User talk:EmperorZelos

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 one of the administrators, 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!


 * --Your friendly ProofWiki WelcomeBot 14:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notational style
I direct you towards Help:FAQ which discusses notation, and offers a reason for why I reverted your recent change to Pi is Irrational. --prime mover (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge Z+ was the common notion, Z>0 does look unneccierily long and cumbesome if you ask me EmperorZelos (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's ambiguous. Some usages of $\Z_+$ mean $\left\{{x \in \Z: x \ge 0}\right\}$ thus including $0$ (where $\Z_+^*$ means $\left\{{x \in \Z: x > 0}\right\}$) and some do not. In order to allow complete unambiguity of expression, we are attempting consistently to use the form $\Z_{>0}$ and its related expressions, e.g. $\Z_{<0}, \Z_{\ne 0}, \Z_{\ge 0}$ and so on.


 * This also allows the compact extension to this notation allowing such things as $n \in \Z: n \ge m$ to be expressed as $n \in \Z_{\ge m}$ and so on. --prime mover (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Source work citation trail
I point you towards this Help:FAQ/Questions about contributions/Why do you make such a fuss over the links in the "Sources" section? as it is relevant to the fact that you changed the nature and intent of "Definition:Module Axioms". Please beware of just changing things because (to you) they look wrong -- for certain mathematical approaches, particular definitions may be completely adequate and quite correct. --prime mover (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect I wouldn't say it was, it was just not as detailed. The provided definition already there was a left-module which was unstated. While common it is not the only type. As for the rest I am not certain waht you aim at EmperorZelos (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * When you copied Left Module Axioms to Right Module Axioms, you also copied the source citation link on the citation of the work by Seth Warner. For a start, Warner does not distinguish between left and right, so the link did not accurately reflect what was in that work. And for another thing, the link trail was now forked and was not a linear order. --prime mover (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Left and Right Modules
Note that the definition of Module was dependent upon Definition:R-Algebraic Structure which itself is defined such as:

Let $\left({R, +_R, \times_R}\right)$ be a ring.

Let $\left({S, \ast_1, \ast_2, \ldots, \ast_n}\right)$ be an algebraic structure with $n$ operations.

Let $\circ: R \times S \to S$ be a binary operation.

Then $\left({S, \ast_1, \ast_2, \ldots, \ast_n, \circ}\right)_R$ is an $R$-algebraic structure with $n$ operations.

Thus the scalar product $\circ$ is defined at this level such that the ring element is on the left, and the general structure element is on the right.

As I say, I haven't a clue what is in the source work you are using, so I don't know at what depth it jumps in, but there is a danger of compromising the accuracy of the existing pages if one does not go back carefully through the preceding material in that work to make sure that it coincides with the existing work on.

It is easy to post up interesting mathematics on the web. It is not as easy to make sure everything interlinks correctly, and is consistent and coherent. There have been many instances of places where parts of the existing body of work has been broken by well-meaning contributors who have not made themselves familiar with material that builds up towards pages they are working on.

So, just a note -- please be careful to make sure that you do not change the direction of existing work too much. --prime mover (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My pologies I didn't think on that and you are completley correct, I'll keep it in mind next time around. EmperorZelos (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tensors
It's starting to take shape. I'm doing something else at the moment so I can't address this immediately -- but i will be onto it in a short while. --prime mover (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, do what you do and I do mine! EmperorZelos (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)