text:
Talk:Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics/Archive 1

Untitled
The first sentence in this article as just revised is very abrupt! How 'bout a bit of context-setting first? Michael Hardy 00:16, 16 November 2003 (UTC)

I've put back in some basic information (postulates) cut out in the November 2003 rewrite. It makes somewhat better sense now - still quite ruough.

Charles Matthews 11:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

By tradition observables are associated to self-adjoint operators? I think it is more than tradition. CSTAR 03:09, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Also I think it is misleading to include the composite system -- tensor product correspondence in the Schrodinger picture. It doesn't belong there and particularly, the spaces of multi-particle systems is more complex than is suggested in the article (Boso statistics, Fermion statistics, etc). I would suggest remove that item. CSTAR 03:33, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Impenetrable phrasing
states are points in phase space, observables are real-valued functions on phase space and the dynamics 'is given by a one-parameter group of transformations of the phase space. '  This seems a bit obtuse. What is the parameter? What are the transformations? Shouldn't there be a link to group? Mr. Jones

A sentence seems out-of-place
The sentence "We cannot assume that the operator is defined on the whole of H: the Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem) that an operator is continuous, then it is a bounded linear map from H to H." seems to be a bit out-of-place. I think it should read "We cannot assume that the operator is defined on the whole of H: the Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem states that a self-adjoint operator defined everywhere on H must be continuous, or equivalently it should be a bounded linear map."

Other formulations
Thr backward reference to 'postulate 4.2' has been lost, after some edit.

Charles Matthews 15:10, 12 July 2004 (UTC)

New intro: Schrödinger's wave mechanics
The following paragraph taken from the current intro makes a radical assertion about the History of QM:

 * Schrödinger's wave mechanics originally did not represent a radical departure from the mathematical framework of classical mechanics. His wave function can be seen to be strongly related to the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation, and Schrödinger himself initially did not understand the fundamental probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, as he thought the fact that the (squared) wavefunction of an electron must be interpreted as the charge density of an extended object. It was Max Born who introduced the correct probabilistic interpretation of the (squared) wave function as the probebility that a pointlike object.

Geesh, is the historical claim of the above graf true? Agreed, the relation between the asymptotics of the Schrödinger equation and the Hamilton-Jacobi eqn has been known since the 1930's and Maslov-Hormander's theory of propagation of singularities of the 1970' formalizes the relation between the two via Fourier integral operators. Therefore, I don't object to the validity of the sentence

 * His wave function can be seen to be strongly related to the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation

 * I was not referring to this stuff at all. I was referring to the fact that if you write the wavefunction as $$A\exp(iS/\hbar)$$ then S satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation up to a term proportional to $$\hbar$$.
 * Schrödinger must have had a reason to represent momentum as a derivative, though, I wonder what it originally was (modern ways to argue that that's the right thing to do are a dime a dozen)
 * Darn you, CSTAR, now you've piqued my interest and I won't be able to rest until I read Schrödinger's original paper, or die trying.
 * — Miguel 06:14, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

However, as a matter of historical development I think it would be desirable to give a specific reference to Schrödinger's work to justify the historical claim.

Also doesn't the paragraph terminate prematurely

 * interpretation of the (squared) wave function as the probebility that a pointlike object.

CSTAR 05:44, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, ok, the beginning of the article claims that the old quantum mechanics did not depart from the toolds and concepts of classical mechanics. then there is 1) Schrödinger's equation is a PDE; and 2) Schrödinger interpreted the wavefunction as a classical charge density (conservative idea) and did not understand the probabilistic interpretation (radical idea) until Born pointed it out. This is how i would justify the claim that Schrödinger was not radically departing from what was then known. As for going to the original paper, I have heard it repeatedly that it is basically unreadable, but it might be worth a try.

 * That part I believe; I'm just not sure about whether Schrödinger derived the Schrödinger eqn by finding a PDE with the right high-frequency asymptotics. Maybe he did.  I just don't know.  But somebody here should try to determine this for sure.CSTAR 06:02, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

 * it is definitely worth investigating what exactly Schrödinger was smoking when he wrote his paper ;-) I have also introduced the relationship to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation "in hindsight"
 * anyway, these are good calls, good thing you're paying attention. — Miguel 06:07, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I have toned down the historical interpretation, though, by calling De Broglie radical and stating that Schrödinger successfully formulated wave-particle duality mathematically.

 * —Miguel 05:59, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

Electron as extended object
The intro also refers to Schrödinger's picture of an electron as an extended object. This I think is historically right, however more explanation is needed on what that means, for instance a phrase such as the electron as an object smeared out over an extended, possibly infinite, volume of space CSTAR 15:14, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

Article introduction
I'm still not satisfied with the introduction of the article, before the table-of-contents. Some additional explanation: The nature of that departure should be better explained in the introduction.CSTAR 00:36, 23 November 2004 (UTC)
 * Mature physical theories are formulated in mathematical or quantitative language.
 * Quantum mechanics represents a departure from the languages used in previous physical theories.

I have added some more. Charles Matthews 07:01, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

The introduction, before the ToC (not to be confused with the WoT) should be able to stand on its own. Why split off a section on old-quantum theory, when there is already an article on it? 17:04, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Oops and I forgot to sign the comment above ... or something.  CSTAR 17:50, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I certainly don't agree with discussion of the photoelectric effect here; it's not quantum mechanics, in the sense that the mechanics only came around 1925. So I think I agree with the comment above (?). By all means write something about the 'old' theory in another article. But the continuities there seem to me (not an expert) to be in the physics, while in the mathematical formulation there was more like a break. Charles Matthews 17:44, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that CSTAR wants to be very specific about the state of physics prior to the break, which forces you to discuss a bunch of stuff irrelevant to the mathematics of the new quantum theory.

There is no article on the old quantum theory in the form that it needs to be in, including Plank's quanta, Einstein's photons, Bohr's atom, and the Bohr-Sommerfeld and Sommerfeld-Wilson-Ishiwara quantizations. The article old quantum theory currently redirects to Bohr model which is taking the part for the whole. The Bohr model was the first phenomenological model of the atom, but later Bohr himself (and others) developed a more precise mathematical formulation based on allowing only closed orbits in phase space enclosing an area equal to an integer multiple of planck's constant. That is as far as classical mechanics could take you, and is the right point of comparison with Schroedinger's wave mechanics. So we are not at the point where you can write the introduction in the form you want, CSTAR.

I can do one of two things: either expand the section here and then refactor it into a new article leaving a summary, or go off and write the article on the old quantum mechanics first, and then come back and summarize it here.

What I want is not a full discussion of the photoelectric effect, but maybe a few words about where Planck's constant came from and how Einstein used it to invent photons. You can then point out that neither Planck nor Einstein took wave-particle duality seriously, and it took a physicist of the younger generation (de Broglie) to do that.

— Miguel 18:46, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

 * The introduction now is certainly a lot better. Your changes address my concerns.  Thanks. CSTAR 19:05, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

It was I who made old quantum theory a redirect. It obviously can be an article in its own right, perhaps under a more 'professional' name. Charles Matthews 20:29, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

 * the name old quantum theory is what you find in physics textbooks. There can be more 'professionally-named' articles about the subtopics, such as Bohr model and Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization. — Miguel 20:41, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

Epistemology and separability
The assertion about the relation between separability of H and sufficiency of countably many observations is interesting, but may require more elucidiation. However, how is it related to epistemology? I assume one could argue that there are sequences of observations Ai which ultimately distinguish a pair of states. The problem with such a claim is that it will be inevitably subject to much critical examination.CSTAR 20:38, 24 November 2004 (UTC)

The relationship to spistemology is that we can only have access to a finite amount of information, hence a finite amount of experiments. A countable number is necessary to reason mathematically about finitely many experiments. That is exactly the point of separability in the theory of stochastic processes, except that nobody introduces it in that way so it sounds like a completely unmotivated assumption made for mathematical convenience.

You can remove the mention of epistemology if you think it will lead to too much discussion (on second thought, I agree it will), but leave there the statement about countability. I don't know in how much more detail we can get in this article before having to spin off other pages. — Miguel 21:00, 24 November 2004 (UTC)

Ab-initio
Whazzat? Do you mean derivation from first principles? This is an expression so often used by physicists (and other scientists) so maybe it should have a separate article? How is this different from derivation from axioms? Note that I put in a wikilink to phenomenology (science) to explain its (correct) use in this article. A similar link is needed here, I think.CSTAR 16:12, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * While we're at it, I want a separate phenomenology (physics) article. There is much to be said about the scope, goals and level of success of phenomenology in different branches of physics. High-energy physics phenomenology is broad, deep and successful enough to be an independent branch of physics in its own right. — Miguel 18:38, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Whoops. I reistated the old link.  Sorry, I though you made a mistake. Fui yo que me equivoqué. I will revert.18:51, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

There are about 200,000 google hits for ab-initio calculation. It does mean "from first principles", but it is, in fact, customary in atomic and molecular and solid-state physics. — Miguel 16:34, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't dispute that it's use is customary in certain areas of physics. But for example the difference between a derivation from first principles and a derivation within an axiomatic system requires some explanation — it's certainly not obvious to me. These are important cultural nuances (for example, differences between the culture of physicists and mathematicians) which an encyclopedia has to deal with and explain to be useful as a mirror of not only knowledge, but culture.CSTAR 16:55, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Can you explain what you have in mind about the difference between from first principles and within an axiomatic system? I grok not.

 * Physics is not axiomatic, so people such as von Neumann talk about postulates to weasel out of that fact.
 * A calculation from first principles or ab initio seems to mean with "no" experimental input.

 * I anxiously await your elucidacion of this philosophical tangle.
 * — Miguel 17:13, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a very tentative response

 * Physics is not axiomatic. Agreed, but there is such a thing as axiomatic physics, which consists of experimentally testable assertions as axioms in a formal theory and deriving everything else purely by rigorous mathematics (in principle formalizable within a formal logical system).

 * A derivation from first principles makes reasonable guesses about what should be true in nature. For example the relative sizes of things (where a mathematically rigorous calculation would be purely asymptotic), or excluding certain cases as being physically unreasonable.

 * Now this distinction does require more elaboration, but my purpose is to provide a plausible argument as to why these two concepts are different.CSTAR 17:33, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

On a different matter:

 * I put in a link to ab initio which states

 * in sciences (especially physics and chemistry): from first principles. A calculation is said to be "ab initio" (or "from first principles"") if it only assumes basic and established laws and does not assume the validity of further assumptions such as models.

 * That's OK except further assumptions such as models should be changed to further assumptions includeing additional models.CSTAR 17:33, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I added the only experimental input is the values of fundamental constants. — Miguel 18:02, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

Measurement
What happened to the caveat that the operator was assumed to have pure point spectrum? What about measurement for operators (such as position or momentum for a free particle) with continuous spectrum? CSTAR 04:14, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

Measurements of position or momentum result not in point values but in ranges. The collapse is represented by the orthogonal projector associated to the observed range by the spectral theorem. (This is the interpretation of the projector-valued measure in the spectral theorem)

However, if we can't write down the measurement postulate without assuming a discrete spectrum maybe we should think of a different way to discuss measurement. Something like this: in the Heisenberg picture, if the system is in state $$\left|\psi\right\rangle$$ and observables $$A_i$$ are measured at times $$t_i<t_{i+1}$$, then we consider the quantity

 * $$\left\langle\psi\mid A_n(t_n)\cdots A_1(t_1)\mid\psi\right\rangle$$

where the $$A_n(t_n)$$ are Heisenberg operators.

I'm not sure, though. Von Neumann's postulate has always seemed suspect to me. Moreover, I think a discussion of quantum measurement belongs in interpretation of quantum mechanics rather than here. We already have a complete description of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. I was wondering what ever happened to the canonical commutation relations and the usual Schrödinger equation, but IMHO those topics belong in quantization or relation between classical and quantum mechanics, or classical limit of quantum mechanics.

I would personally remove the measurement discussion from this article, but I hesitate to do it because that's a very radical step to take. But it would save us a lot of mathematical and philosophical heasaches. In any case, quantum measurement is an active research area, not a postulate of quantum theory (even if von Neumann thought he could wrap it all up neatly in his book). — Miguel 05:23, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is already an article on measurement in quantum mechanics. I think we should remove all detailed discussion of measurement from this article and just link to that. Sooner or later I'll have to go and pitch in on quantum measurement. The current article is very limited and does not really go beyond von Neumann. That is neglecting 70 years of development of the theory. —Miguel 05:34, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

By the way, after collpse one would have to rescale the "collapsed" state vector to unit length, which makes the mathematical description of collapse all the more awkward, as it is now orthogonal projection followed by rescaling to unit norm. Can we not allow non-normalized states and density matrices and divide by $$\left\langle\psi\mid\psi\right\rangle$$ or $$\operatorname{tr}\rho$$ in the expected value of an observable? Also, we should maybe be more explicit and say that states are really equivalence classes of vectors in H, even though physicists cringe at the mention of equivalence classes. — Miguel 05:53, 26 November 2004 (UTC) -

Well the article on quantum operation is a more comprehensive discussion of general measurement (not just projective measurements). There is an intermediate discsuuion in quantum logic and quantum statistical mechanics. The quantum operation operation is completely equivalent to the relative state approach.CSTAR 06:02, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, there is already an article on measurement in quantum mechanics

 * It's not very good.CSTAR 06:05, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I totally agree. Let's finish this one and then move to that one ;-) — Miguel 06:12, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

-

 * I would personally remove the measurement discussion from this article, but I hesitate to do it because that's a very radical step to take.

 * Yes, it would be very radical and no, I don't think it should be removed. It could remain as is, with enough pointers to other articles.CSTAR 06:17, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

Where the article is going
I should really just let you guys write what you're going to write.

 * This sounds like there is some criticism (besides the issue of formalism) that you decided to keep to yourself on second thought. I'd still like to know what you had in mind. — Miguel 18:46, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Not really. If this is going to be a long article, that's OK. It seems a little strange to have the major discussion of the physics of 1925-1930 in an article about its mathematics. I'm not familiar with the WP articles on Dirac and so on; so I was just going to wait a little. Charles Matthews 19:38, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I have begun to worry about the length of the article, too, and I wouldn't mind moving most of the references to physics and mathematics before 1925 to a different article. I wouldn't call what is in this article a major discussion of the physics, though. In any case, to me the physics and the mathematics of quantum mechanics are inseparable: you cannot really understand one without the other (well, you can understand the mathematics on its own, but then it's meaningless). I also suspect that most readers of this page would expect a discussione of the physical interpretation.
 * I personally like to discuss the history of a subject first, not last, but would you prefer to see the mathematical structure section be the first after the TOC?
 * If I had to strip this article to its bare bones, I would leave it at the first paragraph of the introduction and the mathematical structure section, moving eveyrthing else to other article and leaving behind very short pointers. In that case I would rename this article "Hilbert-space formulation of quantum mechanics", because the C^*-algebra formulation needs an article of its own.
 * —Miguel 20:06, 26 November 2004 (UTC)
 * My personal approach is quite historicist (within mathematics). So it doesn't worry me, really. In the end the site should contain these 'stories'. Charles Matthews

 * The length of the article doesn't concern me at all. And I don't like the idea of changing the pre ToC material by addition or deletion.  That section looks good to me.

 * The C*-algebra approach really does require a more extensive article (explaining some of the concepts, particularly how it relates to Jordan's view of QM.) Certianly if Quantum logic has its own article then the C*-algebra approach to QM should also have its own article.

 * I also like the historicist perspective. Unfortunately, that's very hard to get right.CSTAR 20:35, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

I have expanded 1.3 Later developments, and would like to use that as a replacement for 3 Other formulations and 4 The problem of measurement. That is, can we agree to remove sections 3 and 4 or merge their content with appropriate other WP articles? — Miguel 01:20, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

"Formalism"
I did want to make one point: I object to formalism in relation to mathematics. It obscures a distinction: it can mean a notation, or I suppose it can mean the result of a formal development of a topic. There is a big problem in relation to mathematics/physics (I think) in that 'formal meaning' means opposite things depending on who you are. 'Mathematical formulation' implies to me that bra-ket notation is not just a formalism, but something with a very definite semantic content. Dirac's delta function was a formally-introduced symbol; then we had what you could call 'mathematical formulation of generalised functions' and δ(x) is a Schwartz distribution with a definite semantics. I realise it depends which side of the fence you stand, whether this is an issue or not. Given the article's title I feel that 'formalism' could be banished.

Charles Matthews 09:32, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * The article formalism does not address this, but it would help me if I could read an article about it. —Miguel 16:00, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I put in a bullet in formalism. This probably should be expanded in an article such as scientific formalism.CSTAR 18:03, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Point taken. I think we should address this concern.  I tend to melange the two, but I am aware of the distinction and am also picky about it when I notice.CSTAR 14:20, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

Bargmann Segal
I thought one of the points of the Bargmann's paper was to show that the (symmetrized) Fock Representation was unitarily equivalent to the Bargmann Segal representation. Am I confused about something? CSTAR 04:13, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

 * OK I guess one shouldn't interpret your statement as asserting that these representations are inequivalent. I misread it.CSTAR 04:38, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Precisely. — Miguel 04:56, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

 * The article now looks pretty good.

 * I really want to yank the measurement and other formulations sections. I think the first is actually a physical, not mathematical, problem, and that the second is superseded by the later developments section. —Miguel 06:50, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I might start an article on Bargmann Segal. It fits naturally with the article Stone-von Neumann theorem; unfortunately, the notation I used in my notes on Bargmann Segal aren't quite consistent with the notation used in the Stone-von Neumann article (even though I wrote most of that one). I may have to do a little work to make them consistent.  Geometric quantization (Weyl-Maslov-Hormander-Voros-Guilleman-Sternberg Quantization) might be another useful article although I have nothing written on those.CSTAR 06:22, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

C*-algebraic formulation

 * I think I'm going to concentrate on the C^*-algebraic quantization now. —Miguel 06:50, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah. That sounds more interesting, although I'm not sure where one should begin. Jordan Algebras? Or part 6 of Boguliubov, Axiomatic Quantum Fied Theory?CSTAR 06:58, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

 * The weyl relations and the GNS construction?
 * Anyway, you seem to know more than I do about this stuff. — Miguel 15:21, 28 November 2004 (UTC)
 * I do NOT particularly wish to see that developed in this article, though, but in a separate one. Given the large number of formulations listed under later developments, singling out quantum logic and C^* algebras seems wrong. Moreover, people would expect to find the Schroedinger/Heisenber/Dirac/von Neumann formulation under the current title. — Miguel 20:31, 2004 November 28 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Go ahead and delete those subsections. This is legacy from previous versions.CSTAR 20:44, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I was bold and deleted them.CSTAR 22:04, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

Of course there is the wikipedia article on GNS construction.

 * Yes, but that is not C-star algebraic quantization. — Miguel 20:31, 2004 November 28 (UTC)

 * Whatever you do, call it C*-algebraic quantization. C*-algebra looks weird and I have been consistently using  C*-algebra.CSTAR 20:44, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to start a C*-algebraic quantization article with a comphrehensible account of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics or at least refer to such an account. In the past, when I tried reading these accounts in various places, my eyes glaze over. These accounts also are supposed to reflect the Zeitgeist of operationalism of which Heisenberg was apparently a follower.

There is also a brief account of matrix mechanics in Alain Connes' book, Noncommutative Geometry (pp 33-39) which I have looked at but there too, my eyes glaze. Anyway Connes tries to bring in groupoids, but of course these weren't around for Heisenberg to play around with. CSTAR 17:31, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

Old quantum mechanics
It would be nice to find out how in the world Heisenberg stumbled upon matrix mechanics. I just don't see how that would be likely. I can understand how Schrödinger came up with wave mechanics. That's a pretty natural consequence of de Broglie's ideas, but how did Heisenberg come up with matrix mechanics? Phys 05:37, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

Another picture?
I noticed this in the article

 * closely related to the Schrödinger picture where time is not a parameter but an operator. Here, time, t and energy (which is not the Hamiltonian, which is a function of position and momenta) are canonically conjugate operators which commute with position and momenta. Here, we look at the rigged Hilbert space and insist that the valid states are those which satisfy (H-E)|?>=0. Physical observables are operators which commute with (H-E).

O.K. I'm stumped. Notice that in this "new" picture, the operator E is by the uniqueness of the CCRs unitarily equivalent to a multiple of 1/i d/dt. In particilar it has spectrum R.

 * You could make E be a bounded operator, or bounded below, and make T ~ id/dE. That would solve your problem. — Miguel 20:13, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * My confusion comes from the remark

 * Here, time, t and energy (which is not the Hamiltonian, which is a function of position and momenta) are canonically conjugate operator

 * If time T and energy E are canonically conjugate operators — which I take to mean [T,E] = r I, that forces E to have a spectrum R.

 * I suppose in operator-theoretic terms, one could take a compression of E, T to some appropriate subspace H and get a physically realizable (e.g. non-negative) energy operator projH E projH on H. CSTAR 20:34, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * How about x and p for a particle in a box? Isn't x bounded, p unbounded and [x,p]=i hbar? — Miguel 20:47, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * It depends on what you mean by [x,p]=i hbar. The eqn

 * $$ [x,p] \phi =i \hbar \phi $$

 * holds for functions φ which are zero near the boundary of the box. However, the operator x is not essentially self-adjoint on that domain (it has many self-adjoint extensions depending on the bdary conditions). So the commutation relations cannot be integrated to get them in Weyl form for which uniqueness holds.

 * I am aware of the essential self-adjointness issue, but you can fix that with (for instance) periodic boundary conditions. I do not know what a compression is in a technical sense. — Miguel 21:04, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * No, you can't! Then you have functions on a circle and x is not really well-defined even as a classical variable (it is defined modulo 2pi) — Miguel 21:06, 2004 November 29 (UTC)

 * Well yes it does have many self-adjoint extensions (periodic, Dirichlet,Neumann, Robin etc). But for any of these self-adjoint extensions the eqn

 * Correction. Yes it does have many self-adjoint extensions, corresponding to the fact that the space of square-intregrable distributional solutions of

 * $$ \frac{d}{dx} u = i \pm u $$

 * form a 1-dimensional space. To talk about Dirichlet,Neumann bdary conditions for a first order operator doesn't make too much sense.

 * $$ [x,p] \phi =i \hbar \phi $$

 * no longer holds in any reasonable way, since for all them the extensions have pure point spectrum. Compression of an operator T to a subspace H just \ means projH T projH .CSTAR 21:13, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess in that sense, the compression to the kernel of H-E leads to E being bounded below. The quantization of systems with constraints is a thorny issue, though. — Miguel 21:19, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * In that case, what I said in the previous paragraph is true: one could take a compression (in some sense) of x and p on L2(R) to L2(TheBox).

 * Ooops, I meant the operator p. x is essentially self adjoint there.CSTAR 21:03, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, you can formulate classical nonrelativistic mechanics by adding t and E as variables satisfying CCRs and another unphysical parameter s. Classically, s parameterizes the trajectory of the system in x-t space, and the equation H(p,q)=E becomes a constraint (in the sense of Dirac) whose Poisson brackets generates changes in the parameter s.
 * The Schroedinger representation of that is no different from the ordinary schroedinger representation of the CCR, it is just applied to a larger phase space with coordinates (q,p,t,E) instead of (q,p).
 * That is the problem: the Schroedinger representation of the CCR is part of the problem of quantization and has nothing to do with pictures of dynamics or the overarching mathematical framework of quantum mechanics.
 * — Miguel 20:13, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

Also the set of ψ satisfying (H-E)|ψ>=0 is not a vector space, or a direct sum of vector spaces so this is an odd kind of condition. Of course anything is possible. CSTAR 15:01, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

 * SOrry for the triplicate. My crippleware version of Opera really sucks.CSTAR 15:03, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the merits
I don't think this particular graf on E, t belongs here in thiis article, maybe in a separate article about issues in canonical quantization.CSTAR 21:36, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It is not wrong, but I have argued above what that is not really part of the overarching mathematical framework. Similarly, I do think that measurement is also not part of the mathematical framework. Von Neumann thought he could dispatch it with a postulate, but 70 years of research into quantum optics, hidden variables, decoherent histories, quantum cosmology and quantum information theory have shown him wrong. — Miguel 06:14, 30 November 2004 (UTC)

ready to move on
I am pretty happy with the article at this point. I think I am going to move on to quantization or something like that. — Miguel 07:05, 30 November 2004 (UTC)

Relative state interpretation
It's really equivalent to the mathematical machinery of quantum operations (via the Stinespring-Choi-Kraus represntation theorm).CSTAR 15:47, 30 November 2004 (UTC)

Symmetries
This is still an introductory article. Given that, why does it include the following sentence in the symmetries section

 * Gauge symmetries are not exactly and are dealt with in a more complicated manner using BRST.

 * This is actually about field theory - yank it from the article, or put it in the "later developments" section. — Miguel 21:07, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

Are gauge symmetries explained anywhere in the article? CSTAR 05:16, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

Decomposition of reps of symmetries
What's all this stuff about irreducibles? One is interestd in the

primary decomposition = factor decomposition = central decomposition = decomposition into multiples of irreducible representations (in type I case)

not so much of the group of symmetries as of the group of symmetries + algebra of local observables which it normalizes.

CSTAR 03:19, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

Schrodinger equation
Shouldn't the equation be a partial differential equation?

Masud 01:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose, but by the time one works at this level, the reader is assumed to know that everything is a partial differential equation, and so informally, little distinction is made. linas 17:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The distinction is still important. Masud 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, but no one makes it. linas 07:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Sigh, I just looked at this article, and your edits, and I believe they are incorrect. In this context, the derivative w.r.t. time is *not* a partial derivative, as there is only one variable (time); there are no other variables; in particular, kets do not have a space dependence, so it is an ordinary diffeq not a partial diffeq, since there are no other variables at work here. There are half-a-dozen places in the article where this confusion is made. Sigh. :-( The college-level articles in WP tend to be filled with mistakes because the $#%^& college students keep making them. Oh well. WP needs a page protection and review system to lock out this kind of stuff. linas 07:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Linas is right. There is only one variable. The notation that was used in the article was completely correct and standard; Please fix this. --CSTAR 07:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * But surely the ket must have some other dependence than time -- otherwise the momentum operator would have only zero eigenvalue(s). Masud 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The ket is generally some element of an abstract Hilbert space of finite or infinite dimensions. It doesn't have to be a Hilbert space of functions on R3. It makes in general no sense to say the ket depends on anything. In this section we are considering how kets vary in time. The derivative used is that of a function with values in a Hilbert space. --CSTAR 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should soften my stance; although not for the reason that Masud gives (CSTAR is right, the kets to not depend on a position coordinate). Sometimes, in problems of physics, one wants to consider a family of Hamiltonians, with some "free parameter" (lets call it θ): e.g. the strength of the magnetic field, which is slowly, adiabatically varied. In this case, the kets in Hilbert space may be labelled with θ, and derivatives of things may be taken with respect to θ. If one imagines that the parameter θ is also time-varying, then there is potential for confusion. To avoid this confusion, some textbooks use the partial derivative for time. The point is that the explicitly time varying part of the wave-function is given by Schroedinger's equation, and nothing more, and any (adiabatic) time variation of any parameters must be treated independently, as its unrelated. This is a somewhat subtle point, but I believe it explains why partial derivatives are sometimes seen in this context. Perhaps a paragraph explaining this needs to be added to the article. (BTW, the article to link is then to Berry phase, which is how integrals of adiabatically varying parameters (in Hilbert space or other spaces) are treated.)linas 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks CSTAR, point taken. I'm fully aware that the dimensionality of the Hilbert space doesn't have to be related to the dimensionality of space. So the Hamiltonian definitely generates infinitesimal translations in time (of the ket), but we can't say the same for momentum operator since the ket may not depend on space. Is this correct? Masud 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, but in non-relativitistic quanutm mechanics, time is treated very very differently than space. In quantum mechanics, a ket $$|\psi>$$ is an element of an infinite dimensional vector space, the Hilbert space. It does not depend on position. Do not confuse the ket with the wave function, which does have a "position dependence". Here, the wave function $$=\psi(x)$$ is just the component of the vector $$|\psi>$$ in the $$|x>$$ direction. The ket $$|\psi>$$ does not have a dependence on x.

 * The momentum operator P is an operator in this infinite dimensional vector space. The expectation value of the momentum of a given state is $$<\psi|P|\psi>$$. Note that usually one may write

 * $$<\psi|P|\psi>=\int dx \int dy <\psi |y>$$

 * In this vector basis, the momentum operator P has the following matrix elements:

 * $$=-i \hbar \delta(x-y)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$$

 * where δ is the Dirac delta function. So although the momentum operator can be thought of as the generator of infinitessimal displacements in space, this does not imply that the ket "depends on a spatial coordinate". The infinite-dimensional Hilbert space "encodes" the properties of 3D space in a curious way. The Schrodinger equation is about the time evolution of vectors in this inf. dimensional space (which just happens to have, "by accident", as it were, a 3D representation in which the momentum operator is diagonal). Perhaps this clarifies things. linas 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can add a short note in the article about commutators, since commutativity(or representations thereof) is not straightforward for unbounded operators. —This unsigned comment was added by mct_mht (talk • contribs).

Mixing history with theory
Please try not to mix history with theory, when someone is reading theory, he doesn't need to read names of scientists and dates interspersed in between, it would be much better to have a seperate section for all historical events, who did what and when etc... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.85.72 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

bra-ket notation
bra-ket notation (a convention for brackets, denoted "", later to be re-used in http's html)
 * I refer specifically to the HTML element "A" form
 *  Text displayed for the HTTP link
 * which clearly shows the provenance respected by Tim Berners-Lee, who was at CERN where the bra-ket notation is well-known and very complicated QM expressions involving multiple items follow this form. --Ancheta Wis 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but I find this justification extremely weak. Anyway, the proper place to mention this connection in my opinion is bra-ket notation, but if you do not have more direct proof, I'd rather that it isn't mentioned at all. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Measurement
The section on measurement needs to be modified, in terms of projection valued measures(PVM's) and/or positive operator valued measures(POVM's). No point in the whole particle being mathematically correct except one section. —This unsigned comment was added by mct_mht (talk • contribs).

Sign unsigned
How does one go back and signed unsigned comments? Thanks. Mct mht 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Use the substituted Template:unsigned. That is, where you want to put a signature, insert username . -lethe talk [ +] 13:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

English?
Can anyone translate this for me? I think it is a little over the head of the most of the world.

71.71.124.75 01:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Why are you trying to read "Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics" rather than "Introduction to quantum mechanics"? —Keenan Pepper 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

tone
This article, at least as far as I got into it, had been written with a tone wholly inappropriate for wikipedia. A lead is supposed to summarize the information of the article, not expound on how remarkable the stuff it's about to talk about is. It badly needs a rewrite to bring it into a style free of overwrought prose that hides the facts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * seems pretty good to me. the intro gives a overview of the history and does give a summary. how exactly does it "expound on how remarkable the stuff it's about to talk about is" and "hides the facts"? Mct mht 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The facts in this case would be "what is the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics?,"

 * the first coupla sentence alludes to it. the subject matter requires laying out some background. how would you write it? Mct mht 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any necessary background would be technical; I don't think the history is necessary to say what comes in the final sentence of the first paragraph. Isn't there a second half to the sentence "The mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is..." or if there's more than one a slight variation? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * one can fill a volume completing that sentence (see references). a short summary would be along the lines of "Mathematical structure of quantum mechanics" section in article. seems to me that starting the article saying "The mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is that the state space of a quantum system is a subspace of a Hilbert space, and observables are..." is not advisable. Mct mht 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

and the article seems kind of slow in getting to a clear answer on that. I took out the really flowery language ("one of the most remarkable things") when I did my edit, but it still as a ton of unnecessary or inappropriate wordiness that could be dropped to provide a more concise and just as readable piece, like "in brief," "clearly," "so-called" etc.

Skimming the rest of the article turns up awkward, disjointed sentences that could be combined to improve the flow, like "A related topic is the relationship to classical mechanics. Any new physical theory is supposed to reduce to successful old theories in some approximation. For quantum mechanics, this translates into the need to study the so-called classical limit of quantum mechanics."

The article just feels like it was written as an essay, not as an encyclopedic reference, but I couldn't find the "This article reads like an essay" tag. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I totally disagree with Oy's assesmnent. History is important, even for an encyclopedia article. Frankly, this is one the oddest criticisms I have ever heard. --CSTAR 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * second above. history is important for this particular article. i am gonna remove that tone tag (article can always use knowledgable copyedit). Mct mht 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Canonical quantization
The 2nd graf currently starts off with
 * This formulation of quantum mechanics, called canonical quantization, continues to be used today, and still forms the basis of ab-initio calculations in atomic, molecular and solid-state physics.

Canonical quantization I that referred to an attempt at "functorializing" the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. It is one area of MFQM, but the sentence seems to suggest this is equivalent to it. Am I misunderstanding something here?--CSTAR 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * maybe remove that phrase from the sentence. a brief note explaining how one goes from CM to QM via quantization, with link, can be added somewhere. Mct mht 05:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

many worlds resolved paradoxes?
"the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which held until the Many Worlds Interpretation which resolved its many paradoxes."

Is it true that the many worlds interpretaiton of Quantum Mechanics is the favored interpretation? As far as I know, the Copenhagen interpetation is still the most favored one and according to the page of the many worlds interpretation there are presently no way found to distinguish one from the other. --Sikory 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I only discovered your question today. I think your reservations with respect to the many worlds interpretation are justified. I have attended many conferences on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, but I cannot remember to have met any physicist who took the many worlds interpretation seriously. Contrary to the many worlds interpretation most physicists take von Neumann projection seriously, either as something "really" happening to an individual microscopic object, or as a selection of a subensemble (within an ensemble interpretation). In my observation the general feeling is that the many worlds interpretation is not backed by any observational evidence, and is just explaining problems away.WMdeMuynck (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Functional analysis
The article says: "Many of these structures were drawn from functional analysis, a research area within pure mathematics that developed in parallel with, and was influenced by the needs of, quantum mechanics."

Is this true? Functional analysis was founded by Stefan Banach, a pure mathematician who was not interested in physics. So considering that it was not founded with any intention of being used for quantum mechanics but rather it was applied to quantum mechanics by physicists after it had been developed, how can it be claimed that it was "developed in parallel with, and was influenced by the needs of, quantum mechanics." selfworm Talk ) 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes by most accounts it is true. Stefan Banach developed one area of functional analysis, but Weyl's and von Neumann's contributions to functional analysis (for instance Rings of Operators) were most certainly influenced by applications to QM.--CSTAR (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Probability flux
Isn't this an axiom implicitly assumed for the probability amplitude function? --82.112.218.84 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Carnegie Mellon College of Fine Arts

The College of Fine Arts (CFA) at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania oversees the Schools of Architecture, Art, Design, Drama, and Music along with its associated centers, studios, and galleries.

The College of Fine Arts has its roots in 1900, when the institution was first founded as Carnegie Technical Schools. The School of Fine and Applied Arts was one of the original four schools within Carnegie Technical Schools and later became the College of Fine Arts. Officially founded in 1905 as the first comprehensive arts learning institution in the United States, CFA has educated outstanding artists, architects, designers, theater artists and musicians who have made important contributions to culture in the United States and the world for almost a century.

The College of Fine Arts concentrates on the education of professionals in the arts in the broader context of Carnegie Mellon University. Beyond their education in their chosen field, through required and elective course work, students are involved with other disciplines within CFA and within the other colleges of the University. Further, the college’s location in the Oakland District of Pittsburgh with its unique density of cultural resources (The Carnegie Museum of Art, The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, The Carnegie Library, the University of Pittsburgh, Hillman Library, the Frick Fine Arts Building, and Phipps Botanical Conservatory,) places CFA at the center of a premier cultural environment.

CFA also benefits from the presence of its Miller Institute for Contemporary Art (Miller ICA).

In addition, CFA actively promotes integrative and interdisciplinary practices throughout the Carnegie Mellon University campus, and currently offers the BXA Intercollege Degree Programs with Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mellon College of Science, and School of Computer Science. The undergraduate degrees are the Bachelor of Humanities and Arts (BHA), Bachelor of Science and Arts (BSA), and Bachelor of Computer Science and Arts (BCSA) respectively, and students are to be admitted to the two corresponding schools at CMU to be enrolled, where they will develop and experiment with their corresponding disciplines in the forms of major capstone projects.

CFA alumni have shaped the television, stage and film worlds; have created work collected in international museums; have composed for and are performing and conducting in major symphony orchestras, choruses and opera companies; have built notable buildings, designed building systems and architectural imaging systems; created significant innovations in graphic and industrial design; and are professors and deans in major arts institutions. These graduates have actively developed the innovations, inventions, techniques and information structures in their professional fields. They have also written, published and lectured extensively.

The educational and artistic life of the college is interwoven with a dense calendar of theatre performances, concert, exhibitions, film and media presentations and lectures by visiting artists, practitioners and scholars.

Notable alumni include Gabriel Macht, Christian Borle, Jonathan Borofsky, Philip Pearlstein, Steven Bochco, James Cromwell, Holly Hunter, Rob Marshall, Ricky Ian Gordon, Stephen Schwartz, Billy Porter (actor), Zachary Quinto, Ryan McGinness, Judith Light, Patrick Wilson, Ted Danson, Keith Lockhart, Matt Bomer, Josh Groban, Josh Gad, Leslie Odom, Jr. and Blair Underwood.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Carnegie Mellon College of Fine Arts


text:
Hatchet (novel)

Hatchet is a 1987 Newbery Honor-winning young-adult wilderness survival novel written by American writer Gary Paulsen. It is the first novel of five in the Hatchet series. Other novels in the series include The River (1991), Brian's Winter (1996), Brian's Return (1999) and Brian's Hunt (2003). It was first published in September 1987 by Bradbury Press.

Plot
Brian Robeson is the 13-year-old son of divorced parents. As he travels from Hampton on a Cessna bush plane to visit his father in the oil fields of Northern Canada for the summer, the pilot suddenly suffers a massive heart attack and dies. Brian tries to land the plane, but he runs out of fuel and sees nowhere to go, so ends up crash-landing into an L-shaped lake in the middle of a vast forest. Brian survives the crash with only a few minor injuries.

Throughout the summer, Brian learns how to survive on his own in the vast wilderness, with nothing but his windbreaker and a hatchet—a gift his mother gave him shortly before his plane departed. He discovers how to make fire with the hatchet, and eats whatever food he can find, from rabbits and ruffed grouse – which he nicknames “fool-birds” – to turtle eggs, fish and berries. Simultaneously, he deals with many of Nature's dangers, including mosquitoes, a porcupine, two huge bears – one of which is a mother with her cubs, a pack of three wolves, a skunk, a bad-tempered female moose, and even a tornado.

Over time, Brian develops his survival skills and becomes a fine woodsman. He crafts a bow, some arrows, and a fishing spear to aid in his hunting. He also fashions a shelter out of the underside of a rock overhang. During his time alone, Brian struggles with memories of home as well as the bittersweet memory of his mother, whom Brian had caught cheating on his father before their divorce.

When a sudden tornado hits the area, it draws the tail of the plane toward the shore of the lake. This triggers Brian's thoughts that there may be a survival pack of some sort on the plane. He makes a raft from a few broken-off treetops to get to the plane. When he cuts his way into the tail, he drops his hatchet in the lake and dives in to get it. Once inside the plane, Brian finds a survival pack that includes an array of tools, additional food, an emergency transmitter, and a .22 AR-7 rifle.

Back on shore, Brian activates the transmitter, but not knowing how to use it, he thinks it is broken and throws it aside. However, the distress beacon is picked up by the pilot of a passing airplane, and he is rescued. The epilogue explains that Brian had spent the remainder of the summer with his father but did not disclose his mother's affair, and how surviving on his own for a total of 54 days had a permanent effect on him for the better.

Sequel novels
Paulsen continued the story of Brian Robeson with four more novels, beginning with The River in 1991. It is about Brian going back to the wilderness to show his survival strategies to the military. Other books by Gary Paulsen with summaries: Brian's Winter (1996) which shows how Brian would have survived if he was not rescued by that plane and if he had to survive the winter, Brian's Return (1999) where he described his life conflict after the plane crash, Brian's Hunt (2003) where he is out canoeing and then senses danger nearby when he finds a wounded dog, before finishing the series Brian's Saga with Guts: The True Stories behind Hatchet and the Brian Books, which provides information about the behind-the-scene stories and how Brian Robeson got there.

Film adaptation
A film adaptation titled A Cry in the Wild was released in 1990.

Reception
Hatchet was a recipient of the 1988 Newbery Honor. In 2012, it was ranked number 23 on a list of the top 100 children's novels published by School Library Journal.

title: Hatchet (novel)


text:
Wikipedia:School and university projects/Open Source Culture/MarthaGraham

New York Times

September 29, 2004 Wednesday

Graham Legacy, on the Stage Again

by Felicia Lee

Lee discusses what she calls “the question of artistic legacy and ownership” in her discussion of the battle over the rights to Martha Graham’s dances. Though in her will the famed choreographer left the rights to her dances to her heir, Donald Protas, two court decisions have ruled that those rights were not hers to give but rather belong to the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance and the Martha Graham School. The battle between Protas and these institutions further illuminates the tricky boundaries of intellectual property in the performing arts.


text: File:Susan Foreman.jpg

title: File:Susan Foreman.jpg


text:
File:Ian Chesterton.jpg

Summary
Source: http://www.shillpages.com/dw/russew01.jpg Permission granted for non-commercial use for the promotion of Doctor Who.

Fair use rationale for Ian Chesterton
The above image is believed to qualify as fair use as it is an image of: a web resolution, and of a lower quality then broadcast/verbatim media releases. The image provides critical commentary in describing the subject of the article. Furthermore it is believed that this image will not impede the copyright owners' ability to profit.

title: File:Ian Chesterton.jpg


text:
User:Martyman/The 10 Random Pages Test

This is a test of the quality of articles on Wikipedia.

Load wikipedia Special:Randompage 10 times and see what comes up.

My results follow:
 * Elderberry Pretty good article
 * Nebula class starship Very detailed (Star Trek trivia)
 * Ram Vilas Paswan Sub-stub one line Terrible
 * Olne Stub two lines Terrible
 * Homer the Heretic Acceptable (Simpsons episode trivia)
 * Henry Addison Short article imported from external referance Needs work
 * Christmas on Bear Mountain Sub-stub one line bad english Terrible
 * Laura Blundy book review Needs work
 * Baguirmi language stub two lines Bad
 * Susan Orlean Two parragraph stub Needs work

Well from a random sampling of 10 articles I got two resonable TV fan pages, a good artile about a plants and the rest ranged from bad to terrible. I think wikipedia has a way to go before 1.0

title: User:Martyman/The 10 Random Pages Test


text:
Talk:Martin B-26 Marauder

Claims attributed to Charles Mendenhall's Deadly Duo
There are two incorrect claims in the article that I can trace back to Mendenhall's Deadly Duo, one which cites it as a source directly (source 1) and another that cites a NMUSAF factsheet (source 42) which itself has no source but seems be based on a misunderstanding of a passage of Mendenhall's book.

Claim #1: "The 5,288 serial numbers published in Mendenhall's Deadly Duo effectively refutes the lesser count of the National Air and Space Museum." (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder#cite_note-2)

One can argue that Mendenhall claims 5,157 B-26s were built, or that he claims 5,269 B-26s were built, but not 5,288. Mendenhall states that 5,157 B-26s were built on page 66, a total that is likely excluding the 109 B-26B-45-MAs converted into AT-23As (5,266 - 109 = 5,157). This total contradicts another cited in his book: if one counts all aircraft listed in his serial number breakdown (p. 151-157) they will arrive at a total of 5,269 aircraft.

This is because Mendenhall lists three aircraft twice: 40-1380 (under B-26 and XB-26D), 41-17704 (under B-26B and B-26B-2), and 44-68221 (under B-26G-25 and XB-26H), thus the correct total is 5,266 (5,269 - 3 = 5,266). The reason he lists 40-1380 twice is likely because he does not know that 40-1380 is the XB-26D (Martin drawings 257000, 257007 & 08 and several others confirm its identity). The other two aircraft are likely oversights because the aircraft were built in one configuration but modified into another. This book does not at any point claim that 5,288 B-26s were built, despite being listed as the source for this claim. I have done the math several times using excel and cannot arrive at 5,288. Per Joe Baugher and the source falsely refuted in the claim, B-26 serial numbers are: 40-1361 through 1561, 41-7345 through 7483, 41-17544 through 18334, 41-31573 through 32072, 41-34673 through 35872, 42-43260 through 43459, 42-95629 through 96528, 42-107471 through 107855 (42-107471 through 108470 ordered, but 42-107856 through 108470 cancelled), 43-34115 through 34614, 44-67805 through 68254. (source: http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/gzUsafSearch.pl?target=&content=Martin+B-26, http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/gzUsafSearch.pl?target=&content=Martin+AT-23B and http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/gzUsafSearch.pl?target=&content=Martin+AT-23) Technical Orders on https://app.aircorpslibrary.com/unit/b-26 also list B-26 serial numbers

Claim #2: "Beginning with block 10, the wingspan was increased from 65 feet (20 m) to 71 feet (22 m) and flaps were added outboard of the engine nacelle to improve handling problems during landing caused by high wing loads." (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder#cite_ref-B26B10_fact_44-0)

While this claim is quoting its source correctly, the claim itself is wrong and I suspect its origin is the following passage from page 70 of Deadly Duo: "An inboard and outboard slotted (after the B-26B) flap was located on either side of the nacelle on each wing." The statement means that the flaps were slotted after the B-26B, not that outboard flaps were added after the B-26B, Mendenhall's phrasing was ambiguous. The short wing models were fitted with split-slotted flaps (sometimes called just split flaps or just slotted flaps, they were made of only the bottom surface of the wing but produced a gap between themselves and the wing when extending), while the long wing Marauders used regular slotted flaps. There are an extremely large number of sources that prove that the short wing B-26s had outboard flaps, such as any photo of a short wing B-26 with its flaps down, but also the following:

Glenn L. Martin Company drawings (my own collection, from microfilm duplicates purchased from the Smithsonian): -General Assembly drawings 257000, 311000 and 313000 (for the B-26, B-26A & B-26B respectively), -B-26, B-26A & B-26B Installation, Flaps, Inboard & Outboard, Outer Wing. Drawing 257034, -B-26, B-26A & B-26B Wing Flap Assembly, Outboard. Drawings 257037 & 38. Note: Martin calls all short wing B-26Bs (41-17544 through 41-18184) "B-26B" and all long wing B-26Bs (41-18185 through 41-18334, 41-31573 through 41-32072, 42-43260 through 42-43459 and 42-95629 through 42-95228) "B-26B1", so the above drawings refer only to the short wing models. The general assembly drawing for the B-26B1 (long wing B-26B models) is 344000, and the outboard flap assembly drawings for it are 361391 & 92.

Manuals: -Handbook of Operation & Flight Instructions for the Model B-26, April 11th, 1941, pages 6, 8 and 9. -Technical Order No. 01-35EA-1: Handbook of Operation & Flight Instructions for the Models B-26 and B-26A Bombardment Airplanes manufactured by the Glenn L. Martin Company, March 20th, 1942, page 3 paragraph 1-a. -Technical Order No. 01-35EA-2: Handbook of Service Instructions for B-26, B-26A, and B-26B Airplanes, November 25th, 1942, page 41 paragraph 2-a-3 and page 45. (Available here https://app.aircorpslibrary.com/document/viewer/ap20b26jw51?p=49, already set to page 45 in document, which is 49 in the PDF)

I hope this post is useful and apologize for the bad formatting. There are other claims that need addressing but I will do so later. The article is very informative and overall very factually correct, avoiding several incorrect claims that get repeated very often in other sources. MattG179 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Martin B-26 Marauder


text: Category:Indian Ocean

title: Category:Indian Ocean


text:
File:Barbara Wright.jpg

Jacqueline Hill as Barbara Wright, from Doctor Who (publicity still)

title: File:Barbara Wright.jpg


text:
Talk:Valech Report

Untitled
i put a modified version of this article on wikinews. The bellman 06:26, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Something important to add
It's important to add that while the comission was receiving torture claims, President Ricardo Lagos announced that everyone who was believed by the comission to have been tortured would receive a lifetime salary.

Why is it a disputed page?
What exactly is disputed? Lagos maybe announced that, but the end result was hardly to the expectancies. I think this article is NPOV...

Wording
"One woman was raped in prison and four women were pregnant at the time of their arrest and were tortured; their children were considered "direct victims". Victims were detained for six months, on average." This makes it sound as if only one woman had been raped; however, rape was extremely common during torture, and the testimony of victims often details this. The wording of this sentence is in general odd. Was this by any chance meant to be about a child conceived as a result of rape during detention? (A notable case of that sort resulted in a miscarriage, but it can't have been the only one.) Feketekave (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Guardian: "Mr Lagos revealed that 94% of those detained had been subjected to torture and that, of the 3,400 women who gave evidence, almost all had been victims of sexual violence." Feketekave (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I quote from Spanish Wikipedia: "- violaciones y abusos sexuales, especialmente contra mujeres, la mayoría de las prisioneras señala haber sido violada (muchas en forma reiterada) y de haber sufrido todo tipo de manoseos y abusos sexuales; 13 de ellas señalan haber quedado embarazadas de sus violadores, además, algunas señalan haber sido sometidas a violaciones con perros. También hay denuncias de hombres violados y abusados por sus captores;" ("... rape and sexual abuse, especially against women; most women prisoners declare having been raped (many repeatedly) and having undergone groping and many kinds of sexual abuse; 13 of them state having been made pregnant by their rapists; besides, some declare having been raped by dogs. There are also accusations by men raped and abused by their captors...") So, the wording in the current version of the text is misleading, and will have to go. Feketekave (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pristino (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Valech Report


text:
Talk:Louis Antoine de Bougainville

Woman on Bougainville expedition
It is true that a woman accompanied the Bougainville expedition, but she went disguised as the male valet to the botanist Philibert Commerson, and on her birth certificate her name was spelled "Baret" not "Bare" as Bougainville did in his journals. His journals were copied and published in book form, so naturally the spelling error spread. According to church records, she was born in the Burgundian area of France called Lome on July 27, 1740, so she was 27 when she was masquerading as a young man in Tahiti. While Bougainville returned to France in 1769, Jeanne did not make it back until 1775. Commerson did not live to return. Jeanne had not left his side for 10 years. What is astonishing is that she managed to deceive over 300 French sailors and marines concerning her true gender for almost eighteen months. What is almost as astonishing is that she lived to be 67 years old in an age when short lifespans was the norm. She died peacefully, at home, on August 5, 1807. She left no details of her life, so she took the secrets of her remarkable life with her.

The name was often written Baré. Unfortunately names were not spelt consistently in the 18th century. There is an excellent and fairly recent biography of Jeanne Baret: Dunmore, J. "Monsieur Baret: first woman around the world, 1766-68". Aukland, New Zealand. Heritage Press. 2002. 198 pages. MarkGim (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Birth and death dates
Birth
 * There seems to be doubt about 12 November. Many sites say it was 11 November, or acknowledge the uncertainty.  Is there any way to know for sure which it was?

His date of birth is given as 12 November in all the reputable documents I have ever seen. e.g. Dunmore, J. (translator) "The Pacific Journals of Louis-Antoine de Bougainville". London. Hakluyt Society. 2002. Introduction. p.xxiv. MarkGim (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Death
 * This very detailed biography says: “On 20 August 1811 he he fell ill again and ten days later he died”. That would make it the 30th August.   But most sites say he died on 31 August.  Again, is there any way to be sure?  In the meantime, I'm changing it from 20 August to 31 August. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He died on 31 August 1811. MarkGim (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Voyage autour du monde
The page for the book is 4 years old, four sentences long and hasn't been touched in two years. Unless someone wants to do some significant additions, I suggest we merge that page into "The legend begins" section of this article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Close: No comments on either page after 5 days; almost everything on the source page was already included here, so I did the merge myself. It ended up being maybe one new sentence. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis Antoine or Louis-Antoine?
Hyphenated or not? We use both versions. So does the French WP article, so that's no help. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Antoine de Bougainville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708144045/http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/jcr/~boug1.html to http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/jcr/~boug1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Louis-Antoine
His name should be hyphenated. It's incorrect to list it as "Louis Antoine". Funnyhat (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Louis Antoine de Bougainville


text:
User talk:Jimmyvanthach/Archive02

User:Hawstom
I am willing to assist you with the article Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, but I respectfully request that you confine the discussion to the talk page of that article, and that you answer my questions by improving the article. See the Talk:Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh for more. Tom - Talk 17:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith gestures at Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh and its talk page. User:Dunch did his best to tone down and pretty up the additions recently made. If you can keep all your discussions at the talk pages and avoid editing the articles until there are consensuses, I think things will be okay. If you have heartburn over what Dunch left there, please explain at the talk page. Tom - Talk 20:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for not adding more evidence to my user talk page :-D Tom - Talk 04:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are willing to learn more about the Wikipedia to the point that you can clean up some of the unpalatable things you have done, I am willing to advocate for you. One of the biggest things you can do to get out of hot Wikiwater is to try to learn about basic rules and then start to clean up your own messes. That would be very respectful to the community. You seem to do well already with wikilove and wikiquette, which are essentials we can use a lot more of around here. But where you are having the biggest trouble is with our "absolute and non-negotiable" non-bias policy. I hope I am not being presumptuous when I suggest that you read carefully Neutral Point of View. With time and patience and caution, I know you can develop respect here so that you won't have to defend every move and so that you, with your civility and Wikiquette, can be an administrator. Tom - Talk 07:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Jimmy, it would also probably help a lot if you would add a little about yourself to your User Page User:Jimmyvanthach "in front" of this talk page. I'm sure you can imagine how it is a little uncomfortable to come upon a user who doesn't even have a user page. Feel free to copy mine and change it as you see fit. Tom - Talk 16:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I took the great liberty of jotting down on your user page a few items that I think will be helpful to people. If I did badly, please promptly fix or delete my presumtuous work. Tom - Talk 17:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy, I am bound to support the arbitration committee in their decisions. Other than that, I am not aware of anything negative. HueNguyen asserted several things about the images you mentioned to me. And you have asserted an opposing conclusion. I don't know how to tell what needs to be changed. But I think it would help if we could keep all the factual and issue talk on the article talk pages. I am going to move your comments. Tom - Talk 15:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy, I appreciate your positive contributions to Wikipedia. I see that you are progressing in your ability to follow Wikipedia policy. It is urgently important that you refrain from violating the terms of the arbitration committee's decision regarding your behavior. Please avoid editing (please remove from your watchlist and do not visit) any articles that fall within your special interest as one who follows the actions of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League. That means any articles. John Wayne yes, Mars yes, rabbits yes. But any royalty or related pages no. This is very serious. Tom - Talk 23:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

references concerning Prince Buu Chanh
Prince Buu Chanh does not claim the throne of Vietnam, this is incorrect where is the reference that he is using that supports this statement by.

Where is he getting the information of Book or newspaper reference that Boa Die died in 1997, and afterwards Buu Chanh took various titles of Sir, "Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chan", "H.I.H. Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh" and "H.I.H. Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, Duke of Kien Hoa". The basis of his claims to these titles is dubious since according to Vietnamese traditions, the title of prince is not hereditary beyond the first generation (the sons of the Emperor). Beyond that, titles have to be conferred by the Emperor, indeed there would be several other princes of similar rank were it conferred in this way. Titles were also conferred on his wife and children, which also violates tradition. ?

This is undocumented references. Jimmyvanthach 22:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocked ip
I have blocked users Celindgren and Tran Van Ba as they are real people who are different from you. If this has resulted in a block of your ip address, please contact me or any sysop and they can unblock the ip. I'll try to watch for it to come up. Fred Bauder 18:05, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Republican medal of honour
Can you tell me the date on which Nguyen Phuc Buu Chan was awarded this medal? It appears that his bogus claim to the throne has only been from the death of Boa Dai in 1997? Dunc|☺ 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have read over the information and in his biography, on wikipedia he is not claiming the throne of vietnam, this has been written in by NguyenHue. Bao Long is the Crown Prince that is the postion of the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council. I am reading this from their website http://users.panola.com/vietnam/crown.html I do not see any reference in any newspaper concerning he is the Crown Prince. Only Bao Long is the Crown Prince, and I myself wrote set up a biography on him here on wikipedia.

The dis-aggreement is wheather the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council has the authority to assign Prince Buu Chanh to act as Regent. The documents that Emperor Bao Dia appointed Prince Buu Phuc as Chairman and to take care and all Family members of Nguyen-Phuoc must organize in unity, have been viewed by third parties and was concieved authentic, I am researching a book reference for this.

NguyenHue statements of Crown Prince is false, I myself, if you look at the history of Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh never stated, he was the Crown Prince heir to the throne. I only wrote he was the Regent.

I am looking through the official Republican site for the date and will reply here for you.Jimmyvanthach 12:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Right, so what you're saying is that Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh does not claim to be the Crown Prince, and recognises Bao Long as Crown Prince but he does claim to act as some kind of spokesperson for the family, or claim to be head of the family? He seems from the outside that his family do not recognise his attempts to unify them and they also question whether he is part of their family.  I have an email correspondent who says the Family Organisation is likely an invention of Buu Chanh and even if it did exist it would have very dubious legal basis, and that Bao Long who I believe lives in France has ignored him.  He is also not entitled to call himself Prince, or dish out Dragons of Ammam.  If that is the case, then I seriously doubt his notability and merit of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Dunc|☺ 16:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh does not claim the throne, we are on the same page. NguyenHue wrote that he claims the throne.

If you look at my past history of Prince Buu Chanh I never wrote Crown Prince Buu Chanh. I only stated Regent Prince Buu Chanh. I have contacted the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council, Prince Buu Phuc. His contact information is

Association de l'Imperiale Familie du Vietnam Arc-En-Ciel-Bellatrix, rue du Colonel Gassin, F-0600 Nice, France. Tel: +33 4 93851289 Contact: Prince Buu-Phuc

I found this in the Monarchy.net directory http://www.monarchy.net/directory.htm#

I know if you write him, or converse he can give you an official statement.

I am not aware of your contact since you did not release the name, but it would be good to know and put Prine Buu Phuc to find out if your contact is viable or even is aware of Prince Buu Phuc.

He is the Chairman assigned by Emperor Bao Dai in 1982. There are documents that he has availble of the Assignment as Chairman of the Nguyen Phuoc in the capacity that was given to him by Emperor Bao Dai to handle the affairs of the Nguyen Phuoc Imperial Family. Prince Buu Chanh was assigned to be the Regent in Feburary 2004 by Prince Buu Phuc.

Prince Buu Chanh was NOT assigned Crown Prince, the Crown Prince is Bao Long.

Bao Long has never ingnored Prince Buu Chanh, I have never read a newspaper document or book interview concerning that issue.

Prince Buu Chanh lineage is entitled to by birth a Prince and I am researching books at the moment that show this, that is why I am not pressing the issue, because you and User HOB state that there needs to be a newspaper article or book that is used as a referenced, and I fully support it.Jimmyvanthach 17:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

apology
I apologise for being a little forthright with you before, I should have kept my cool. There is a lot of wikiquette that should be observed (for example not marking minor edits minor, providing edit summaries), but which include no personal attacks as well and I overstepped the mark.

My knowledge of the history of Vietnam has I think improved and in a slightly perverse way I thank you for that. I still do not like you, I know you are a liar, and I don't think that you are here for the spread of knowledge and the comradeship the wiki community has. But I do believe in the power of the community here to get to grips with any user who causes inconvenience, however great or small. As someone who lives in a constitutional monarchy I shan't say I'm totally opposed to the principle, I can't see its relevance to Vietnam. I do recognise the need for human rights and admire those that campaign for human rights.

I see we have several red links on the Nguyen Dynasty's emperors that could be written. Those I think should be the priority. Dunc|☺ 18:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I accept your apology and respect your opinion we dont have to like each other, but we will maintain our professionalism at all times.

I have noticed that and I feel that the present topic on them are not very neutral at all I will be working on former Emperor's of Vietnam. I have recived some old photos from my grandmother of her history notes and collection and will use them and her notes for the Nguyen Dynasty.

I share your views on Human Rights, I would also like to know, do you think that a Constitutional Monarchy helped in Cambodia since 1991?

Also I have been thinking why didn't the Constitutional Monarchy of Thailand fall to the Communist, after monarchies of Cambodia (1973) and Laos in 1975.--Jimmyvanthach 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam
I've just seen your addition of a large number of external links to this article. IMHO in this case the number of links is excessive, Wikipedia isn't targetted as a web directory. If you perhaps can select a subset of the most significant links? --Pjacobi 21:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---

ok, no problem, I just put them there as a reference to refer to them to make the biography of the Tamil Eelam large from the reading material and then denote the links when important information was taken out.--Jimmyvanthach 21:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Final decision in arbitration case
5 arbitrators, which is enough to make it binding, have voted for the following decision in Requests for arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. I know this decision may cause some hardship for you, but please feel welcome to participate in other areas of Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 23:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) -

I understand, and I will only contribute to influential Vientamese-Americans located in the United States and the Laos Royal Family.--Jimmyvanthach 14:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, see What Wikipedia is not

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Findings of Fact
1) User:Jimmyvanthach has edited a number of articles (user contributions) which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam in a manner which is associated with the viewpoint advocated by the website of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty and The Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League and has advocated that viewpoint although his exact identity and connection with that group is uncertain.
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

2) User:Jimmyvanthach or someone with the same point of view and history of advocacy has also used the accounts Contributions Celindgren (the actual C.E.M. Lindgren has no connection with this account, see Requests_for_comment/Tran_Van_Ba), and Contributions Tran Van Ba as well as the anonymous ip 198.26.120.13
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Remedies
1) User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba are banned from editing articles which relate to the royal family of Vietnam and articles which relate to the recent history and politics of Vietnam.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Do we need to bother specifying that simply changing usernames doesn't avoid this decree? I don't know, the wording seems to imply that to me, but maybe I'm being overly picky.)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (the people/person, not the accounts, of course)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Enforcement
1) Edits by User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba to articles which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam or to the recent history and politics of Vietnam may be removed by any user. In the event the banned users attempt to restore removed edits they may be banned by any administrator for a brief period (a day or less but up to a week in the event of repeat offenses).

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Notable Vietnamese Americans ?
It's not appropriate to add a list of notable Vietnamese Americans to articles about one specific Vietnamese American. CryptoDerk 18:53, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've removed these lists from each article. I noticed you have the list in the article on Vietnamese Americans -- that is fine.  What you should do is add a "See also: Vietnamese Americans" link to individual biographies -- or better yet, just link it when describing the person in the first place (i.e. "Bao Pham is a Vietnamese American who was born in 1975.".  That would be fine as it's inobtrusive.  CryptoDerk 19:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Vietnamese Americans/Asian Americans Category Doublelisting
I'm going to remove the Vietnamese Americans you listed under Category:Asian Americans because there is already a category for Category:Vietnamese Americans under the Asian Americans category. If we were to double-list all the other people in under the categories Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, etc., it would needlessly clutter the Asian Americans category.

Keep up the good work. I'm always interested to find out about notable Asian Americans. If you have any questions/comments please reply to me on my talk page.

-- J3ff 03:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The people listed directly under Category:Asian Americans are not listed in underlying categories such as Category:Chinese Americans -- J3ff 03:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tila Nguyen
Are you sure Tila Nguyen is an actress? I'm pretty sure she is only a model. Reply to me on my talk page. -- J3ff 21:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * She wasn't in 2 Fast 2 Furious; the article is just describing what the "import scene" is by mentioning that movie. -- J3ff 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed references of her as an actress and I clarified the sentence in the article Tila Nguyen that mentions 2 Fast 2 Furious. -- J3ff 18:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jimmyvanthach/Archive02


text:
User:Ron Manager

aka: the fucking champ and/or daddy.

title: User:Ron Manager


text:
KG Mobility Rexton

The SsangYong Rexton (Korean: 쌍용 렉스턴) is a mid-size SUV manufactured by South Korean manufacturer SsangYong Motor (currently KG Mobility) since late 2001. The name Rexton is derived from the Latin title 'rex' and the English word 'tone', which is intended to mean "the ruler's tone".

In 2017, the second generation Rexton debuted in Seoul 2017, and to the European market in Frankfurt 2017. The new generation Rexton features SsangYong's new body-on-frame platform, which it shares with the Musso pick-up. Other improvements include active safety driving pack, increased towing capacity, and electric parking brake system with auto hold. The Rexton is offered with a choice of a new 2.0L petrol turbo or 2.2L diesel engine and available in two or four-wheel drive. It is equipped with Mercedes-Benz 7G-Tronic automatic or Aisin 6-speed automatic transmission or 6-speed manual transmission.

First generation (Y200; 2001)

The Y200 series Rexton was produced from 2001 to 2006. The car's design was styled by Giorgetto Giugiaro's Italdesign studio. And it was available only with four-wheel drive and one of four engines: a 2.3-liter 112 kW (150 hp) petrol engine, a 2.7-liter 121 kW and 342 Nm common rail diesel, a 2.9-liter diesel and a 3.2-liter 162 kW and 310 Nm petrol engine. 2,7XDi was based on Mercedes-Benz OM612 2,7CDI turbodiesel but had details that greatly distinguished it from the actual Mercedes one. The car was also available under a Daewoo badge in certain European markets such as France, retaining the model name and almost all designs and features. Production of the Daewoo Rexton stopped in early 2003 to make way for the car coming in as a Ssangyong instead.

In June 2003, the Rexton was introduced in Europe under the Ssangyong badge. Technically, it is based on a slightly extended chassis of the SsangYong Musso. Initially, it was only available with a choice of two engines: a 2.9-liter five-cylinder diesel and 3.2-liter six-cylinder gasoline engine. Both engines were borrowed from the Musso which were licensed from Mercedes-Benz.

The transmission options for the diesel model were originally either a five-speed manual with a gearbox from the American company Tremec or a four-speed automatic with a gearbox from the Australian company BTR Automotive. The petrol model was only offered with the automatic transmission. In 2004, with the introduction of the 2.7-liter XDi diesel engine, a five-speed Tiptronic gearbox (NAG 5G-Tronic provided by Mercedes-Benz) became an optional extra with that engine.

SsangYong Rexton II, first facelift (Y250; 2006–2012)

In early 2006, SsangYong unveiled an upgraded Rexton. The vehicle features numerous technologies to reduce carbon emissions, such as a catalyzed diesel particulate filter and a variable-geometry turbocharger. Based on these upgrades, the South Korean government classifies the 2008 Rexton as a low-emissions vehicle, making it eligible for an exemption from a quasi tax related to environmental standards for five years after the purchase of the vehicle. Other improvements include enhanced parking brake technology, a tire pressure monitoring system (as seen on the SsangYong WZ concept car), an electronic toll collection system and a forward collision warning and avoidance system.

In Malaysia, the Rexton was assembled starting in August 2006 by Competitive Supreme Sdn Bhd (CSSB), also the sole importer and distributor of SsangYong vehicles in Malaysia.

In 2008, Project Kahn, famous for tuning luxury and sports cars, presented a modified Rexton 270 SPR at the 2008 British International Motor Show. It was so well received that in 2009, it became part of the British SsangYong range. It features added kit, chrome highlights and a "sportier" interior, but unusually, in the initial models, it does not have a radio/CD player, as it is intended that those that potential customers would want to put their own sound system in. However, the R-Line later gained a Kenwood double-DIN touch screen navigation system with steering wheel-mounted controls. The R-Line also has a more powerful version of the 2.7-liter straight-five turbo diesel engine producing 186 PS and 402 Nm torque at 2400 rpm.

SsangYong Rexton W, second facelift (Y290; 2012- early 2017)
A revision version called the Rexton W, was released worldwide at Busan Motor Show 2012. And it was the first facelift model with Mahindra & Mahindra of which SsangYong is a subsidiary. SsangYong re-designed front grille with new headlights, rear combination lamp and retuned chassis. The car introduced the new 2.0-liter XDi diesel engine Euro 5 with standard DPF come from the Korando and the 3.2-liter petrol engine retuned for Euro 5 standard. And it is equipped with Mercedes-Benz 5G-Tronic automatic which the same gearbox with the previous model or manual gearbox.

At the end of 2015, SsangYong introduced to the European market the 2.2-liter e-XDi diesel engine with Euro 6 compliance. This engine improved power and torque than the previous 2.0-liter XDi diesel engine. This 2.2-liter diesel also comes with the Mercedes-Benz 7G-Tronic automatic gearbox.

Chinese copy controversy
In 2005, SG Automotive released the Huanghai Aurora which heavily resembled the Rexton. However, SsangYong chose not to sue SG Automotive, citing China's lawsuit system which is favorable to their companies. SsangYong only informed SAIC, which was the largest shareholder at the time, of the copyright issue with SG Automotive.

Second generation (Y400; 2017)

The Y400 series Rexton traces its roots to the SsangYong LIV-1 concept car and the SsangYong LIV-2 concept from Paris Motor Show 2016. In 2017, 2nd generation Rexton debuted to Korean market in Seoul Motor Show 2017, and to global market in International Motor Show Germany 2017. With the car's design, SsangYong claims that the Rexton got the inspiration from the Greek temple Parthenon.

The new generation Rexton features SsangYong's new body-on-frame platform using Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS), which shares with SsangYong Musso pick-up. Other improvements include safety driving equipments, increased towing capacity (up to 3,500 kg) in both manual and automatic forms, and electric parking brake system with auto hold.

The Rexton is offered with a choice of a new 225 hp 2.0 L e-XGDI 200T petrol turbo engine or 181 horsepower 2.2 L e-XDI 220 diesel engine and available in two-wheel or part-time four-wheel drive. It is equipped with Mercedes-Benz 7G-Tronic automatic or AISIN 6-speed automatic transmission or 6-speed manual transmission.

Awards
In Korea, the Rexton was chosen as the Best Ergonomic Design Award by the Ergonomics Society of Korea. It also received Award of the Prime Minister in Korean Good Design Award 2017. G4 Rexton has earned Best Value award for two consecutive years. It won three titles at last year's awards including the Best Value Off-roader and 4x4 of the Year 2018. SsangYong Rexton named 'Best Value 4x4 2023' by 4x4 Magazine for 6 consecutive years. SsangYong Motors has collected yet another award for its flagship Rexton, which has been named as the 'Best Value' off-roader, for an unprecedented sixth year running in the '4x4 of the Year 2023' awards, sponsored by BFGoodrich.

Safety
The second generation Rexton equipped with 9 airbags, including a driver knee-airbag and second-row side airbags. It also features intelligent safety driving system including Autonomous Emergency Brake System (AEBS), Forward Collision Warning System (FCWS), Lane Departure Warning System (LDWS), High Beam Assist (HBA), Lane Change Assist (LCA), and Rear Cross-Traffic Alert (RCTA).

In Korean New Car Assessment Program (KNCAP) the SsangYong G4 Rexton received top safety rating of Grade1 (5 stars, 88.5 pts.) on a 2017 registration.

Mahindra Alturas G4 (2018–2022)
Mahindra revealed a rebadged version of the 2nd generation Rexton called the Alturas G4 at the 2018 Auto Expo, India. The SUV is slotted above the Mahindra XUV500.

During its lifespan, it was offered in both 2WD and 4WD drivetrains and it was the flagship model of the brand until it was discontinued in late 2022 due to poor sales and marketing.

The Alturas G4 was assembled in Mahindra & Mahindra Chakan Plant in India between 2018 and 2022, by using CKD methods from SsangYong's Pyeongtaek plant.

First facelift (Y450; 2020–present)
The facelifted Rexton was unveiled in September 2019 as the 2020 model.

title: KG Mobility Rexton


text:
Sergio Valech

Sergio Valech Aldunate (21 October 1927 – 24 November 2010) was the Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santiago de Chile, Chile. He was the head of the eight-member National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture panel in Chile, which investigated instances of torture that occurred under the military regime of Augusto Pinochet. After a six-month investigation, and another six months of preparation, the panel released the Valech Report.

Valech was born in Santiago, Chile. He was ordained priest of Santiago de Chile on 28 June 1953. On 27 August 1973, he was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago de Chile and Titular Bishop of Zabi. On 18 October 1973 he was ordained Titular Bishop of Zabi. He retired as Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago de Chile on 3 March 2003.

Valech died of lung cancer on 24 November 2010.

title: Sergio Valech