User talk:Dan232

Welcome
Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:
 * Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
 * Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
 * Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
 * Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers, prime.mover (talk)

Scattered and all that
Wow - thanks for clearing up the issue I was having between "scattered" and "partially scattered". What it boils down to, then, is that it does not matter which definition is used for "scattered" (see the "drowning" template on the Definition:Scattered Space page).

What I'm tempted to do here is to merge the page you raised directly into the Equivalence of Definitions of Scattered Space and use that as the main link from Definition:Scattered Space to demonstrate that the definition for Definition:Partially Scattered Space is not needed. So please bear with me if it looks like I'm rewriting all your stuff - there's a plan to what I'm doing here.

So thanks for that - you're a star. I believe we've got something documented here which hasn't been documented anywhere else on the Web. --prime mover 15:23, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

House Style
Oh yeah, and while I'm about it, note the house style. Please try to break your arguments up into simple sentences and put line breaks between each one. --prime mover 15:55, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

Changing the stated theorem
And another thing - I saw what you did on Compactness Properties Preserved under Continuous Mapping/Mistake. The result as stated said nothing about $\phi$ being surjective. Therefore the result to be proved here should not assume surjectivity. I noticed this only after I'd gone about tidying it up.

If you want to raise another result which has different conditions, then feel free to do so - but it's a bad idea to change the statement of the result because it's easier to prove or something. Other results may rely on the statement in its original form.

If you have a disagreement with the way a statement has been made, e.g. you think it's actually wrong or something, then raise the matter in the talk page for that result and start a dialogue.

Carry on with stuff - you're ahead of me in this subject - but please try and make sure your stuff fits in with what goes before.--prime mover 16:16, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

Signing posts on talk pages
When you enter a post on a Talk page, please sign your post by pressing the icon above the edit pane 3 from the right that looks like a scribble. This will add two dashes and 4 tildes at the cursor position. When you save, the app will replace the tildes with your username, a link to your talk page and the time and date.

It's the way we keep track of who says what so when there's a discussion it's less likely for anything to get misattributed.

Thx. --prime mover 01:46, 20 August 2011 (CDT)

Good work!
You are doing a brilliant job clearing up all these result left unfinished (and in a lot of cases unstarted!).

I hope you do not mind the way I am restyling the pages (mainly by splitting up compound statements into simple ones, making conditional statements "from A it follows B" as opposed to "B because of A", making the language more formal, and so on). This is so as to present a more-or-less consistent house style. (I'm not much of a mathematician, I make my money from technical writing.)

Please keep going for as long as you have patience. --prime mover 16:59, 22 August 2011 (CDT)

Continuous
Beware: in the context of topology, Definition:Continuous Mapping (Topology) is the one you want as Definition:Continuous Function is used for real functions in analysis. May not be the universal worldwide convention, but it's the one we got on this site. --prime mover 16:44, 6 December 2011 (CST)

$G$-Module
All of your links under '$G$-module' point to Definition:Linear Group Action; it would suit the philosophy of the site better if there was a bona fide page Definition:G-Module. Also, FFR, please use title capitalisation for page titles (i.e., all important 'words' (also, parts separated by hyphens) should be capitalised). That is, Definition:G-Submodule rather than Definition:G-submodule, and Measure is Subadditive instead of measure is subadditive or Measure Is Subadditive. Thanks, and keep working on representation theory; it's nice. --Lord_Farin 16:17, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * I've sorted out Definition:G-Module and Definition:G-Submodule.
 * Also note that there is a page for both Definition:Reducible Linear Representation and Definition:Irreducible Linear Representation so whichever one is meant, use that one. --prime mover 16:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)