User talk:Padicgroup

Welcome!

Hello, Padicgroup, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. You may want to stop by Mathematics project page, see what people are talking about, and introduce yourself. Again, welcome!

Schur orthogonality relations

With regard to Schur for compact groups: SO(3) and SU(2) are extremely important in chemistry and physics. Could we not find some common ground of presenting the facts that I entered and you deleted: readable by physicists and not too ugly/clumsy to mathematicians? Another point: you define a matrix coefficient (which physicists call a matrix element). Should α not appear in its notation?--P.wormer 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new parts read fairly smoothly, so the additions are good, but some of the material in Schur orthogonality relations appears to have simply been deleted, not moved as indicated in the comments. It would be good to reincorporate them into the article, perhaps in a new subsection like "explicit examples using SO(3)". JackSchmidt 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edit is horrible: almost no mathematical content (a large part of it can be replaced by a link to SO(3)), random notation, ugly looking, and many typesetting errors. Can you, please, at least proofread your contributions? On a more fundamental level, there is no point in accumulating clutter. In the section on compact groups, it suffices to give the general form of orthogonality relations and an illustration for SO(3) using the standard notation (spherical functions). Arcfrk 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added back what was already there on SO(3). I had deleted it when I added the section on compact groups. This caused complaints form the origonal authors. And now I am getting complaints for putting back what was there, exactly as it was. Personally, I would prefer it to be in a section on Haar measure examples. However, I do not feel I know enough about SO(3) to be writing a good article on it. I am no longer going to mess with SO(3) people can do with it as they want but I am currently frustrated. Padicgroup 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized that you are new to wikipedia, so please, don't dwell on what I wrote above. Here is how it works here:

If they are unhappy about "it", then they can revert! If you have your plan, you can follow it through, so that you are responsible for your edits. That makes the process a lot saner. It looks like you missed a couple of math tags in the process of restoring the section, which is why I complained. Concerning SO(3): there is no need "to be writing a good article on it" within the Schur orthogonality relations. There is already a decent article on SO(3), and, that's the beauty of Wikipedia, you can simply link to it, like so:

[[SO(3)]]

Likewise, you can link to Euler angles, Haar measure, and so on. This has the dual advantage of splitting the work (especially, if someone has already gone through troubles of writing up the other part) and making the text more readable. However, you should make sure that you follow the same conventions and use the same notation as the articles that you are linking to, and, very importantly, check your text for typographical errors, as many people get very frustrated when they feel they need to "clean up someone else's mess". You can preview as many times as you want or even create a section in your sandbox first and substitute it into the article later, when you are satisfied with it. In any event, welcome to wikipedia, we hope that you will like it here and decide to stay. Happy editing! Arcfrk 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]