User talk:Spacepotato/Archive 4

Sagittarius A*

No need to reply, but I thought I'd swing by and say thanks for the work on the Sgr A* article. The SMBH section is now much clearer about what Sgr A* is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrickball (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Trigintillion

For the sake of completeness, here is a copy of what in my talk page followed by my response. --Champaign (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the talk page of the Names of large numbers article under the section No existence of "trigintillion"? I beg to differ!:

I have removed the sentence, "Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of names of large numbers, is not included in any of them, nor are any of the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.)." Trigintillion would seem like a very logical name for 10⁹³ as triginta is Latin for thirty, so the name can obviously thus be easily created and used for this particular large number and the section on Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers uses this word just fine.--Champaign (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Note from Champaign (talk): My edit was reverted by Spacepotato with this edit summary: 09:13, 8 January 2009 Spacepotato (talk|contribs) (32,208 bytes) ("Trigintillion" isn't in the cited dictionaries. It's in this article, but this article is not a dictionary.)

Ok. I concede your point. However, the sentence reads in its entirety:

Trigintillion, often cited as a word in discussions of large numbers, in not included in any of them [dictionary numbers], nor in the names that can easily be created by extending the naming pattern (unvigintillion, duovigintillion, duoquinquagintillion, etc.). [strong emphasis and italics added]

Extending the naming pattern accordingly (by the way the third item on the list of examples should be trevigintillion and not "duoquinquagintillion," which would correspond to duoquinquaginta, the Latin for 52, and to 10¹⁵⁹ numerically in short scale...well, perhaps the writer was jumping numbers, but no matter), one would unavoidably end up at novemvigintillion or 10⁹⁰ and this number times 1000 (10⁹³) can have no other name "by extending the naming pattern," except trigintillion. Also, while it may be true that it is not a dictionary number, I have never heard this number name come up anywhere "in discussions of names of large numbers" I've ever had, which brings up another point: what source could be cited to support the assertion that trigintillion is "often cited as a word in discussions" like these? I figured, why even bring up trigintillon at all whether it's a dictionary number or not? I don't think the word is notable and I defy anyone to please show me a source that says it is. Anyway, I would like to give one week from writing this for someone to please show me a good reason why this sentence is relavent to this article. After that, if such is either not forthcoming or insufficient, I shall see no other alternative but to remove the entire sentence. --Champaign (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[I replied to this on Talk:Names of large numbers.] Spacepotato (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Developed County

Dear Spacepotato,

I noticed you didn't like the addition of OECD: developed country club - the ref I put in http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/57/39370725.pdf that you deleted has this in: "The OECD has taken a somewhat different route than the Commission, though its concerns, as befits a developed country ‘club’ are similar." on page 4. I don't think it is contentious to those working in development to refer to the OECD in this way.

Also you deleted FTSEgroup's list of developed countries and I would like to put it back. I have raised some issues with your deletion of that on the Developed country talk page. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

1. As I mentioned in my edit summary, we need more substantiation than a mention in passing in an OECD report before saying that the OECD is "widely known as the 'developed country club'". This is a tendentious statement as it gives the impression that being in the OECD is synonymous with being developed.
2. As for the FTSE list, this is a ranking of financial markets and has nothing to do with the status of the country's economy overall. Spacepotato (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

wrt to developed countries club is it your argument that it the OECD is not referred to in this way or that it wasn't sufficiently referenced. In my view it is widely refered to as such and a quick look on Google's search engine yielded these:

• http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no160/104.shtml
• http://www.indianexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19971214/34850733.html
• http://www.esri.go.jp/en/forum1/minute/minute26-e.html

If you think these would warrant your reverting your deletions feel free to put the thing back. PS wrt FTSE I have put my response of the developed country talk page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Altair GAN on hold

Hello, I have performed a Good Article review on Altair, and have placed it on hold until concerns left on its talk page are addressed. It will remain on hold for seven days. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Born rule

Thanks for clarifying my edit, I only studied QM as an undergrad and I don't think we covered the idea that eigenstates might not just be 1D eigenvectors. Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a physical variable where the eigenvalues of the measurement operator are discrete rather than continuous and the eigenstates have more than one dimension? Also, in such a case could we still say the probability of getting a given eigenstate is $|<\lambda _{i}|\psi >|^{2}$, or does this only work when eigenstates are 1D eigenvectors? Hypnosifl (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. If we have two uncoupled spin-1/2 particles, and we observe S_z, the total spin in the z-direction of the whole system, then the eigenspace where S_z is zero will be 2-dimensional, spanned by |up>|down> and |down>|up>.
2. The formula $|<\lambda _{i}|\psi >|^{2}$ only works when eigenspaces are 1-dimensional. If an eigenspace has a finite number $q>1$ of dimensions, then $<\psi |P_{i}|\psi >$ can be expressed in terms of an orthonormal basis $|\lambda _{i}^{(1)}>$, ..., $|\lambda _{i}^{(q)}>$ of the eigenspace as

$<\psi |P_{i}|\psi >=|<\lambda _{i}^{(1)}|\psi >|^{2}+...+|<\lambda _{i}^{(q)}|\psi >|^{2}.$

Spacepotato (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your example makes me think of another question: do eigenspaces with more than one dimension only occur when we're dealing with multiparticle wavefunctions, or could there be an observable of a single-particle wavefunction with eigenspaces of more than one dimension? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For an example with one particle, you can take a single spin-3/2 particle and observe the operator T, where T is defined to be +1 if the z-component of the spin is positive and -1 if the z-component of the spin is negative. Spacepotato (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Future of an expanding universe

Hi. I was wondering why you undid my edit at "Future of an expanding universe." One of my study books shows Red Dwarf Evolution and I can see that the star just fades (because it can start helium and turn into a Red Giant) and collapses into a Black Dwarf. Thanks for some clarification, 68.40.189.45 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest consulting Figure 1 in The End of the Main Sequence (Gregory Laughlin, Peter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams, The Astrophysical Journal, 482 (June 10, 1997), pp. 420–432, Bibcode:1997ApJ...482..420L, doi:10.1086/304125.) This figure gives the projected future evolution of a 0.1 solar mass red dwarf. As can be seen, even at a point where nuclear fusion has almost ceased the star is still quite hot, with an effective temperature of several thousand kelvin. It is certainly not a black dwarf at this point. Spacepotato (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe that is true or outdated. In the study book I was reading (Which by the way is called "Universe") is shows a low mass star, about a third of the Sun's mass. The book says that once these stars finally use up all of their Hydrogen, they do not have enough energy to even start burning Helium, now the majority of the star. So, the star just collapses on itself with no massive explosion and slowly cools into a Black Dwarf once they finish shedding their gas very slowly. Thanks! 68.40.189.45 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a star becomes a white dwarf and then cools slowly. Spacepotato (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but its core had shut down and was cooling inside the collapsing gases. And, I'm not sure if you quite understand me, because I'm talking about M1-5 stars and not G or F (larger) stars. 68.40.189.45 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand that perfectly well. Spacepotato (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can you please look that up in another book or website and confirm the Red Dwarfs do expel their gas into a White Dwarf, instead of collapsing on themselves and then slowly shedding their gas and emerging as a Black Dwarf? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the star becomes a white dwarf or not, not what evolutionary process it used to get there. However, if you are interested in the evolution of red dwarfs, I would suggest reading the Laughlin et al. paper I mentioned earlier. Spacepotato (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but my Study Book condradicts that, since Red Dwarfs never start burning their Helium, so can you please try looking at other websites? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The paper does not say that low-mass red dwarfs ever go through a helium-burning stage. If you are equating becoming a white dwarf with going through a helium-burning stage, this is not correct. Spacepotato (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I said that they never burn their Helium, and instead just fade into Black Dwarfs after finishing their Hydrogen burning stage. And, I think my book might be wrong since a lot of websites say that Red Dwarfs turn into Red or White Dwarfs after fading. 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To rephrase a portion of the paper for you, it states that for a 0.1 solar mass red dwarf, after several trillion years of fully convective hydrogen burning, a radiative core will develop at the center. Shortly thereafter, hydrogen will be exhausted at the center, the star will contract and become hotter, and hydrogen will burn in a shell around the center. Eventually the center will become degenerate, and some time after this the star will start to cool as it shrinks, finally becoming a helium white dwarf which will subsequently cool further. Spacepotato (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That would also make sense, thanks for explaining that to me. Ok, see you around! 68.40.189.45 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Giant star

Spacepotato, you reverting my edit that changed the "Red giant" that was really correct. Above, you said Red dwarfs contract and the core with stop burning, and become a helium white dwarf. My point is that you said Red dwarfs never become Red giants, which I also knew before. So why did you change it back to giant if that is not correct, I don't think Red giants are still burning Hydrogen. . . 68.40.189.45 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not red dwarfs become red giants depends on their mass. A red dwarf whose main-sequence mass is approximately 0.25 solar masses or below will not become a red giant. However, if a red dwarf has a main-sequence mass of above 0.25 solar masses, after the main-sequence lifetime of the red dwarf ends, hydrogen will begin to burn in a shell around the core and it will cool and expand, eventually becoming a red giant. Spacepotato (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, then why does it say earlier in the article that they don't? And, aren't stars that are 0.25-0.75 mass orange stars? And I mean this also because if the Red dwarfs only burn hydrogen, then why do they ever become red giants? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To take your questions in order:

1. It doesn't.
2. Main-sequence stars with masses below 0.5 solar mass are red dwarfs.
3. They become hydrogen-burning red giants.

Spacepotato (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said they become Blue Dwarfs which shrink into White dwarfs? Can you give me a source that says Red dwarfs turn into Hydrogen-burning Red Giants? 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens depends on the mass. I recommend that you read the Laughlin, Bodenheimer, and Adams paper I mentioned earlier. Spacepotato (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I never thought I was so bad at astronomy. 68.40.189.45 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fredric Alan Shapiro

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fredric Alan Shapiro, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-existent redirect, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Fredric Shapiro

I have nominated Fredric Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. THF (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Fredric Alan Shapiro

I have nominated Fredric Alan Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. THF (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Expand-using-translation

Great minds think alike, I guess! Just recently User:Dr. Blofeld, User:AlbertHerring, and I developed a suite of similar templates independently, and I've taken the liberty of replacing yours with ours because ours have additional functionality. See {{Expand Spanish}}, {{Expand Japanese}}, etc. Would you mind if I deleted Template:Expand-using-translation as well? If you have any other ideas about how we can best deploy these templates, we'd love to have another collaborator. Keep up the good work! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you can delete Template:Expand-using-translation. Spacepotato (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Capella (star)

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone working on the issues brought up in the GAN review? It's been a week, and nothing has been done. Unless something happens in the next day or two, I will fail the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico History

hey, could you tell me why you remove the sources I put in the Mexican American War page?, the first one in the PBS documentary webpage clearly says in the text that Mexico never recognize the independence of Texas (PARAGRAPH 3 LINE 2) ..., you have to read the text my friend, and about the map I'm using a carte of OFFICIAL maps of Mexico from the UNAM. when clerly shows the Texas border in the Nueces Rives and how Mexico see the TRATADO DE GUADALUPE HIDALGO (LINE 2 PICTURE 3) but i'm not using this map I'm using one made by myself but is the same. check again LINE 2 PICTURE 3.

Sorry if you don;t understand spanish but as the text in the page says IS THE MEXICAN POINT OF VIEW, obviously we never going to find sources in english because in the US you have a diferent history. I can't understand people like you to only want to be in wikipedia what you want o what you fit in your mind. I;m mexican and I can say you how the history in my country is told in the schools.

thank you. jmko22 —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

1. Your claim is that the white area in map 3, line 2 in the UNAM collection [1] shows territory ceded in 1848, but the map does not say so, and this is contradicted by map 4, line 2, which shows that east Texas separated from Mexico in 1845.
2. As for the third paragraph of the PBS source, it does not discuss the cession at all.

Spacepotato (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Need your advice about calming down the Central American edit wars

Hello Spacepotato. I saw your name on one of the Talk pages. Have you worked with Corticopia, AlexCovarrubias etc. in the past? If you have a moment of time, can you look at User talk:EdJohnston#Sockpuppet and see what you would advise? Alex is claiming that Ixtapl is a sock of Corticopia (which is certainly possible) but it's hard to see what the actual abuse is. I have trouble myself knowing who is right about this Central America business. Do you have any idea of how the dispute between Corticopia and AlexCovarrubias might be resolved? It seems to be spreading across several articles, which may have to be locked, unless a block is appropriate, or we can persuade one or both editors to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[I replied to this at User talk:EdJohnston.] Spacepotato (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

North America

. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to the book Fowler's Modern English Usage (ISBN 0-19-861021-1), not the Wikipedia article. Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The < ref > says...

<ref>Burchfield, R. W., ed. 2004. America............ [[Fowler's Modern English Usage]]!!!!! (ISBN 0-19-861021-1) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 48 -- quotation reads: "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. Countries to the south of the United States are described as being in Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) or South America ([[Brazil]], [[Argentina]], etc.)"; see also: McArthur, Tom. 1992. "North American." ''The Oxford Companion to the English Language'' (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 707..

A external links is needed. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the reference is to the book. Spacepotato (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your preferance for foreign language citations

WP:VUE is very applicable in this situation and that being said, I must point out that English citations are prefered and foreign languege citations can only be used if there is no English equivalent. There is an English equivalant and the Spanish citation is unnacceptable in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacing a non-English-language reference by an English-language reference which contains the same data is permissible and, as you point out, recommended by WP:VUE. On the other hand, deleting foreign-language references outright is not recommended by WP:VUE. In fact it should be avoided as it decreases the verifiability of the encyclopedia. Similarly, removing material supported by non-English-language references is not helpful. We have many foreign-language references in Wikipedia. Some examples in featured articles are Japan (5 references in Japanese), Germany (c. 19 references in German), and Vasa (ship) (5 in Swedish, 1 in Finnish). We need foreign-language references as they may contain information which is unavailable or not easily available in English; they are even more necessary where the subject of the article is a non-English speaking country or a location in a non-English-speaking country. Spacepotato (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

verifiability lies with the editor who adds the information. WP:VUE prefers citations in English unless there is no citation in English. It does not say "it must be in English unless the foreign language citation is better, or you just don't want to find one in English". If an English citation is available, then the foreign language citations should not be used. If an English one is available, but the editor who chooses to add the information chooses not to use the English citation, then the information should be deleted. English speakers cannot verify the information. If its not verified, then it should be removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the foreign language citation is better, then it should be used, as in this case it is not equivalent to the English citation. It should be clear from WP:V that foreign-language sources do satisfy the verifiability requirement. If you know of an English-language source which gives the same data as a foreign-language source, then, in accordance with WP:VUE, you could replace the foreign-language source with the English-language source. Deleting the source altogether is not desirable as it will not improve the verifiability of Wikipedia. Spacepotato (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Stellar_classification#White_dwarf_classifications

Is the classification listed as:

• pre-WD
  • PG 1159
    • GW Vir
    • DOV
    • PNNV

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the terminology is not absolutely uniform. At the top level, we certainly have pre-white dwarfs, some of which have spectral type PG 1159. On a finer level, according to Nagel & Werner 2005 [2], we have

• PG 1159 stars, of which some are pulsating (i.e., variable)
  • Pulsating PG 1159 stars, also called GW Vir stars, which are subdivided into:
    • PNNV stars (low-gravity)
    • DOV stars (high-gravity)

On the other hand, according to Córsico & Althaus 2006 [3], we have

• PG 1159 stars, of which some are variable
  • Variable PG 1159 stars, also called GW Vir or DOV stars, which are subdivided into:
    • PNNV stars (low-gravity, with a nebula)
    • "naked" GW Vir stars (high-gravity, without a nebula)

In addition, Quirion et al. 2007 [4] classifies some stars which are not of spectral type PG 1159 as GW Vir, although the paper remarks: "It is indeed usual to consider only the pulsating PG 1159 stars to belong to the GW Vir family..."

Spacepotato (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Harem effect (science)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harem effect (science), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Harem effect. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[This bot notice was generated incorrectly owing to a page split.] Spacepotato (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)