Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

User talk:Peter Lyall Easthope

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search


Citizendium Getting Started
Join | Quick Start | About us | Help system | The Author Role | The Editor Role
Essentials | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians | Other
Getting Started Organization Communication Technical Help Initiatives
Policies Editor Guidance Content Guidance Article Lists Governance
Welcome Page

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)
I know that categories can be introduced independently, and that the may even replace set theory as the fundamental notion. But I think that the higher level of abstraction is essential in order to understand their significance. Otherwise it would be a concept without good motivation.
I'll try to help but I am rather busy right now, and I am therefore not sure if I find the time for it. --Peter Schmitt 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
> ... rather busy right now, ...

OK, I understand. Writing isn't necessary. If you can just suggest one point or aspect to change, I'll tackle it and an accusation of sabotage of work of Ashley B. is less likely. Thanks, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 05:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Application to the forum

Peter, I noticed that you mentioned that you applied to the forum, but hadn't received a reply. I looked and didn't see it. I may have deleted it because I didn't realize it was a real member (we have a lot of spam applications). Could you apply again. I'll accept it as soon as I see your email address. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

> Could you apply again.
Not necessary. I put my suggestion on the talk page of Larry Sanger. Regards, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. If you find you need more response, just re-apply and I'll keep an eye out for you. D. Matt Innis 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

funding suggestion

Hi, Peter, I'm just the guy who takes care of the Treasury. Why don't you make your suggestion somewhere in the Forums -- I'm not quite sure who has to decide this, then implement it.... Hayford Peirce 17:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)