Jpod2
Welcome edit
|
Koch curve edit
I had a look at what you wrote on the scale invariance page, and I'm not sure what you mean by f, so I don't know how to comment really.Mathmoclaire 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I replied on my talk page at length. Your edits to scale invariance are trying to encompass the ideas expressed in Category:Dimension theory. Do note that scaling in dimension theory is fairly highly developed, although there are a lot of open, outstanding problems. Fractal scaling in general is not trivial, and certainly the pop-lit books on fractals fail to give it justice. For example, the upper and lower Minkowski-Bouligand dimensions need not be equal. linas 17:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thesis advisor edit
So, I was wondering who your thesis advisor was. Just curious, as I figure I'm old enough, and that maybe there's some miniscule chance that I might know who they are, which would tickle me. linas 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, you don't have an email address set up for WP. I won't be able to comment further for a while. linas 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm back in town, and will be active again in a few days. I got to think about what we talked about; the upshot seems to be that when using the lattice topology, everything is smooth (but everywhere self-similar), and when transcribing to the Cantor topology, everything is fractal with the modular group symmetry. Basically, I'm working out the mechanics of what seems to be a broad isomorphism between a class of dyadic fractals and the lattice models; I'm tempted to say that for *every* fractal, there is a corresponding lattice model, (and v.v.) but I'm still trying to work out the details. Later. linas 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Irreversibility edit
FYI, I've prepared a longer essay on my user page on how I currently understand irreversibility in physics. I don't particularly want to get into a situation where I have to defend some of the points I make there: rather, my essay is more of an outline for ideas that I want to examine and read about more closely, to fill in more details for myself. linas 03:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Physics participation edit
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.
On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.
If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)