User talk:MathMartin

• Archive: - 2004
• Archive: 2005
• Archive: 2006

I love your definition of continuity in terms of closeness relations! However, as has been pointed out on the talk page, "closeness relation" is not standard terminology. In the textbook Introduction to General Topology, K. D. Joshi uses the term "nearness relation" for the concept you describe.

More importantly, the axioms you list for a closeness relation are not equivalent to the ones given by Joshi, which are equivalent to the Kuratowski_closure_axioms. For example, your axioms do not guarantee that ${\displaystyle p\in A}$ implies ${\displaystyle p}$ close to ${\displaystyle A}$. This breaks the important connection between closeness and closure.

Also, your closeness relation between two sets is typically known as a "proximity" (again, see Joshi), and I think one of your axioms would have to be strengthened slightly to make your axioms equivalent to Joshi's.

With your permission, I would like to request that Closeness_(mathematics) be moved to Nearness relation (I can't move it myself, because my account isn't autoconfirmed yet), and make a major edit that changes the axioms and terminology to match Joshi's.

Vectornaut (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You said:

Given a periodic point x with prime period t, then ${\displaystyle \Phi (t,x)=\Phi (t+s,x)}$ for all s in R

Are you sure? I don't really know anything about dynamical systems, but that doesn't sound right to me. This would make ${\displaystyle \Phi (a,x)=\Phi (b,x)}$ for all a and b, which means that ${\displaystyle \Phi (s,x)=x}$ for any s, which sounds far too restrictive. Staecker 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you are correct. I fixed my mistake. MathMartin 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, MathMartin!

I've been reading the new articles (Hartman-Grobman theorem, stable manifold theorem) that you've been writing lately, and doing my best to add references. You might want to take a look, to be sure you approve. If you have any reference information yourself, I'd be heppy to hear from you. The Hartman-Grobman name was fairly simple to track down, but the stable manifold theorem is giving me more trouble. It seems there are several of these, and the one you've written about is (I think) a result attributed to Ya. B. Pesin and D. Ruelle. Is that right? Thanks! DavidCBryant 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for putting references in the article. I was unable to check the paper by Pesin. The paper by Ruelle seems to talk about a generalization of the basic stable manifold theorem.

I am currently working on articles connected with dynamical systems and I created Hartman-Grobman theorem, stable manifold theorem as stubs, because those articles are basic (important) theorems in the field needed for reference in other articles. The main problem with those articles is that their content is quite well known but there still do not exist canonical statements of those theorems. Especially the stable manifold theorem is giving me a headache because every author seems to proof a slightly different version of it. So basically I cannot provide solid reference for the theorems and I think in these cases it is neither possible nor useful. Dynamical systems is a very confusing topic because the terminology in the field is not yet standarized and before you can state any sort of interesting theorem, you first have to fix a notation.

On the other hand adding a reference to the first paper, the theorem was published in, is a very good idea and I would very much like to see wikipedia add original (historical) statements of important theorems to math articles.

I have been following your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about this topic and I understand that in order to increase the quality of the articles and fend of cranks we need references. But I think in this case it is not possible and at least I did not find any canonical and easy to understand version of the theorems on the net or in books. I must admit though that I am currently studying these topics so perhaps the wikipedia dynamical system expert(s) might disagree. MathMartin 14:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I just came across Clenshaw algorithm which you wrote a while back. I wonder if you know of a good algorithm for finding Chebyshev coefficients for a given polynomial? I'd be interested to expand the Clenshaw algorithm page...could you point me to a good resource for finding materials about the algorithm? --HappyCamper 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have written the article quite some time ago (2 1/2 years) and I am not very deep into numerical analysis at the moment. Feel free to expand the article but I cannot provide any help. All the information I have on the Clenshaw algorithm is in the article :). You could ask User:Jitse Niesen for help, as he works in numerical analysis, or post a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, where the mathematicians hang out. Greetings. MathMartin 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I just might do that. Thanks for getting back to me! --HappyCamper 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Martin, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Knot span, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello MathMartin! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Reinhold Remmert - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Knot span has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no reasonable claim of notability, article has been unsourced for six years.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adjacent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjacent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bg9989 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Class numbber (group theory). Since you had some involvement with the Class numbber (group theory) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Continuous linear form. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Continuous linear form until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Trivial extension has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8 § Trivial extension until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply