# User talk:Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

## Welcome!

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
Home 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! Aleksander Stos 06:59, 17 December 2007 (CST)

I disagree that "of open sets" was wrong and clumsy in Topological space; one of the central points to that article was to emphasize that equivalence of topologies was invariant with respect to axiom systems (be them open, closed, neighborhoods). If you suggest there's only one axiom set for topological spaces from the outset, then that whole theme becomes invisible. This is a matter of practicality; not everyone uses the open set axioms, and people need to be aware of the compatibility of these several equivalent axiom systems. Since I don't want to get into an edit war with you, I'll let you add or omit the necessary caveats as appropriate. Giovanni Antonio DiMatteo

## Small note

Hi Wlodzimierz and welcome to CZ. Just wanted to mention that the comment above was not made by Alek but by Giovanni (you can see from the history of your talk page), he just forgot to sign his name off on the comment. Have fun :-) --Hendra I. Nurdin 19:35, 17 December 2007 (CST)

## On metric space

Hi again, thanks for your contribution to the metric space article. I noticed that you made structural changes to the article, by putting the table of contents (TOC) on top followed by an Introduction. I was wondering if perhaps we could revert back to the original structure with a lead-in paragraph followed by the TOC then the main article content. I think it looks nicer that way and is more or less uniform in look and style with other CZ articles (which is desirable). Let me know what you think. Hendra I. Nurdin 19:47, 17 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks for your reply. Okay, so let's just go back to the original style of the article for the sake of uniformity with other articles on CZ. I can do this for the metric space article (if you have not already done so). Cheerio, --Hendra I. Nurdin 20:47, 17 December 2007 (CST)

## Entourage and uniform spaces

Wlodzimierz, CZ is still missing articles on the concept of entourage and uniform spaces, to properly treat the notion of "closeness" of two points. Perhaps you may be interested in starting an article about them? They would be very nice additions to CZ. Cheers, Hendra I. Nurdin 01:19, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks for your comments. I think it's okay to start on an article and the work on it bit by bit until it becomes comprehensive (with each stage being "closed" as you mentioned) ... I notice a lot of people do it here on CZ. I've been thinking of writing something on uniform spaces, uniform structures and entourages, but never found the time, plus I thought someone with more experience and stronger background would come along and write the articles. So, you may well be that person :-) and of course a lot of people would encourage you to write about these topics. Certainly I would be interested in reading about them :-) Cheers, --Hendra I. Nurdin 03:36, 18 December 2007 (CST)
Wlodzimierz, just a minor comment :-) In CZ, the naming convention is that topics should be named in their singular form, not plural. Therefore, when I think you are not working on the article I will probably move it from uniform spaces (plural form) to the correct name uniform space (singular form) and add a redirect from the former to the latter. Hope you won't mind (or perhaps you can do this yourself), it's just the convention here at CZ (which newcomers still have to learn about and get accustomed to). Cheers, --Hendra I. Nurdin 05:02, 18 December 2007 (CST).
No problem. Looking forward to seeing the article develop. Thanks. --Hendra I. Nurdin 05:18, 18 December 2007 (CST)
I have some ideas for the uniform space article. I think in the introduction it may worthwhile to mention that unlike topological spaces, in uniform spaces one can have the notion of relative "closeness" or distance between elements (which was the comment that motivated the creation of this article) and, most importantly, allows one to generalize the idea of Cauchy sequences and completeness (mathematics) in metric spaces to uniform spaces. Some examples of complete uniform spaces would be interesting for the readers. Just some thoughts :-), thanks. --Hendra I. Nurdin 13:34, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Hi Wlodzimierz, and welcome here. I saw your question on User talk:Hendra I. Nurdin on how to denote the category US in latex. I gave there the following reply: "You can use \mathit{US}, as in ${\displaystyle {\mathit {US}}\,}$." Best wishes, Jitse Niesen 08:35, 18 December 2007 (CST)