User talk:Star trooper man

Welcome!

Hello, Star trooper man, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

In addition, you are encouraged (but not required) to cite your sources. Wikipedia:Citation templates has some useful fill-in-the-blank type things that may make that easier, but feel free not to use them if you find them confusing.

You may want to look at some of Wikipedia's best work to get an idea of what we are aiming at.

You are invited to use your userpage to tell us a little about yourself; yours is here.

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 place {{helpme}} on this page (which is your talk page) and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. You also might be interested in being adopted by Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. Again, welcome!

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Christopedia

A tag has been placed on Christopedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | ^talk 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Christopedia

I have nominated Christopedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Blowdart | ^talk 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports information

I'm not an admin currently. You can however place requests for page protection here. I doubt however that this will occur since updates of stats are pretty frequently done correctly by non-logged in users. If there are specific pages that are having this sort of problem occur frequently then they might be willing to protect those specific pages. You may also want to request rollback which will make dealing with such issues more efficient. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscalar

{{helpme}} Whilst this is supposedly my area of expertise, I feel I need some advice regarding this article. As you can see from the edit history, I removed the Clifford algebra section, not because it is wrong per se, but for the reason that it was inconsistent with the rest of the article. However, despite a Google scholar search, I'm still not too clear on what a pseudoscalar is, or if there really are two distinct definitions.

If we are to take the statement that "The pseudoscalar is the top-grade element of a Clifford algebra" as truth, then it is wrong to state that it need commute with all other elements and change sign under parity inversion. These are both true if the algebra has an odd underlying basis (number of basis vectors), but neither are true if the underlying basis is even.

Unfortunately, some of the same literature that state one definition seem to suggest that the other is equally general. Thus I am unsure how to proceed.

Given that only odd-dimensional space possesses anything like a pseudoscalar as currently defined in the article, I am slightly suggesting scrapping the current content and replacing it with the Clifford algebra definition (the bit I removed, perhaps wrongly). I am also questioning the article's status on the importance scale as "low", given the number of references in physics publications.

This paper seems to introduce the commuting and parity-inversion properties but in passing for a geometry in which this is true. [[1]]

Please may I have some advice.

--Leon (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try asking this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics, where more people with maths-type experience are likely to hang out. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I second that a post at the mathematics section of the reference desk might be in order, as the material you are talking about is very specific to those knowledgeable and competent enough in the mathematics sphere to weigh the issue. Certainly I am incompetent, as will be most of the random cross section of people who happen to respon to your helpme posting. ~~You should also raise these concerns on the article's talk page, though, of course they will only be seen there by the small group who have the article watchlisted~~ (I just noticed you already have). Regarding the priority listing, note that this is not an assessment of the importance of the topic overall, but only an assessment of the priority that should be given to writing the article by members of a Wikiproject. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your concern, but most users just ignore these WikiProject assessment notes of what to concentrate on. But if you think it should be raised, you can take that up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit on Geometric algebra

I reverted your change on this page (and my fix of the redlink) as the degeneracy condition is given in the previous sentence. I agree though that the second sentence is not very intuitive - it's not until you read the definition of a geometric product that it makes sense. But that follows from the properties of the algebra !? I don't know if there's a better way to put it that doesn't require you to already know the product. --John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I'm utterly confused; I don't really see what the definition of the geometric product has to do with the status of any particular algebra being a geometric algebra or some other Clifford algebra. Can you give me an example of a Clifford algebra that DOESN'T have a geometric product, and furthermore isn't a geometric algebra. Thanks.--Leon (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A geometric algebra requires a non-degenerate quadratic form. I think the second sentence makes sense if you take the definition of the geometric product to be ab = a·b + a^b, as this implies it is not degenerate, though again it's rather circular as the precise definition of a·b depends on the quadratic form, or if you take the normal inner product excludes algebras like Λℝ^3,1. An example of a Clifford algebra that's not a geometric one would e.g. be the exterior algebra, which has zero quadratic form, ab = a^b, but is a Clifford algebra (if a not very interesting one).

But I'm not really sure there is an intuitive definition. It makes sense when you've worked with geometric algebras that they are the only one that you can do algebra in, and all examples come from them. But I'm not sure how to write that so it makes sense to someone new to the topic, which surely is the point of the sentence. --John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The reason I dispute this is that if you have one vector squaring to zero, and the others squaring to something else (i.e. 1), the algebra still has a geometric product, but with some degeneracy. And this is not unheard of, see here for an example where, in fact, two vectors that square to zero. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Leon (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the paragraph after your edit and my fixing the redlink, with the sentence we edited italicised:

In mathematical physics, a geometric algebra is a multilinear algebra described technically as a Clifford algebra over a real vector space equipped with a non-degenerate quadratic form. Informally, a geometric algebra is a Clifford algebra that includes a nondegenerate metric. This allows the theory and properties of the algebra to be built up in an intuitive, geometric way. The term is also used in a more general sense to describe the study and application of these algebras: so Geometric algebra is the study of geometric algebras.

The problem is the only thing it says differently (ignoring the different non-degenerate links) is "metric", which in this context means the same thing as "quadratic form". Even worse metric in a mathematical sense, e.g. Metric (mathematics) is too restrictive as it would exclude e.g. the Minkowski metric. Hence my revert, as it seemed to be no different and in one way worse than the sentence before it. I'm sure that that paragraph can be improved but I don't know how.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your remarks, and now agree that "metric" was the wrong word. But I'm not too clear on the distinction between a geometric algebra and a more general Clifford algebra, which I once thought I was, as in light of what I said above, the existence of an inner product (and furthermore geometric product) does not quite imply that a non-degenerate quadratic form should exist. I won't edit again until I have some sort of an answer.--Leon (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. It was an ill advised edit by someone who should have known better. TheresaWilson (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more on GA

Just added another brief reply to WP:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2010_January_2#Geometric_algebra_question_-_involutions, then noticed it's now in the archive so's probably not on your wachlist. --John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! BTW, there's an article I want to write, I'm just not sure if it's notable enough. It's on Conformal geometric algebra. Here and here are reliable(?) sources obtained from the relevant search term. What do you think? I'm pretty sure there's far too much to include in the article Geometric algebra, but it doesn't follow that we need another article if the material's unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at all. (I asked someone else, but he said the topic was outside of his expertise, and thus he wasn't able to help)--Leon (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting topic that I've looked at but not really looked into. Here is the first place I came across it, possibly the first development of it. It's interesting as it's one of the few areas that geometric algebra really does anything new and useful that I'm aware of. Most GA is either providing a new foundation for existing physics and maths or is so abstract it has little use. Whether that makes it notable I don't know: it's so new that I'm not sure how much it's being used in the real world--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to UEFA Club Football Awards, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ekerazha (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was ultimately trying to remove vandalism by replacing the content with an older, correct form. As for the line since restored, I question how helpful it really was, though I have no qualm with its inclusion or otherwise.--Leon (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It highlights a prestigious achievement. ekerazha (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Example electronics problem with inductors and capacitors.png

Thanks for uploading File:Example electronics problem with inductors and capacitors.png, which you've attributed to University material. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching conditions and salaries

Hi Leon,

If you’re actually puzzled, here’s my best guess:

You teach in a good sixth form college where

- Students are relatively mature
- Students want to be there, and want to learn
- Students do homework
- Students have a wide background knowledge, including vocabulary
- Students are mostly or entirely in the social groups that tend to do well no matter what their school or teachers are like
- People are respectful to you
- Classes are maybe 20 students at the most

Whereas, for example, I teach in a state comprehensive where many of my students will be the first in their families to remain in education beyond the age of 16. I regularly have classes of 32 students, and have put my foot down in refusing to take more as I would need to swap classrooms for those lessons and find that quickly becomes unmanageable. I typically need to mark a set of books each night, that is 32 books. My students need constant encouragement and behaviour management, and when a child slacks off in their classwork or homework I am expected to give up my lunchtime or afterschool time to catch them up. When a student is unable to cope with minimum standards of behaviour, I am lucky that I can have them removed from the lesson (many schools do not offer this), but I then have to stay with them afterschool.

I have a lot of tracking and planning to do. I love my occasional A-level lessons, because you can basically follow the scheme in the book, and you generally don’t have to assume the students will have forgotten the previous lesson, so the planning is much easier. I mean, at a push you could wing A-level for a long time by telling the students to read the section, spend the lesson doing a few examples, then set them to do exercises. Not ideal, but with students who want to be there they would probably still do okay. I spend a lot of time finding and creating resources for my lessons, coming up with careful examples, and structuring things to guide students through typical misunderstandings. I also have to provide ways of checking the progress of 32 students who won’t always accurately self-report, and differentiated work for them to do based on those assessments, and interesting ways for them to repeatedly practice skills until they have them.

And then I have the meetings and trainings, and the research I do, because we are constantly trying to improve practice and look at what is coming out in the literature. Sometimes we take part in studies. I honestly get a little excited when I see certain misunderstandings ‘in the wild’ that I have uncovered with carefully chosen examples, and I am always looking for new models or new ways to use old models, with evidence for how well this helps develop understanding and make links for students.

On top of this, I am a form tutor who is supposed to be checking equipment and uniform and life comfort and school behaviour and generally be a parent to a group of students for whom I have filled in several Child Protection forms. I spend most lunchtimes talking with some of them. I am supposed to provide them with careers advice, and guidance in their academic choices, particularly given their family backgrounds. I also run afterschool clubs.

And then you’ll occasionally get a student with emotional problems who gets their dad to ring up and say he’ll beat you up and have your job because you accused their child of stealing, and you have to gather witnesses to this child having made it all up, and a good school fortunately also limits the contact dad is allowed to have with anyone at school.

I love my job, but a lot of my friends left because they resented never having any time to do anything non-school-related during term time, even weekends. Many of them were coming in during holidays to run interventions or plan out changes to the curriculum. Some left because it was just making them miserable to be treated with such little respect every day. Some left because the workload was unreasonable, and that never stopped people giving them more to do. I left a school where I was held responsible (as in, constantly made to feel it was my fault, told to improve) for not managing the behaviour of a class where, it turned out, I was the only subject attempting to teach a particular combination of students, including some who took drugs on their way to class and I don’t mean pot, because every other subject had split them up as unteachable.

I have a masters in engineering: I could make a lot more money elsewhere, and did before this. In real terms, my salary is lower than an equivalent teacher’s from 5 years ago. When the curriculum changes, as it constantly does at the moment, I know I will always have the knowledge and skills to cope, and could easily research any skills or knowledge I needed but found I was missing. We also spend a lot of time analysing the exams and exam system, as well as the new curriculum in general, for clues as to how best get our students ready and giving the right kind of answers: skilled work, but I lost another colleague to this because it doesn’t feel like the right focus.

I don’t disagree that a sixth-form college with a skilled lab technician could probably cope with an unskilled A-level physics teacher, if the students are relatively motivated: I myself was the only one in my class to pass my A-level physics without retaking, because I ignored the teacher and just followed the syllabus and textbook. Do you even have to do any practical work at A-level anymore? Sixth-form colleges are considered pretty cushy jobs, as teaching goes.

91.125.175.252 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]