Dibyendum

hello

A couple of things

First off, the above should be in your sandbox. Talk pages are used for discussions and messages to you.

Then, about your recent edits, anybody can make mistakes. But don't shuffle around posts at will (like you did). The future readers will get the wrong impression.

Moreover, the section still has no inline citations. I hope you aren't using a Wikipedia article to do original research, or educating yourself. Contents must be verifiable. This means that references should be made to a reliable source. The boldface terms have well-defined meanings in Wikipedia.

That said, the section looks like it has the potential of becoming good. (But I'm not kidding about possible deletion if you don't provide citations.) YohanN7 (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a real expert has dropped by out of nowhere to give a helping hand here. The section is in good shape now. YohanN7 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

By inline citation's I mean footnotes. They are usually references to the literature. I suggest you look around a few articles that have inline citations, and you will see what I mean, and how they are produced. Also, the strange convention for the case of "no interaction" that Cuzkatzimhut mentioned probably should be fixed. That convention would be hard to find in the literature, hence hard to reference. YohanN7 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your thanks. I suspect it is not that hard to transition from the Merzbacher convention to the more common one, by interchanging the rows of the 2x2 matrix, but one may consider that in good time... no rush! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)