User talk:Sam nead

Veblen Prize

Hi Sam, I created a new article today that you may be interested in, Oswald Veblen Prize in Geometry. Some of the previous winners have no page on Wikipedia yet, and I'm not really qualified to write about their achievements. silsor 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of geometric topology topics

Hi, I see that you reverted one of my chages on this page, with the comment, SFS and graph manifolds are examples of three-manifolds. I agree, the way things are structured now in that list, this is a reasonable point of view one may adopt. But let me argue why I think differently. I would say that "hyperbolic 3-manifolds", "Seifert fibered 3-manifolds", "Graph manifolds" are vast classes of 3-manifolds -- the basic building blocks if you wish in the Geometrization Conjecture. To have them relegated as mere "Examples" -- on a par with, say, the 3-sphere, which is what I would really consider to be an example -- is not quite right, in my opinion. What is more, the class of "Haken manifolds" is set out separately --is this meant to convey the message that that notion is of a different order of magnitude more important than SFS and graph manifolds? I'd say there is room for improvement in here, maybe we can discuss this before making any more edits? Best, Turgidson 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on the talk page for the article. Best, Sam nead 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood (mathematics)

Hi. I have a comment. I disagree with this edit you made to Neighbourhood (mathematics). You state that the concept of neighborhood of a point is reduntant since we already have the concept of neighborhood of a set.

While you are correct on principle, now the article is missing the elementary concept of the neighborhood of a point, which ultimately is the most important thing in this article, much more important than the neighborhood of a set.

I'll put the concept of neighborhood of a point back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And after you cut that text, you should have at least explained that the neighborhood of a point x is defined as the neighborhood of the singleton {x}. I suggest you use more care in the future. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. Best, Sam nead 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubular neighborhood

I added some pictures and an elementary explanation at Tubular neighborhood. Comments welcome there.

I am not an expert in the subject. That article may need an expansion, but it is beyond me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very pretty! Best, Sam nead 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: neighborhood

The people who suddenly befell on talk:neighbourhood (mathematics) came due to the announcement I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Topologists.2C help wanted at neighbourhood .28mathematics.29. If you ever want to get to know other mathematicians, or participate in discussions, the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics is the way to go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Near Duplicate Algorithms

Good catch! Kind of funny too: the original title is Duplicate Data Detection, which is exactly what you did. :)

I'm going off to resolve this now... Normally I'd immediately mark it as a copyright violation, but we'll see - it appears to be done in good faith, so I'll try first with the author. So, either will the author have to release the original text under the GFDL (or compatible) license, or the article will have to be deleted. GregorB (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to have to be deleted. See also User talk:Abdur. I'm going to save a copy of the article source (there's quite a bit of reference formatting there by yours truly) and notify Abdur so he doesn't have to do it all over again should the original text be eventually released under the GFDL. Cheers, GregorB (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor - Thanks for looking into this. I'm sorry I missed Adbur's talk page. I did check his contributions, so I did know he wasn't active. If you want to know a bit more of the funny joke: I found Adbur's homepage by feeding bits of the text of Near Duplicate Algorithms into Google... By the way, I'm sorry about the loss of formatting you did. That's another reason why I passed the buck to you instead of trying to delete the page myself. Best, Sam nead (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental group

Dear Sam,

Please have another look at this. I contacted User:Joeldl regarding WP:NPA and User:Mathsci. I also explained the confusion there. --PS T 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knot complement

Dear Sam,

I deleted "homeomorphic to a torus" referring to a knot complement and you put it back.

I now see that I misinterpreted the sentence as saying "the knot complement is a compact 3-manifold (with boundary) homeomorphic to a solid torus" rather than "the knot complement is a compact 3-manifold with boundary, and its boundary is homeomorphic to a torus". I leave it to you to decide whether a rephrasing is convenient...

Sincerely, santosf@unican.es 193.144.183.220 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sentences. Sam nead (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]