User talk:Mathoreilly
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Mathoreilly!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Hi, welcome to the cruise--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
So who the hell do you think you are, trying to teach Ed Poor to do Quantum? :-) Crookedmouth 14:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- ha ha--Mathoreilly 14:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Math? O Really? Math? O Really? Quantum Mechanics are fun
What do you think of teh signature? Presumptuous, yes. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 15:09, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Shrink: That's "Welcome to the rollerblade", to you.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- This could very well be a clambake. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 15:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- I shall choose to ignore that insult. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Well then, rollerblade you. You cruiseing rollerblade --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 15:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- I shall choose to ignore that insult.
The first one was "Well then, anvil you. You rebeling ape" --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 15:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Natural logarithm page at CP[edit]
My sources are 95% certain you're Lemonpeel, so, do you happen to know what was put on the natural logarithm page that got it deleted by Ed? NightFlarei haz a talk page. 07:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Welcome back[edit]
You planning on hanging around this time? - π 04:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't completely leave, just didn't have anything to post.--Mathoreilly 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, nothing wrong with lurking. Why did you go back in? I thought you would have learnt the futility of trying to improve CP's maths offerings when they deleted natural logarithms. - π 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Many of the articles I've written remain there today. True, most will probably never get looked at--I just thought it would be kind of silly for conservapedia to have articles on advanced math topics.
- But a small part of me justified this silly endeavor by looking at it in this way: How do you combat the kind of thinking that goes on at CP? Not with vandalism, which does more harm than good. Nor does arguing serves any real purpose aside from entertainment (though it can be very entertaining). So what can you do? You can demonstrate that there's a much bigger world out there than the one the users at CP know. If a user looks up "string theory" and finds references to all sorts of ideas they've never heard of, they may come away with an appreciation for how deep and technical a subject can be. That there's more to it than meets the eye. And if that's true for string theory, maybe it's true for other subjects. The world becomes a little larger. And that opens up possibilities for how one thinks.--Mathoreilly 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The maths topics there are overall kind of sad. They exist in two groups (pardon the misuse of the term); the ridiculously basic and the ridiculously advanced. Nothing in the middle that would be useful. I think nothing signifies the mixture of hopelessness and the delusions of grandeur more. Pity we don't need advanced maths articles. Would you look at our Schrödinger's cat article? It has been too long since I have done quant mech to be able to rewrite it well, but it is something people always get monumentally wrong through their misunderstanding of it. - π 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know. It sometimes scares me how many people misunderstand it. Even Terry flipping Pratchett seems to have misunderstood it. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would have thought Ian Stewart would have written that part, still he ain't perfect either. - π 07:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know. It sometimes scares me how many people misunderstand it. Even Terry flipping Pratchett seems to have misunderstood it. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The maths topics there are overall kind of sad. They exist in two groups (pardon the misuse of the term); the ridiculously basic and the ridiculously advanced. Nothing in the middle that would be useful. I think nothing signifies the mixture of hopelessness and the delusions of grandeur more. Pity we don't need advanced maths articles. Would you look at our Schrödinger's cat article? It has been too long since I have done quant mech to be able to rewrite it well, but it is something people always get monumentally wrong through their misunderstanding of it. - π 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- But a small part of me justified this silly endeavor by looking at it in this way: How do you combat the kind of thinking that goes on at CP? Not with vandalism, which does more harm than good. Nor does arguing serves any real purpose aside from entertainment (though it can be very entertaining). So what can you do? You can demonstrate that there's a much bigger world out there than the one the users at CP know. If a user looks up "string theory" and finds references to all sorts of ideas they've never heard of, they may come away with an appreciation for how deep and technical a subject can be. That there's more to it than meets the eye. And if that's true for string theory, maybe it's true for other subjects. The world becomes a little larger. And that opens up possibilities for how one thinks.--Mathoreilly 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Schrodinger's Cat[edit]
The point of the thought experiment is to examine what the word "measurement" really means in quantum mechanics. If by "measurement" we mean human observation, than we would be forced to conclude that the cat was in a superposition of alive and dead states, which Schrodinger regarded as absurd. A common resolution to this problem is to say that a measurement has taken place when a quantum system interacts with a macroscopic system in such a way as to leave a permanent mark. See David Griffiths, "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics".--Mathoreilly 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sorry I was slow noticing you have replied. I'll have a look at the book. Thanks. - π 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)