User talk:Peter Lyall Easthope

From Citizendium
Revision as of 10:37, 21 November 2011 by imported>Peter Lyall Easthope (→‎Category theory: Expanded my reply to Peter Schmitt.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Citizendium Getting Started
Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians  


Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Dan Nachbar 18:34, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

I've started articles Mechanics and Kinematics. How do they become drafts and acquire a status bar or statusbar? Thanks, Peter Lyall Easthope 18:07, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

OK, I've added the subpage metadata. ... Peter Lyall Easthope 04:22, 3 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi Peter--welcome--can you please leave the biographical information here? Web links do not guarantee that any of the required information will be accessible. --Larry Sanger 23:32, 10 May 2008 (CDT)

The redundant information is restored. Peter Lyall Easthope 12:49, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Augustin-Louis Cauchy

Peter, I got it. Good catch! D. Matt Innis 07:31, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

Category theory

Hi, Peter. The page is in the same state as it was (more than) two years ago. I am not at all happy with the page (and have already said so then). I think it is difficult to write about categories in an informal way because it is a second step abstractions -- an abstraction of already abstract concepts. The page should try to explain categories as simple as possible, but not simpler! (It must stay correct and may not oversimplify. Anyway, the topic is only suitable for readers with at least minimal interest and understanding of mathematics.) --Peter Schmitt 00:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

> I am not at all happy with the page ...
Same here. So what course of action do you favor? Delete the article? Revert edits of Ashley B. and find an example better than the tray? Something else? My instinct is to revert or edit much of Ashley's work but that would be heavy handed. Thanks Peter Lyall Easthope 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
> ... it is a second step abstractions ...
Yes, in many categories that is true but no definition of a category requires two levels of abstraction. Lawvere and Schauel state the definition in a very simple yet effective way. Trivially simple categories exist. I'll think about a better example to replace the tray. Still, more participation would really help. Thanks for your interest, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)