User talk:DePiep

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, DePiep

Thank you for creating Syriac (Western variant).

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the redirect

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: thanks, nice to hear this. DePiep (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

't Hooft symbol[edit]

Heya! Nice to meet you.

Concerning your edit on 't Hooft symbol, I still disagree that the unicode information should be included. This page sits within the context of mathematics/physics where non-Latin symbols are standard. There are hundreds of pages which include such symbols as standard notation, yet the unicode information is not included (and should not). It also misses the point that the Greek letter used is just a convention (even if an overwhelming one), not the rule. I could represent the 't Hooft symbol with an epsilon a B. Its meaning would not change.

But I will keep to the main point that this is simply not done anywhere else in mathematics/physics (and is not necessary). I mean, just to scratch the surface for some obvious ones, Levi-Civita symbol, Kronecker delta, Permittivity, Angular frequency, etc. None of them have this (or should have this). The unicode information does make sense in some contexts, such as the article for those letters, but not in physics/mathematics articles. OpenScience709 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its symbol should be described in that article somewhere. For starters: I say for for every symbol that is not a simple Latin letter, on this English(-language & so Latin-script) wiki. I have reduced its prominence. Do edit as you please. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But my point still stands that this is NOT the convention undertaken by Wikipedia. Mathematics/Physics articles simply do NOT include the unicode information every time a non-Latin letter comes up. And I think that they should not (and again convention agrees with me). I think that if you think otherwise then this should rather be proposed as a WikiProject wide suggestion (it's a massive change, which I doubt would pass) rather than imposed selectively on some articles. I again can't overstress the prominence of Greek letters in these articles. BTW hope that my vigorous stance is not coming of as hostile (I'm not)! I get what you are trying to say, I'm just saying that in the particular context of mathematics/physics, such a view is not standard and would be highly impractical and not very useful. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We describe the symbol (say character), extensively if not basic Latin, unopposed as wide as I can remember, with scientific quantities, units currencies, phonetic symbols, game, traffic, alchemic, flag, etc symbols. That is: apart from and next to their meaning. Yo may have found some counterexamples (looks like a special niche in maths only?), but that is not an argument at all. In short, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in long: if I'd produce an opposing article, I'd have counteragued you "proof" examples and so you'd have to admit the argument is idle (So pls check out ths other-other-stuff: from here).
Anyway, I still have not read why the symbol definition does not belong in an encyclopedic article (with or without the actual word symbol in its name/title). -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is not about the symbol itself. It's about the concept, the algebraic structure. I can use whatever symbol I want to represent the algebraic structure. The fact that it has "symbol" in the title does not mean that the article is about the symbol eta itself. Also my argument is not that other articles exist. It's that pretty much ALL articles in mathematics/physics do not include unicode information, not just some of them.
My "special niche" of mathematics/physics is EXACTLY my point. That is exactly where you find that Greek symbols proliferate, to the extent where including their unicode information every time they come up is pointless. Anyone reading the 't Hooft symbol article knows what eta is. The article is a super niche topic in theoretical physics; no one here who seriously needs to use the symbol will not know what eta is.
My point still stands that if you think that the convention on the mathematics/physics WikiProjects should change, propose it. Do you at least agree that the current convention does not include unicode information? OpenScience709 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your confusion though. The 't Hooft symbol is NOT about the symbol. It's about the algebraic concept, just like any other similar page. Just how the Kronecker delta (or literally any other page on a mathematical concept; this is not me cherry picking examples) is about the algebraic concept of the particular function, not about the symbol. In principle we could have called the 't Hooft symbol instead the 't Hooft eta or the 't Hooft tensor. It's referred to as a symbol by chance. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say? That the first sentence is wrong? I did not write that. That the actual examples are wrong? I did not write them. People are free to use any symbol? Then add that claim to the article. And no, nowhere I said that the article is about the symbol. Why are you thinking I am "confuses": pls stop thinking for me, no need to fill me in on symbols. The question is, why don't you want to describe the symbol(s) that are actually applied to this concept/or specifically not?. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that you seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of the first sentence. We call it a symbol for lack of a better word. It could just as well be called a tensor (its a collection of matrices as the rest of the article makes clear). Its the same idea as the fact that the Big Bang has nothing to do with sound despite the choice of the wording. The fact that people are free to use any symbol is already self evident from the fact that its a mathematics/physics topic. Adding that to the article is completely pointless. Look I will reword the first sentence a bit to make things more clear ok? Now it reads like the analogous Levi-Civita symbol article first sentence. If you still disagree, then we should probably get this issue sorted in the Teahouse or somewhere. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to tell me I have to sort things out. You still have not digested my question, let alone answered. Instead, you keep thinking, suggesting and speaking for me that I do not understand things. This thread is closed, won't get you or the article any further. This does not say agree with your underinformed actions. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if some "epsilon a B"[?] is possible, it should be mentioned as well. (insteead of omitting them both). And, adding that convention-not-rule note would be an improvement. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convention not rule is a fact of mathematical notation, not something that is particular to this page. I can represent pi with a the letter "m" or a "B" or a random Russian letter. If I declare it mean the number 3.14159..., then this is so. Of course some things have overwhelming conventions, but others have weaker conventions. But this idea of conventions is always implicit, so does not require the introduction of absolutes such as unicode information. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Any symbol you can possibly imagine can be used to describe the 't Hooft symbol. A squiggly line I will draw could describe it if I declare that it describes it. This is again because the article is not about the symbol. It's about the algebraic concept. OpenScience709 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that even other notation (letters) are possible as symbol of the topic where the article is about, which I can accept without blinking, then again and even more so it is a job of this encyclopedia to describe these (as in: "Which letter is this symbol?)". -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]