User talk:ChuckHG

Welcome

Hi ChuckHG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice edits so far! I noticed you have edited the knot theory page, adding refs for some of the results I stated. Thanks. Anyway, your comment about the Smith Conjecture piqued my interest, since I've been meaning a long time to work on such an article. I don't have time for that (it's liable to be too big a project for me now), but certainly it would be very good if you wanted to write such an article :-) You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Current_activity which is a very useful page. --C S (Talk) 00:08, 16 December 2005

(UTC)

Hello, I have undone a couple of your revisions to the Monty Hall/Bayes Theorem secction. Please see the talk page for an explanation, and reply there if needed.The Glopk 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chuck. Many thanks for the very interesting addon to my article on a Pythagorean Triple which approximates 30,60,90 triangle. Neil Parker 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knots "attenzione al mi"

Hello, lets collaborate then, you reverted the DNA and the Braid pictures from the Knot Theory article. In mathematics, braid theory is a special field of knot theory. So both graphs are prevalent in the article, correct? Just I am letting you know before I proceed to revert your reversions, well this is another way of describing the recursive nature of our knotting dilemma. Let me know, I want to learn from your views. (In mi minor please) thanks. John Manuel-23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Manuel. I reverted the two pictures because they are poor representatives of the connection of DNA and Celtic friezes to knot/braid theory. Braid theory is connected with knot theory but not a subtheory of knot theory. I feel that putting the frieze pattern at the beginning of the knot theory article is poor placement vis-a-vis knot theory. The trefoil (simplest knot) is indeed the first knot that should be shown. And the DNA-split picture is both wrong (as a DNA-spint) and not at all a picture relevant to knot theory. If there is to be any further discussion, I think it best that it be carried out on Talk:Knot theory rather than here or on your talk page. So please to not revert my reversions. It might help you to know that my Ph.D. is in Mathematics (topology, knot theory, differential topology, algebraic K-theory), so I'm not just some amateur afficiando. Chuck 03:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chuck, Did you mean aficionado? As you know in here, and because the nature of this project, there are editors who claim anything about their background, so I won't describe mine. Anyhow, I agree about the trefoil and also given your experience, I ought to believe your statements about that Braid theory is indeed not a subtheory of knot theory. Also, I agree that we should use the Talk:Knot theory and not the Talk:Braid since this two fields should be stating the same regarding its relation to each other, by the way I suggest the creation of the Braid theory page, there is not one as yet, and merge this with the contents of the article Braid.

I would like you to review the Braid article as well, which states that, "In mathematics, braid theory is a special field of knot theory", which in fact contradicts what you have been stated in here. I won't revert anything of your editions, I respect your propositions and should honor your experience and knowledge. However, as we know in sciences there are not "sacred cows". It is with this spirit that we should collaborate. I propose, the following challenges to be met:

Main objective: both articles (Braid and Knot theory) should be able to brief or educate the reader, such as their content could be understood by a reader that can be anyone from a 5-10 year-old or to a Ph. D. student and evenly beyond, lets say, you. Think in Diderot in here, if a reader were interested in the subject, these articles, once accessed, should be feed the reader well enough and accordingly to his/her expectation.

Improve the section(s), with sourced information and providing specific examples of it, on the application of Knot theory in the R&D fields of Biochemistry, DNA-Genetics, Quantum theory, et al., also, if there were not graphs, let me know, we ought to illustrate the theory for the general readers; I think animations as holographic representations should be ideal for the task. I found very appealing the idea of 'bringing' connections of Knot theory within other fields, and more importantly show respective images that enable those connections with DNA or 'other' research as it is possible or feasible. Attraction to your field should be the aim of this article.
Review both theories, Braid and Knot articles, so they do not contradict what is stated in each other.
Lets us coordinate either, in this talk page or in my talk page, before we jump into the talk pages of either theory article, to save time and grief with reversions or possible arguments, but lets us create the Braid theory article ASAP.

OK, ChuckHG let me know what you think either here or better at my talk page, also in between, think about in writing a WikiBook about Knot theory, I will assist you if you want to do it. There is not a rush for this, as it was not a rush for incrementing our mathematical knowhow since the beginning of our adventure as humankind, all if only if and as long as we get it right. Correct?

John Manuel-14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Byrd

On the subject of my William Byrd article, I realise of course that it does not contain the formatting characteristic of a Wikipedia article. I wrote it in the hope that somebody else from the editorial team might supply it. I'm afraid my criticisms of the original article still stand. It is way out of date and unbalanced, leaving out essential information. I would content that my substitution represents a necessary step in the right direction, though I agree that more work is needed. Since Byrd is remembered today as a composer, it does not seem to me 'unbalanced' to devote a substantial part of the article to a discussion of the music.

David

—Preceding unsigned comment added by D Humphreys (talk • contribs)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CiteCat

Template:CiteCat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]