsirelson 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Boris. I have made a few minor copyedits. As for the lead: I think I used "one-to-one ... from ... to" to stay with common language as much as possible (and avoiding onto, but also into), and because it does not matter if "one-to-one" is read as bijective or as injective. I now changed it to "between" -- do you think that this is an improvement? --Peter Schmitt 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is just that it does matter; if "bijective" then the set must be countably infinite, it cannot be finite. Boris Tsirelson 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. After reading the article I simply had forgotten that the article is about both cases when I wrote the above (and recalled only this morning). Does this show that some examples of finite sets should be added? Moreover, doesn't the original sentence just say the right thing? --Peter Schmitt 09:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. And still, the lead could be more accessible that the article as whole. Why not write in plain English, that elements of the given set are numbered by some, pairwise different, integers, but the used integers are just a subset, be it finite or not, an interval or not... Something user friendly in this spirit? Accessible even for a man not experienced in reading such things as "a map from A to B". I know that non-mathematicians routinely miss a point if it is stated only once, the more so if implicitly. Of course it would be too much for the article, but maybe for the lead? Boris Tsirelson 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to make it more obvious that we are also talking about finite sets I added few basic examples. What do you think? Can you think of some more illustrative examples? --Peter Schmitt 10:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As for me, it is quite enough. About the last example (sum of two primes...) please give me some source; maybe I heard it somewhere, but to be sure I need a source. Boris Tsirelson 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the Goldbach conjecture. --Peter Schmitt 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I know you meant well , but

Peter, Paul Wormer and I have become quite good friends over the past 2 or more years. I know that you meant well when you said on his user page that his concerns are "unfounded". But that was the wrong thing to say because Paul strongly believes otherwise and I agree with his concerns as well. Telling him that they were unfounded is like telling him that he was wrong and he was not. Regards, Milt Beychok

Thank you for this warning, Milt. You may relay my regrets to him. I fully agree that one must have the right to call nonsense "nonsense". --Peter Schmitt 12:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Approved

Congratulations, Peter, I have just Approved [1]! Hayford Peirce 21:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please join with me in urging Hayford not to resign

Peter, see my plea to Hayford not to resign as Constable (on his Talk page). Please join me! Milton Beychok 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometric sequence

Approved! Your on a roll! D. Matt Innis 22:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometry à l'anglaise

Hello, Peter. Please see totally unsatisfactory reply at my talk page. Ro Thorpe 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft is now, in my opinion, ready for approval, but as I have been heavily involved with authoring the article I cannot nominate it for approval alone. You probably don't consider yourself enough of an expert on the topic to nominate it, however as you are the only other active Games Editor I thought I would give you the heads up in case I am wrong. --Chris Key 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to read it first, and in view of the Charter discussions this may take some time. I do not need to be an expert in WoW to judge how it looks to an "outsider" (it's better to not be an expert for this), and whom else should one trust that the "inside" information is correct than someone who knows the game intimately? It has to be checked if it is too much of a fan article, though. --Peter Schmitt 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, take all the time you need. I have aimed to keep the article neutral and hopefully you will find it acceptable. It is a shame that there is no mechanism for two Editors to approve an article for situations like this - one an expert on the specific subject but also an author for the article, the other an Editor for the workgroup but not as intimately knowledgeable on the specific topic. It would in some ways seem more suitable. There is of course the option of group approval, but that would require a third editor. --Chris Key 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Covariance (look now)

Peter, please look at my two simple remarks to Covariance; it should be approved tomorrow. Boris Tsirelson 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Boris. I have seen it but was too engaged in discussions. Do you follow the forum, or the Charter drafting? It is rather time-consuming. Thus I have to apologize that I have neglected Line and Plane, too. --Peter Schmitt 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not; instead I hope you represent my interests there :-)

About "on the same sample space (with respect to the same probability distribution)" I bother: for many readers "distribution" is associated with a random variable only; they will think you speak about two identically distributed random variables. Boris Tsirelson 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Covariance

Another one for you! Where *do* you find the time :-) D. Matt Innis 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of it was done in less "stormy" days (a year ago, and in January). The progress is due to Boris, who took the initiative. --Peter Schmitt 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Boris has figured it out! Hopefully, you won't be held captive much longer :) But, it has been a few years since my approvals! I'm thinking that it won't be long till we'll have some three editor collaborations in the mathematics workgroup that are a lot more fun, too. D. Matt Innis 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cryp. article at [2] approved

Congratulations, Peter, we've finally got the article approved! Sorry for the various delays.... Hayford Peirce 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Set theory

.. is approved. Good work, both initially and through the controversy. Are you ready for another one?! D. Matt Innis 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.0 of Line Approved

Hi, Peter, I've Approved Version 1.0 Hayford Peirce 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)