User talk:JRSpriggs

Hello, JRSpriggs. Your userpage was recently nominated for deletion a second time by Sundostund. I didn't see that a notification was placed on your talkpage about this, and several !voters in the MfD asked that you be contacted first regarding the contents of your talkpage before proceeding with the deletion discussion. The nominator believed your userpage violated WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC. I leave it to the two of you to determine if a middle ground can be reached on this, but I will say that although I had nominated your userpage for deletion in the past, I did not endorse the move to delete your page this time around. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record – if Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington wasn't listed as the original creator of JRSpriggs' userpage (by making this edit back in 2007), then JRSpriggs would receive an automatic notification, by Twinkle, about the ongoing MfD nomination. As can be seen, the notification ended up here. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing me 33 kilobytes to explain myself and my beliefs is a small price to pay for all my contributions to the encyclopedia's content and financial donations. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JR! I have snow closed this MfD as an obvious keep, but I leave it to you to update the deletion attempts counter on your userpage :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Premeditated Chaos: Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRSpriggs!

I recently edited the Schwarzschild metric page. The main change was to make the domain of definition of the metric more precise. I thought this would be nice as the domain of definition is known exactly, while on the page it is only described as a subset of a certain space, and a reader might reasonably ask which subset. However, my changes ended up affecting other parts of the article, which may not have been helpful.

Do you think there is a good way to make the domain of definition precise, while keeping in all the other details?

Zephyr Zephyr the west wind (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with two things: the Schwarzschild metric and the coordinate system. The metric is the main topic and other coordinate systems are mentioned. So the metric is not being defined relative to R⁴. The metric exists at the horizon as well as the exterior, when the physical conditions are appropriate i.e. vacuum and spherical symmetry.

I see no justification for your claim that the signature is (+ - - -) rather than (- + + +). JRSpriggs (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Regarding the signature, writing mostly minus when it should have been mostly plus was certainly a slip on my part. Clearly I've been doing too much particle physics recently.

I didn't mean to suggest that the metric is defined relative to ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{4}}$, but rather that the Scharzschild metric in Schwarzschild coordinates is well defined on two patches of an underlying Schwarzschild manifold, which in local coordinates are given by open subsets of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{4}}$. But using the spherical symmetry the open subsets can be replaced with an open subset of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}}$ times the sphere.

I see what you mean by dealing with the metric first, then the coordinate system. The space described, ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} \times (E-O)}$ is the underlying manifold. But then the metric is well defined as a tensor field on this whole space (e.g. using incoming Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates), so the '(on a subset of)' remark is misleading in this context. It's really just the '(on a subset of)' which I take issue with, and wish to make more precise. Zephyr the west wind (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "subset" is clarified a couple sentences later by "The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations in empty space, meaning that it is valid only outside the gravitating body.". JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not say for ${\displaystyle r>R}$ earlier? Besides, it is also legitimate to study the Schwarzschild black hole, which has no outside, and for which the domain of definition of the metric extends to the interior. Sure, this is mentioned in the coordinate system part, but the initial discussion seems to suggest that it is necessary to patch the Schwarzschild solution with an interior solution. Zephyr the west wind (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a change, then do it rather than trying to talk me into doing it. Of course, any change you make may be reverted or further changed by me or someone else. That is the way Wikipedia works.

I would prefer that you make small localized changes, then wait a day or two for other people to respond or not, before making another small change.

There is not just one interior solution. There is the solution where the future is in the +r direction, a "white" hole. And there is a solution where the future is in the -r direction, a black hole. They are not directly connected to each other, but they both could join to the same exterior solution. However, such a white hole converting to a black hole seems highly unphysical to me. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thanks for the advice. Happy editing! Zephyr the west wind (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time can you review my changes to Regular cardinal? I'd appreciate it! Rich (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your change appears to be correct. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now I've made another change,. Can you check that too?Rich (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link there to a WP:RELIABLE source. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a reliable source for most questions in set theory would be, especially this one. Also, according to Ayn Rand, I have no obligation to do so even if I were qualified.Rich (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no obligation to follow the rules of Wikipedia, but if you fail to do so then they are more likely to revert your edits or possibly even ban you from editing. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's bogus..I edited the article because of some very ambiguous and confusing statements, that have been there for years, uncited, possibly due to translation from another wikipedia, idk. There's no way I could know for sure about the truth, I just edited it say what was most likely the intent. You've tried to get me find sources for something that was written (but unclear) by someone else and been there for a long time, and I'm obviously unqualified to find or understand the references. That's manipulative, and unworthy of John Galt.Rich (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to manipulate you. If anything, it is the other way around. I have no more knowledge of this particular issue than you do; and I no longer have access to the library that used to support my research. You are the one who is hitting me over the head with references to Ayn Rand and John Galt to try to make me do what I cannot do. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took what you were saying in the wrong way sorry. I didn't realize this wasn't something you were currently expert in. Neither of us can do citations on it , but whether it's correct now or not, it's my best guess as to what was meant. I also asked another set theory person, so we'll see. Anyway neither of us are able to provide citations, I hope I didn't imply I wanted you to find citations, I'd be content for correctness and clarity in the article, for now. Anyway , my forst reference to Ayn Rand was meant lightheartedly, I'm sorry I got huffy with my John Galt comparison.Peace.Rich (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just now put citation needs in that section, missing since 2008 23:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Rich (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Definiens (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]