text:
User talk:Pradeepsomani

Hi! I wrote an article about Namaste for the German Wikipedia. I wonder if you would allow to use the pic of Anna Kournikova (blimey, what a sweetheart...) also for the Wiki over here. If so it would be nice to ad the necessary information with the pic. Kind regards from Germany, Eddi aka "RX-Guru", 14.07.05, 23.03h CEST

Sure!

virus hoax
if you read the page at the link you supplied you will see that the warning is not genuine and is a hoax. i have thus removed it. Morwen - Talk 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Images
Please do not upload images that are not free, public domain or GFDL licensed. They all will be deleted. Please read carefully Copyrights. mikka (t) 00:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Short articles
Hi! While short articles are certainly welcome, they have to be more than a single sentence. They also have to be more than what the title obviously suggests it is. Please add more to your Pune Municipal Transport article. History, equipment, anything. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, looking good. Thanks for the info and have fun! - Lucky 6.9 04:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mumbai floods of 2005
hello, please comment on this stub, and help in expanding the same. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I'll be happy to help expand it. Thanks for letting me know! I truly appreciate it. - Lucky 6.9 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments
I read your comments on my talk page right now. Those are good ideas. I didn't have Internet connection for 2 days. Let's see what we can manage now. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi, Thanks for your contributions, especially those on Indian Companies. I thought these links would be useful. Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

pamri 09:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kashid
Hi, I see you invited a few users to help with the editing of this article. I placed geo-stub on the article so that it will be listed in a stub category. This helps attract attention automatically for editors to help improve the article. You can find more of these stub templates here, for future reference. Thanks, and keep up the good work. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 03:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Pradeep, there are a lot of places needing improvement, and I'd expand it a bit after I finish more important locations. If you know more about Kashid then its best you expand it since I have very little info on this place. The article shouldn't read like a tourist brochure, so I've toned it down a bit. Is the image of the dog yours? If so, please licence it as PD-self, GFDL-self or cc-by-sa-2.5 else it may be put up for deletion (see Image copyright tags). If you plan to upload free images please create an account in and upload it there. Doing so will share images across all wikimedia languages and projects.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes Pradeep, beautiful stub and picture, I will surely expand the stub - very soon. Please continue to create similar stubs / longer articles. --Bhadani 18:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Your recent message
hello.. please see your latest message to me. I got a link from User:Sundar, which I am giving below:

How to find out hits for page!!
 * By clicking on the following links (from User:Raul654)

 * Current month's hits
 * Current month's webalizer

happy editing. --Bhadani 14:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:8 October Earthquake INDIA.png
Thanks for uploading Image:8 October Earthquake INDIA.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Thue | talk 08:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source for Image:8 October Earthquake INDIA.png is Image:IndiaMap2.PNG pradeepsomani

 * Thanks :). I added the needed tag to the image. Thue | talk 12:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image licencing
I take it that you're not familiar with image licencing.

Thanks =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You modified this image Image:IndiaMap2.PNG to Image:8 October Earthquake INDIA.png.
 * That image is licenced as GFDL. You are obliged to licence the derivative of that image as GFDL too. Follow this procedure:
 * Link to the source image (full url or wikify as I've done above)
 * Mention the author's name. In this case it is user:Ankur
 * Add  to the page.
 * Save the page. If this is not done; it becomes a COPYVIO.
 * I also notice that those Kashid images are not tagged. Please tag it or it may be put up in WP:IFD. I've mentioned how to do this above.

Something for you
Pradeep, I wanted to start at least a stub on 2005 Indian subcontinent earthquake, but found a beautiful page created by you. Now, I can do little except giving you a barnstar. Please continue to keep up the good work. --Bhadani 13:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 North India earthquake 8 Oct
What about it? Andre ( talk ) 20:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome :o) Moses 03:58 2005年10月9日 (UTC)

Hope for luck in India and elsewhere
Let's hope that India (and other countries) recieve as much humanitarian aid as possible in light of the destruction left by the earthquakes.  -- NGerda 04:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the "good work" thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * the same, regards Aleichem 07:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thanks too :) LittleSmall 17:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Same, good work! Jef-Infojef 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton !!!
Hi Pradeep, thanks a ton for your great work in creation, maintenance and updation of the article on the earthquake. Way to go! -Gurubrahma 05:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Seconded - excellent article and thanks so much for your msg! :) XYaAsehShalomX 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. My contribution was minimal. We should thank you for doing the most important part, starting the article, instead of you thanking us ! Happy editing. :-) .... -- PFHLai 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I have barely edited a line or two on the BSE article. And keep up the great work on India related current events. Pamri • Talk 09:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Small concern
Pradeep, I like the effort you are putting into wiki articles pertaining to the earthquake, but I have just one concern. Can you please not use the border style I have used on my user page for framing certain material? (If it's not too difficult). Perhaps just using the border without the inner color? I just like that inner color unique to my user page. Thank you and keep up the good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Glebova
Hi, thank you for wikithanks, but I did not contribute to Natalie Glebova in any noticeable (actually I did it in particualrly <!--invisible way --> :)) ), probably the real contributor missed your thanks.–Gnomz007(?) 04:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: 2005 Kashmir earthquake
Thanks! It is much appreciated.

Wikithanks box
The colored box you use to award people WikiThanks flowers is missing closing tags at the end, causing further edits to also be put in the box. Please add the closing tag "|}". - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers/Trivia:
Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers/Trivia on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 09:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: 2005 Kashmir earthquake

 * Thanks for the note of appreciation. Pat yourself for taking proactive steps on the earthquake article and mobilising the effort. Nice work!! keep it up --Vyzasatya 13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for starting this page - and so quickly - and for your insightful contributions... Also your feedback appreciated as well. I've added a bit as an anon IP address 81.108.218.26 as well (until I understood that I needed to login each time!). The page has developed a lot since the early hours of your first contribution and has given a renewed focus on Kashmir, a troubled area at any time, but now thrown into the abyss by this terrible disaster. [User:Kamayoq|Kamayoq]]

Pune Wikithanks
Cheers for the WikiThanks, but I suspect it was given by mistake - I can't remember seeing the article Pune, and I'm fairly sure I haven't edited it. I think somebody else is missing out! SeventyThree(Talk) 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings
Thanx, for the message. Also, u have done great work on the article. But, I had one issue with the timeline mentioned there. I checked out TOI epaper and the timings for the second and third blasts differ from those mentioned on the page. Though some other newpapers report some different time.I think it wud be better if we put it as around such and such time.Gaurav1146 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank YOU for YOUR contributions! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Diwali

 * Thanks :) I should really be saying it to you though! XYaAsehShalomX 20:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your beautiful holiday message! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for that wonderful holiday greeting!   — Rickyrab | Talk 11:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks from me too :-) Tintin 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that was cute!! and you too have a good one --Vyzasatya 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks a ton, Pradeep and have a very happy Diwali too. -- Pamri • Talk 14:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your Diwali greetings. I also convey my best greetings to you. --Bhadani 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Have a great Diwali Pradeep!!! --Deepak|वार्ता 14:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Shubh Divali! Thank you so much - Divali is one of the things I miss most from home.  Guettarda 14:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Happy Diwali, Pradeep! - Mgm|(talk) 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * To distribute random kindness is beautiful. Happy Diwali to you as well! Subramanian talk 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the Diwali wishes. Hope you have a nice one as well.  I first learned about Diwali when Sagar and Monte's parents came in and told us all about it in fourth grade.  Most people that I know will be celebrating All Saints day while others are celebrating Diwali.  Hope everyone has a happy day :)  gren グレン 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks from here too. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Happy Diwali wishes to you too... Cheeni 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Happy Diwali, Pradeep!! It was nice to be greeted in Wikipedia as soon as I entered.. Thanks! --Pranathi 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh thank you! That was my first ever Diwali greeting and it really touched me. It makes me want to visit India and experience the festive season there. Zora 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * ਧੰਨਵਾਦ, धन्यवाद, thank you! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Pradeep. Celebrating Diwali one day early may be a good idea this year -- We really need the extra light on scary, creepy Halloween !!!  ;-)  Best wishes to you on Diwali. -- PFHLai 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, and you have a happy Diwali too. aliceinlampyland 21:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Pradeep, and happy Diwali to you and your family. --Russ Blau (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Predeep, it really made my day! --2mcmGespräch 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanx a lot for the wishes. Happy Diwali to u, too.Gaurav1146 05:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanx. Happy Diwali to u, too. --Dangerous-Boy 06:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Happy Diwali to you too. -- WB 08:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thanking and Happy Diwali to you too! Ashish G 20:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, and I hope you had a happy Tim Starling Day! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Slightly different Diwali message
Since you obviously know about Diwali, I was wondering if you might help out with this Reference desk question: Reference_desk/Humanities? Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * And of course, thanks for the good wishes. Looks like it's already Diwali in UTc, too. I wish you happy holiday! Dmcdevit·t 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pradeep, Happy Diwali! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

thank-you for the thank-you
thanks for the thank-you, but all i did was add the wikinews link and copy the map to commons (for the article down at wikinews). Bawolff 23:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC) contact me at Wikinews

India related links
---Pamri • Talk • [ Reply] 06:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Diwali
Thank you for the Diwali greeting. Best wishes to you. -- The Anome 10:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

msg from vino-s
thank you very much for your diwali wishes. regards - Vino s 00:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Pathetically Managed Transport
Well-written article. Shows the REAL state of affairs at PMT. Too bad that the morons in charge of PMT are not literate and/or savvy enough to read it. -- asnatu_wiki

Wishes
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Rakhi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rakhi.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Also Image:Rakhi1.jpg. Stan 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:HattiGanapati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HattiGanapati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:JunyaJaichaGanapati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JunyaJaichaGanapati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BabugenuGanpati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BabugenuGanpati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DagdushethGanpati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DagdushethGanpati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:KhajinavihirGanpati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KhajinavihirGanpati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:GaneshFestival.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GaneshFestival.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:GravakPethGanpati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GravakPethGanpati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:MandaiGanpati2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MandaiGanpati2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion ★ talk 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic Invocation Interface
Your article Dynamic Invocation Interface has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 13:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

7 March 2006 Varanasi bombings
Please do not add helpline numbers to the article. This is a encyclopedia article, not a blog post. We are documenting an event in the history of India. I had removed the numbers. You had put them back. Please remove that section from the article. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 06:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay with me. But you will soon hear from someone else. :) - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no idea about finding article hits. I can only guess the technical people behind the servers can see that. but not us. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kashid1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Kashid1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kashid.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kashid.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:KuirauPark.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KuirauPark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Help
Pradeep, Can you help me by bringing to my knowledge any users who can translate the Ayyavazhi article to other Indian Languages. - Paul Raj 19:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

London Ambulance Service CAD System failure
Hi there. Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article London Ambulance Service CAD System failure, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the relevant issues at Talk:London Ambulance Service CAD System failure. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:OMm.jpg
Image:OMm.jpg does not have source information, and the tag you gave it is erroneous. PD-ineligible should be used only for things such as simple geometric figures, where there are not even the tiniest hints of creativity. Anything that involves decisions of placement or the like cannot be given that tag. The image you uploaded involves creativity in determining colors, exact shape (the symbol is question is not determined by a precise mathematical formula), shadows, outlines, etc. I've removed the tag; please mention the source so that we can determine the image's status. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mumbai1.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Mumbai1.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GurujiLogoType-Small.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:GurujiLogoType-Small.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Zapak logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zapak logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Zapak home.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zapak home.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pradeepsomani! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yashavant Kanetkar -

Speedy deletion nomination of The Prime Minister's National Relief Fund

A tag has been placed on The Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Berek (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:IndiaMap mumbai.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IndiaMap mumbai.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Tarun Anand for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarun Anand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tarun Anand until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pradeepsomani


text: Category:Tunnels in Minnesota

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

title: Category:Tunnels in Minnesota


text:
Buffer underrun

In computing, buffer underrun or buffer underflow is a state occurring when a buffer used for communicating between two devices or processes is fed with data at a lower speed than the data is being read from it. The term is distinct from buffer overflow, a condition where a portion of memory forms a buffer of a fixed size yet is filled with more than that amount of data. This requires the program or device reading from the buffer to pause its processing while the buffer refills. This can cause undesired and sometimes serious side effects because the data being buffered is generally not suited to stop-start access of this kind.

In terms of concurrent programming, a buffer underrun can be considered a form of resource starvation.

The terms buffer underrun and buffer underflow are also used for meaning buffer underwrite, a condition similar to buffer overflow, but where the program is tricked into writing before the beginning of the buffer, overriding potential data there, like permission bits.

General causes and solutions
Buffer underruns are often the result of transitory issues involving the connection which is being buffered: either a connection between two processes, with others competing for CPU time, or a physical link, with devices competing for bandwidth.

The simplest guard against such problems is to increase the size of the buffer—if an incoming data stream needs to be read at 1 bit per second, a buffer of 10 bits would allow the connection to be blocked for up to 10 seconds before failing, whereas one of 60 bits would allow a blockage of up to a minute. However, this requires more memory to be available to the process or device, which can be expensive. It assumes that the buffer starts full—requiring a potentially significant pause before the reading process begins—and that it will always remain full unless the connection is currently blocked. If the data does not, on average, arrive faster than it is needed, any blockages on the connection will be cumulative; "dropping" one bit every minute on a hypothetical connection with a 60-bit buffer would lead to a buffer underrun if the connection remained active for an hour. In real-time applications, a large buffer size also increases the latency between input and output, which is undesirable in low-latency applications such as video conferencing.

CD and DVD recording issues
Buffer underruns can cause serious problems during CD/DVD burning, because once the writing is started, it cannot stop and resume flawlessly; thus the pause needed by the underrun can cause the data on the disc to become invalid. Since the buffer is generally being filled from a relatively slow source, such as a hard disk or another CD/DVD, a heavy CPU or memory load from other concurrent tasks can easily exhaust the capacity of a small buffer. Therefore, a technique called buffer underrun protection was implemented by various individual CD/DVD writer vendors, under various trademarks, such as Plextor BurnProof, Nero UltraBuffer, Yamaha SafeBurn, JustLink, and Seamless Link. With this technique, the laser is indeed able to stop writing for any amount of time and resume when the buffer is full again. The gap between successive writes is extremely small.

Another way to protect against the problem, when using rewritable media (CD-RW, DVD-RW, DVD-RAM), is to use the UDF file system, which organizes data in smaller "packets", referenced by a single, updated address table, which can therefore be written in shorter bursts.

Multimedia playback
If the framebuffer of the graphics controller is not updated, the picture of the computer screen will appear to hang until the buffer receives new data. Many video player programs (e.g. MPlayer) feature the ability to drop frames if the system is overloaded, intentionally allowing a buffer underrun to keep up the tempo.

The buffer in an audio controller is a ring buffer. If an underrun occurs and the audio controller is not stopped, it will either keep repeating the sound contained in the buffer, or output silence depending on the implementation. Such effect is commonly referred to as "machinegun" or Max Headroom stuttering effect. This happens if the operating system hangs during audio playback. An error handling routine (e.g. blue screen of death) may eventually stop the audio controller.

Intentionally imitating this audio glitch during the creation of music or sound art, either by manually splicing audio or re-triggering samples, or by using plugins, is called the Stutter edit.

title: Buffer underrun


text:
Talk:Test automation

Requirements Testing
I would like to propose that this article is enhanced to include the topic of Requirements Test Automation. As I have a conflict of interest, I would ask someone else to vet and consider it's inclusion. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2207/IWSM_Mensura_2018_paper_11.pdf and the tool that does the requirements test automation is < > Thank you. Colinrhammond (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 * No, Colin. We're not going to help you advertise. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that requirements testing is not inherently connected to test automation and therefore doesn't belong in this article. It might be a type of software testing. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Lots of issues
Much of the info in sentences is correct, but many section headers are misleading if not wrong. How info is organized is also info.

Article conflates test automation with software testing in general. For example, 'regression testing' is not an approach to test automation. Regression testing is a particular kind of software testing. A regression test is much easier and cheaper to run if it's automated. So, if one wants to connect these two concepts, it could be as a value/plus/advantage. Most if not all of the things under approaches are not that. They are kinds of software testing.

I wouldn't call TDD or continuous testing 'methodologies'. They are smaller than that term implies.

Test automation is not inherently required for continuous delivery. It's wise to test before delivering. Critical is way too judgmental.

predicted? it's called expected.

I'll get to this stuff at some point. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Test automation


text:
Talk:Four-velocity

Magnitud of Four-Velocity
I think it is wrong to claim that it is always c or -c. If we have a stationary spacetime with Killing Vector $$ \xi_t={\partial \over \partial t} $$, then the four-velocity of a stationary observer should be proportional to $$\xi_t$$, i.e. it should be $$g_{tt}$$.

unnamed thread
Simplified presentation a little while making notation more consistent with other relativity articles. ---Mpatel 19:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternative approach using complex numbers

 * A work in progress

 * First Harmonic 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed contentious phrase
I have removed the following sentence:

 * This observation, though trivial (as we will see from the formulas below), has a rather nice interpretation: in spacetime, an object is always in motion (at the speed of light!); it's just that in a rest frame, this motion is all in the time direction.

In my view this is misleading, although statements to this effect do appear in some "coffee-table" popularisations of relativity. An object moves in space. In spacetime it is a worldline and does not move at all. The four-velocity is just the normalised tangent vector to the worldline.--Dr Greg (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation
Therefore light, and anything else traveling at light speed, do not experience the "flow" of time.

Well, if we, at rest, or uniformly moving (our four-velocity pointing in direction of our proper time axis), experience the flow of (our proper) time, couldn't we conjecture that anything traveling at speed of light along arbitrary spatial (spatial to us) axis would probably experience the flow of its own proper time just as well, like we do? OTOH, we know that speed of light remains the same in all frames of reference, which means that all observers, regardless of where their respective four-velocity vectors point will experience the light as moving perpendicular to their respective four-velocity vectors. What that tells us about the path or shape of photons and other massless particles? Or, more bluntly, do we need more dimensions then four to explain it? --147.91.1.43 (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Theory of Relativity" section assume constant velocity?
It seems that everything in the "Theory of Relativity" section assumes constant velocity, without saying so. Otherwise, would we have $$t=\gamma \tau$$? Also, I find writing things like $$x^1(\tau)=x^1(t)$$ confusing. Isn't it bad form? I don't feel I know enough about this area to edit anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.89.180 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The Special Theory of Relativity is formulated with a definition of Four-velocity such that, for any object, it is always of constant magnitude, although its direction can change. It is a unit tangent vector.  With this definition the Theory can be interpreted as a (multi-dimensional) geometry. For objects in free-fall the integral of the four-velocity is a geodesic (think "straight line" in flat space) in space-time. Cloudswrest (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This was an error. I replaced the 3 ts with taus. 200.83.115.207 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Four-velocity is not a four vector under time inversion.
The proper time is not an invariant. It is a pseudo-invariant, with time-reversed observers disagreeing with each other on the sign of the proper time. You can see this because if t'=-t, dτ'=-dτ. The 4-velocity is the derivative of the 4 position (a 4-vector) with the proper time (a pseudo scalar under time reversal). This means that the 4-velocity is a pseudo 4-vector under time reversal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.85.44 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The whole concept is a little murky; in particular, your statement is not valid until proper time has been suitably defined, and then only under a strange convention. I have yet to see proper time defined so as to be dependent on the reference frame of some arbitrary observer, as you have implicitly assumed. If you assume that the direction of proper time is assigned by some observer-independent convention to the world line (conceptually as the direction of time experienced by the entity that the world line), a time-reversed observer still sees the same proper time as a function of position along the worldline. A sensible convention would assign a direction of proper time to every (time-like) worldline so that the directions are all consistent with continuous deformations of any such worldline into another (all the while keeping the tangents time-like). Without having explicitly addressed which convention is being used, your statement above does not make sense. And as I indicated in my edit comment, this kind of thing does not belong in the lead in any event. As to it not being a four-vector, I agree that its interpretation as one must be highly constrained, but that is already clarified further down in the lead. —Quondum 14:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with Quondom that proper time has to be defined to be coordinate-independent; a change of coordinates cannot change the direction in which proper time increases. So, either you impose a restriction on allowable coordinates that prevents coordinate time being reversed (the article seems to be mostly written under an assumption of Minkowski coordinates rather than general coordinates), or else you allow the possibility that coordinate time could go backward relative to proper time (so $$t = \pm \gamma \tau$$, depending on choice of coordinates, and the temporal component of 4-velocity can be negative).

 * User:124.170.85.44's rewrite is inappropriate for several reasons:
 * the issues raised don't belong in the lead;
 * the terminology "vector with respect to boosts, ..." is technically incorrect; something either is or isn't a vector, without qualification.
 * --  Dr Greg   talk  19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"I agree with Quondom that proper time has to be defined to be coordinate-independent; a change of coordinates cannot change the direction in which proper time increases." The problem is that I don't think the direction of proper time can be defined in a co-ordinate-independent way, because special relativity exhibits T-symmetry. If one observer sees a subluminal particle travelling along a wordline, passing first through four-position A, and then through B, there's nothing to stop another observer (with a clock running backward compared with the first), to see the same particle going first from B, and then to A. Who is right? It's not decideable under the postulates of special relativity. It can be proved that the proper time squared is an invariant for all inertial observers (the infinitesimal proper time squared is proportional to the infinitesimal space-time interval between two infinitesimally separated events), but not the proper time itself.

To look at the problem another way, think about how the four-velocity is calculated in co-ordinate time. Consider how 4-position transforms under time reversal T: $$T:X=(t,\vec{x}) => X^\prime = (-t,\vec{x}) = diag(-1,1,1,1) X$$.

The 4-velocity under time reversal transforms like this:

$$T:U=\gamma(v)(1,\vec{v}) => U^\prime = \gamma(v)(1,-\vec{v})=diag(1,-1,-1,-1)U$$.

So if you choose to define a four-vector as a quantity that transforms the same way as the four-position under all transformations in $$O(1,3)$$, the four-velocity is not a four vector, because it doesn't transform the same way under time reversal, it acquires an extra negative sign. It is however, a pseudo four-vector (it transforms the same way up to a sign under all transformations). I'm happy not to go into detail in the lead, so long as we don't call it a four-vector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.85.44 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * IMO, you are violating multiple WP guidelines, such as WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:CON, no matter how convinced you are of your own argument. Please start acting within the guidelines of the community, rather than pushing your own convictions. And start signing your posts. —Quondum 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to editing (but not to reading!) wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm violating guidelines. However, I don't think this is original research; it follows quite immediately from definitions. Surely you don't want incorrect statements in the lead? If you can find anything actually wrong with my argument above, I'd like to hear it, but I think I've laid out the problem quite well. Either special relativity doesn't exhibit T-symmetry, or four-velocity is not a four-vector as that term is currently defined in wikipedia. - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.85.44 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reputable sources which explain how and why 4-velocity is a pseudo-4-vector rather than a 4-vector? Zueignung (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked for other sources. I'll do that now. But first, do other editors see the sense of my argument? Does anyone disagree with the logic? Further, has anyone got a reputable source for the contention that proper time itself (rather than proper time squared) is an invariant? 124.170.85.44 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've found a couple of sources. The first is http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/PhilPhys/MalamentDavidB2004StudHistPhilModPhys_TimeReversalInv.pdf. Read from page 306, "time reversal invariance." The second source is perhaps a little more clear http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3280/1/arntzenius_greaves_TRCE.pdf. Read from page 8. This passage especially; "There are two fundamental types of objects in a classical electromagnetic world. There are the world-lines of charged particles, and there is the electromagnetic field. Now, the dynamics happens to be such that it will be convenient, mathematically, to represent the motions of particles by means of four-velocities, where the four-velocity at any point on the worldline is tangent to the worldline at that point. The crucial fact now is that a world-line does not have a unique tangent vector at a point: at each point on a world-line, there is a continuous infinity of four-vectors that are tangent to the world-line at the point in question. We can narrow things down somewhat by stipulating that four-velocities are to have unit length, but this still does not quite do the trick: one can associate two unit-length four-vectors that are tangent to the world-line at the point in question (if $$v_a \in T_p$$ is one, then $$-v_a$$ is the other."

Also this: "If $$v_a$$ is the four-velocity, i.e. is the unit-length future-directed tangent, to a given worldline at some point $$p$$ relative to our original choice of temporal orientation, then $$-v_a$$ will be the four-velocity relative to the opposite choice of temporal orientation."

Sorry, retroactively signing 124.170.85.44 (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * If you were the experienced with Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia), then you would be aware that it matters little what you think is logically correct. What matters what is in reliable sources. Proper time is the Lorentz-invariant distance (in any Lorentz frame, modulo a positive constant, the speed of light) between two time-like separated events on a world-line. The concept of time-like is an Lorentz-invariant one. Proper time is easily seen to be a scalar, see the formulae in proper time, the relevant one for this discussion being
 * $$\Delta \tau = \sqrt{\left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2}}.$$
 * Any minus-sign introduced by a non-orthocronous Lorentz transformation (of the two events in the definition of proper time between them), say $∆t → ∆t' = −∆t$, cancel when differences are squared. You will not find proper time presented in the literature as a pseudo-scalar. YohanN7 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And if you were experienced with special relativity, you'd know it was spelled "Lorentz." The formula you've referenced shows that all inertial observers agree on the the magnitude of the proper time difference between two time-like separated events, which is not in dispute. Two observers who disagree on the direction of time could both take the positive square root of $$(\Delta \tau)^2$$, and agree on the number they get. However, they will be in dispute as to which event occured first, and which second. As to sources, I've already cited two. How many do you want? 124.170.85.44 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also this, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DobLa3hjAl0C&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=time+reversal+four-velocity&source=bl&ots=qzINJa4DeA&sig=gDMM1nYAhBDd2XEMxMrF9DPb6-o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mo6uVLrmJ4ai8QWTsILoAg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=time%20reversal%20four-velocity&f=false 124.170.85.44 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * (ec) Yeah, "Lorentz". Thought something was funny, but couldn't put my finger on it I have, after all, written a mile-long article about Lorentz transformations in Wikipedia.

 * You have not supplied any reliable sources. A philosophers pdf doesn't count even if it would support your argument (these two don't). I suggest you take this to the reference desk (either in math or physics (natural sciences?)) if you have further questions. This page is for discussion about improvement of the article, not arguments about what is right or wrong.

 * Your mistakes are three. Proper time is defined in terms of more basic entities, namely two events in space-time being time-like separated. It is these you need to Lorentz transform and make your calculation. Proper time is a scalar period. The next mistake is that you treat proper time as the zeroth component of a 4-vector (like energy). It isn't, except in particular frames (related by pure rotations in space). While it is true that you can use proper time as the time-coordinate in certain frames, in the transformed the zeroth component isn't proper time of anything any more in general. The 4-velocity is defined in terms of proper time ( a scalar ), not the zeroth component of a 4-vector. The third mistake is that you claim two observers will disagree on which event occurred first. You need proper time to decide, not the time coordinate. All observers agree on this in terms of proper time. Both can (and should to settle questions of this sort) transform to a frame where proper time is the zeroth coordinate. YohanN7 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think at least the point has been made that this discussion belongs on the talk page without edits being made to the article, which should make it more relaxed; it is interesting after all. For now I'll mention that none of the quotes above from sources should be interpreted as corroboration of four-velocity as a pseudo-vector. For example, "a continuous infinity of four-vectors that are tangent to the world-line at the point in question" is best interpreted as a reference to a projective space, and makes no reference to any sign change under transformation. Also, "original choice of temporal orientation" makes no reference to an observer's time coordinate. A choice of temporal orientation along a worldline is arbitrary, but nevertheless observer-independent. A parallel example is a choice of orientation: the choice is arbitrary, but is coordinate/transform-independent. The orientation should be considered to be additional structure of the manifold rather than depending on a choice of coordinates. Temporal orientation can be global on a Minkowski space (and many other Lorentzian manifolds), and hence may similarly be defined as additional observer-independent structure associated with the space. There are several consistent ways of approaching this choice, so it is necessary to be explicit about the choices made (or definitions). And though proper time along a worldline can be defined as a pseudo-scalar, this introduces IMO valueless mathematical ugliness, and we have yet to find a source that does this. It may also be noted that four-velocity can be defined without any reference to proper time, and that examining spacelike worldlines and their tangents can be quite illuminating for this discussion. And just to further confuse things, one can coordinatize Minkowski space with four spatial coordinates. :) —Quondum 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proper time cannot be defined as a pseudo-scalar because it wouldn't be proper time. If it helps, always think of Lorentz transformations as passive transformations, i.e. change of coordinates. Proper time evolves in the right direction (forward as defined in the rest frame!) for all world lines of massive particles, no matter what coordinates you use. If $τ_{1}, τ_{2}$ are the proper times for two events in the rest frame, then in any two frames obtained from the rest frame by a Lorentz transformation (possibly internally related by a "time-reversing" transformation) L* and L**, $τ_{1} = τ*_{1} = τ**_{1}, τ_{2} = τ*_{2} = τ**_{2}$. That is, $τ_{1}, τ_{2}$ are not to be confused with $t*_{1}, t*_{2}$ and $t**_{1}, t**_{2}$. Proper time is a geometric object, just like 4-vectors and higher order things, not to be treated as a coordinate in this context, though it happens to equal zero component of the coordinates in the rest frame. What I'm saying is that the direction of proper time along a world line isn't an arbitrary choice, while the "orientation", i.e. your coordinates are. YohanN7 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * YohanN7, I'd say you have this exactly wrong. Given a space R4, a Lorentzian metric tensor g on this space, and a time-like world line in this space (and no further structure), how do you find the direction of "proper time"? There is no forward direction of time, any more than there is a forward direction of space. There are two ways of assigning a proper time parameter to any time-like world line (or proper distance to a space-like curve), up to addition of a constant, and this is perfectly symmetric. A rest frame does not define a "forward direction". And temporal orientability of a Lorentzian space is a coordinate-independant concept, just like the orientability of a vector space. —Quondum 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rest frame of particle tracing out world line and a clock brought along with it. The clock measure proper time. It is not arbitrary. YohanN7 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC) YohanN7 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's circular (in effect: "I'm assigning a direction of time by defining a clock that has a given forward direction, therefore the choice of time direction is not arbitrary"). A clock is, in its simplest incarnation, an assignment of proper time to a world line in such a way as to be compatible with the metric tensor. This can be done in two ways. Alternately, if you wish to refer to a physical universe, you are again externally breaking the symmetry of the system I specified by imposing a pre-decided temporal orientation (additional structure that I had excluded). Given only the structure that I mentioned, there is no way to distinguish two clocks with the same world line, running antiparallel. Re-examine the structure that I defined: the definition incorporates nothing that breaks the temporal symmetry. The microscopic laws of physics as we know them (and especially special relativity) are time-reversal-symmetric (CPT symmetry). finding a time arrow implied by physics is a problem that has vexed many; in every case some external factor has been invoked (e.g. the direction in which we observe entropy increasing, the direction in which we observe the universe expanding; if one assumes objective collapse of the wavefunction, this phenomenon would provide a direction of time). —Quondum 19:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Only one direction along a worldline is physically realizable in that you can attach a clock to it. That direction is not arbitrary. What this clock shows is the definition of proper time. And yes, physics, and proper time in particular, refers to a physical universe. Nothing is circular here.

 * Yes, time is a mystery, but not in the context of special relativity and not in the context of this article. YohanN7 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * All you're doing is providing a motivation for using a particular definition of proper time, one which happens to be equivalent to a global temporal orientation choice. I happen to think that this is probably the most useful definition, but it is helpful to be clear on our definitions. Since this definition asymmetric with respect to time-reversal, care must be taken if it is used in this context. Using this definition, the question of pseudo-anything becomes clear. —Quondum 22:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

YohanN7, let's forget about the clock time of an arbitrarily accelerating particle, and just restrict our thinking to the "lab" frame. In this frame, you could have two observers (by definition at rest with respect to one another), whose clocks run backwards relative to each other. They both sit there and record events in the universe, and they both think the other's time is running backwards. Who is right? Both and neither; it's all relative within special relativity.

Now, you may argue the first postulate of relativity only imposes symmetry in displacements, rotations, and boosts, not to spatio-temporal inversions. In this case, I suggest the symmetry group of special relativity is the restricted Lorentz group, $$SO+(1,3),$$ rather than $$O(1,3).$$ Then there would be no such things as pseudo-tensors of any rank. Alternatively, you could allow time reversal transformations, but impose a particular temporal orientation, as Quondum discusses. Overal CPT symmetry, combined with both broken P, and CP symmetry, suggests that the universe may have a preferred temporal orientation (there's also thermodynamics at the macro-scale). But then we have to bring in some pretty advanced mid-20th century physics, which I don't think belongs in a discussion of a 110 year old theory. The third possibility is you just impose an arbitrary temporal orientation, in the knowledge that the opposite could have been chosen.

There may be other possibilities I haven't considered. Can anyone provide a link as to how this was originally done? If the question wasn't important, and time inversions were just dismissed as unphysical, why does special relativity even discuss non-orthochronous transformations in the first place? Perhaps Mincowski had a reason? 124.170.85.44 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * No, let us not forget about the clock of the particle. It is needed for the definition of proper time. Then two observers at rest, each with a clock will find matching times. Proper time simply does not run backwards for any of them. YohanN7 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but why can't the particle have two clocks, each running backwards relative to each other?124.170.85.44 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because no clock (except in some bars I've been to) run backwards. A reasonable requirement is to require ( before the experiment is performed, in the lab frame) that they show the same time so we know they are working. YohanN7 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why even talk about time reversal in special relativity? Why not just the restricted Lorentz group as the symmetry of inertial space-time?124.170.85.44 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * This is because the full Lorentz group $O(3, 1)$ (or $O(1, 3)$ if you want) is the group that leaves the bilinear form $x ⋅ y = -x_{0}y_{0} + x_{1}y_{1} + x_{2}y_{2} + x_{3}y_{3}$ invariant. This form is what mathematically pops out from demanding the constancy of the speed of light (one could enlarge to the conformal group, but no physics relevant to this has been found in this context).

 * It is interesting to know which laws of physics have time-reversal as a symmetry. It used to be taken for granted that both parity ($x → -x$ etc) and time reversal ($t → -t$) are symmetries (are "conserved" under the respective inversions) of all theories. In the 50's it was discovered that they are not symmetries of the electroweak interaction. There is no conflict with special relativity, it is (at least for parity I think) explained by the fact that certain particles are "left-handed", meaning that in the rest frame in which the particles are created, the spin projection along the direction of momentum can be only one. But don't press me on this because I have only a layman's (if even that) knowledge about it. The combined operations of CPT is a symmetry. YohanN7 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The question of time-reversal symmetry is not directly influenced by the definition of proper time, and the latter most certainly does not influence the symmetry group of physical laws. With an asymmetric definition (e.g. by imposing a global choice of temporal orientation), one naturally has to be careful about its use in the examination of symmetries. —Quondum 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Global choice of temporal orientation? We don't make these choices, nature does. Edit: The choice of direction for proper time is not "global" (whatever you mean by that), it applies to world lines. End edit. Proper time has, as opposed to space or time coordinates, a preferred direction. YohanN7 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that even before applying the "preferred direction" inferred from nature, we can show that any local choice of temporal direction at one point of any world line immediately implies a consistent choice throughout the manifold on every timelike world line, subject only to a temporal orientability constraint on the manifold. —Quondum 00:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Landau and Lifshitz, Classical Theory of Fields: Proper time is defined using moving clocks tracing out a world line. They calculate (quite trivially)
 * $$\tau_2 - \tau_1 = \int_{t_1}^{t_2}dt\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = (t_2 - t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

relating proper time to the time coordinate in an arbitrary Lorentz frame, the last step assuming for simplicity that the clocks aren't accelerated. Now reverse the time-coordinate,
 * $$t' = -t, x' = x, y = y' = y, z = z'.$$

Then,
 * $$\begin{align}\tau'_2 - \tau'_1 &= \int_{t'_1 = -t_1}^{t'_2 = -t_2}-dt'\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}\\

&= -(-t_2 - -t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}\\ &= (t_2 - t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}\\ &= \tau_2 - \tau_1\end{align}.$$

Thus proper time as defined in a very reliable source is a scalar. You can find this (including the verbatim statement that proper time is a scalar) in a score of books. YohanN7 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Did you copy the part from "Now reverse the time-coordinate ..." from the book? It contains a sign error. —Quondum 00:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the manipulation used is a variable substitution (which proves nothing), whereas what is needed is a reapplication of the definition to the new set of coordinates. —Quondum 00:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A variable substitution is exactly what the time-reversal amounts to here. I'm not going to continue discussing here. See your talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah why is the sign reversed in the dummy variable time within the integral (Confusingly called t')?124.170.85.44 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's go back to an ordinary curve in euclidean space. Regardless of parameterisation, everyone agrees on the arc length from A to B, (let's call it s). However, to use s as a special parametrisation to uniquely describe a point on the curve, you still need a direction of orientation.124.170.85.44 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at your formula above, I think I see the problem. By all means, let's consider your unaccelerated clock; $$\tau_2 - \tau_1 = \int_{t_1}^{t_2}dt\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = (t_2 - t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

Now change the sign of t

 * $$\tau'_2 - \tau'_1 = (t'_2 - t'_1)/ \gamma=(t_1 - t_2)/ \gamma=\tau_1-\tau_2$$

The tau's are swapped. So there was an odd number of sign errors made in the integral.124.170.85.44 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Be careful not to confuse proper time with proper time interval (which is akin to proper distance along a spacelike curve). I'm going to bring this back to the beginning, since this is not clarifying much: there are many ways to look at this, and this is sufficient reason not to single out one definition for use in the article. Add to this that we have no reference mentioning of pseudo-vectors. —Quondum 01:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, Quondum. In that case, how do you say a four-velocity transforms under time reversal? Also, YohanN7, do you agree there was a sign error?124.170.85.44 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The integral formula is, while correct, not Lorentz invariant under time reversal (which is why it has to be used the way I did - by a coordinate change). Use instead from above
 * $$\Delta \tau = \sqrt{\left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2}}.$$

and set $∆τ = τ_{2} - τ_{1}$. Then you get,
 * $$\tau_2 - \tau_1 = \sqrt{\left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2}}(*).$$

for a Lorentz frame related to the rest frame of the particle by a proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation (so that $t_{2} > t_{1})$, right?
 * $$\tau_2 - \tau_1= (t_2 - t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

But the formula (*) is manifestly invariant under $t ↔ −t$ (so that $t_{2} < t_{1})$, right?
 * $$\tau'_2 - \tau'_1 = (t'_1 - t'_2)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = (t_2 - t_1)\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = \tau_2 - \tau_1$$

YohanN7 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the bottom line is this: Proper time is defined in a coordinate-independent way along a world path. You might as well write what the clock shows along a a line piece of paper (representing space time). It is coordinate independent by the way in which it is defined. Whether the coordinates for an event along the line is (t, x, y, z) or (T, X, Y, Z) doesn't matter. At that event is written 42 for the proper time in both cases. All the math above is really irrelevant too for the discussion. It only says how the proper time relates to particular coordinates. It is the way proper time is defined that make it a scalar. YohanN7 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I think you're making elementary sign errors to justify a preconceived position. I think you put it very well yourself "The integral formula is, while correct, not Lorentz invariant under time reversal."124.170.85.44 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I say your equation * should actually read

$$(\tau_2 - \tau_1)^2 = \left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2},$$

$$\tau_2 - \tau_1 = \pm \sqrt{\left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2}} $$ or

$$|\tau_2 - \tau_1| = \sqrt{\left(\Delta t\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\Delta x\right)^2}{c^2} -  \frac{\left(\Delta y\right)^2}{c^2} - \frac{\left(\Delta z\right)^2}{c^2}}.$$

Those quantities are the only ones we can say are invariant to all frames124.170.85.44 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The integral is derived, under the assumption that the Lorentz frame is related to the res frame by a proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation, from a similar integral which is invariant under time reversal. This is why it must be used the way I did. Without any assumptions, the latter formulas obtain, which are invariant under all Lorentz transformations.

 * If you get any other result than what I obtained, it only shows your math is off. You still have no clue how proper time is defined, do you? To make it simple enough to understand: Proper time are fixed numbers assigned to events along a timelike path in spacetime. No coordinates! If you in your calculation of what the expression for proper time is in coordinates arrive at anything else than what gives the assigned numbers, then you have screwed up. YohanN7 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I said at the start that "your statement is not valid until proper time has been suitably defined". Quoting from Landau and Lifshitz. p.8: "The time read by a clock moving with a given object is called the proper time for this object."  This definition is Lorentz-invariant. Implicit in this definition (use of the concept of a clock) also implies a specific direction for the increase of the proper time. Even though texts get sloppy about tracking the sign correctly in illustrations, you'll be hard-pressed to find a text that does not consider proper time to be an invariant. The kicker is this though: too many other formulae depend on the invariance (including under time-reversal) of both proper time and of four-velocity, such as relations involving momentum. If proper time is a pseudo-scalar, and four-velocity is a pseudo-vector, either proper mass becomes a pseudo-scalar or momentum becomes a pseudo-vector ... and for all I know half the tensors we deal with would have to be redefined as pseudo-tensors, with no benefit whatsoever. Defining proper time as a observer-dependent quantity is unworkable. —Quondum 15:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you Q for saving us from some further trouble. You still cannot possibly define it as a pseudo-scalar, even if you reverse its sign ignoring natures advice. It would still be a scalar. Mathematically, one defines
 * $$ds^2 = \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu, \quad ds = \sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu},$$
 * give or take a convention-dependent sign on the far right (and in the metric). This is manifestly Lorentz invariant by the very definition of the Lorentz group in terms of bilinear forms, see classical group, and generalizes to general relativity in the obvious way. In any frame,
 * $$ \Delta \tau \equiv \frac{1}{c} \int ds.$$
 * This is the mathematical version of the clock. Then you play on from there. You need to parametrize your worldline in order to compute the integral. One such way is to use the time-coordinate in your Lorentz frame, perhaps the frame in which the particle is at rest in which case the parameter is proper time itself. Whether you can extract $dt$ or $−dt$ from the resulting square root depends on whether your Lorentz frame is related to the rest frame of the particle (clock) via an orthochronous LT or not. The resulting expression (to be found above in the case of a non-accelerated particle) is thus not Lorentz invariant under time-reversal. This explains why I said you have screwed up mathematically if you obtain any other result than the invariant formula gives in the rest frame, namely $τ_{2} − τ_{1}$.
 * I'm not going to go into further detail, it can be found in textbooks (Barton Zweibach, Sting theory: a first course is very detailed), and I have the feeling that you (the ip) need to convince yourself rather than getting convinced by someone else. YohanN7 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"You still cannot possibly define it as a pseudo-scalar, even if you reverse its sign ignoring natures advice." This is quite wrong. To repeat myself for the last time, all you've proved is that proper time squared is invariant, and that the magnitude of proper time on a worldline is invariant. Observers in frames time reversed from each other disagree on the direction of proper time, as I showed. I don't think I can productively engage further with you, YohanN7.

Quondum, yes a lot things would become pseudo-tensors, but this problem would only arise under time-reversal, which hardly anyone ever does. So it makes almost no practical difference. But to conclude, it's your opinion then that the time component of four-velocity goes $$\gamma => -\gamma?$$ Does only this gamma change its sign, or do all of them?124.170.85.44 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I put it so simply for you that a monkey would understand. You don't because you are trolling. You are simply a troll. Do the homework or don't post here again. YohanN7 (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"The time read by a clock moving with a given object is called the proper time for this object." I still disagree that this is truly Lorentz invariant, Quondum. There could be two clocks moving with the object, each running backwards relative to the other. How do you decide which one is going in the "correct" direction? Does the clock have some complicated particle physics experiment onboard, to detect the direction of time from CP violations? Is it a macroscopic clock, which also plots whether entropy increases or decreases as clock time increases? It seems to me doing either of these things brings in a lot of extra complication. I realise that in special relativity this may be of simply philosophical significance, but in general relativity, temporal orientation is not globally definable in certain metrics. I therefore think this is a genuine problem.124.170.85.44 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * This discussion has moved way beyond the purpose of the talk page of an article. It would be counterproductive for me to remain involved. —Quondum 16:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Though I have been disqualified from this discussion due to incompetence, I'll chip in once more. I overheard a competent person saying that the definition,
 * $$ \Delta \tau \equiv \frac{1}{c} \int \sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu},$$
 * of proper time is fully, and manifestly so, Lorentz invariant. To see this, note that
 * $$\eta_{\mu\nu}dx'^\mu dx'^\nu = \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu$$
 * is one of the equivalent conditions for
 * $$x' = \Lambda x$$
 * to be a Lorentz transformation.
 * Even if you manage to make a clock run backwards, the proper time thus defined (the negative of proper time as usually defined, modulo an additive constant) will still be a scalar by the above definition.

 * That is at least my recollection of what I heard. YohanN7 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Magnitude" and "interval"
The terms "magnitude" and "interval" are often repurposed to mean a quadratic form applied to an underlying vector due to the lack of a better term. In a book, the terms can be defined in a way that is useful to the text and might even be uniform within a narrow field. However, in the encyclopaedic context where articles in many disciplines are heavily cross-referenced, this unfortunately falls foul of the principle of least astonishment. Perhaps we should debate how best to present these concepts that uses a more uniform terminology across WP, and less specialized use within a topic? In these examples, the usage is not uniform across texts, and there are no terms that are great in general use. Terms like "square interval" are reasonably common, and could be considered for use in WP (this example is already in use in WP). —Quondum 21:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 * This is a late reply, but for the record... I thought that "magnitude" refers to the magnitude (modulus, norm, whatever...) of a vector e.g.

 * $$|X| = \sqrt{X_\mu X^\mu} = \sqrt{X_\mu g^{\mu\nu} X_\nu} = \sqrt{X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu} $$

 * and "interval" is much more loosley applied, in the case of invariants and magnitudes in spacetime it would be the difference in proper time Δτ (or better yet in differentials dτ), then the square ("square interval") would be equal to the square modulus of the four position

 * $$|X|^2 = X_\mu X^\mu = X_\mu g^{\mu\nu} X_\nu = X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu \,. $$

 * This may be "obvious" but what else are the most sensible uses of those terms in the context you describe? I haven't found them used differently elsewhere. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Most people would expect something like you describe: a norm with the property that ||aX|| = |a| ||X||. However, this article says:
 * The magnitude of an object's four-velocity (the quantity obtained by applying the metric tensor to the four-velocity and itself) is always equal to the square of c, the speed of light.
 * and the link makes it clear that what is meant is something with the property that ||aX|| = a2 ||X||, in the form of ||X|| = gabXaXb. This is what many will find surprising.  OTOH, in the Minkowski context, the new (quadratic) meaning is actually more useful, is commonly used, and it just needs a name.  Unfortunately, many places overload "magnitude" or "interval" with this new meaning.  I'm suggesting that we might want to find better (and reasonably well-known) terms with this meaning ("quadratic magnitude", "square magnitude"?).  —Quondum 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * If you agree that most people expect to use what I wrote then it's also in agreement with most sources (especially established ones like LL, MTW, Goldstein). Where (which link) did you find ||aX|| = a2 ||X||? Using the above expressions with the Minkowski metric would always give ||aX|| = |a| ||X||.
 * About alternatives, "square magnitude" should be self-explanatory but "quadratic magnitude" may not for a typical reader (they may suspect it means something else). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 07:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * At the moment I am not trying to settle on an actual naming convention, just debating the point that WP has several articles (mainly related to relativity) that use terms such as these in the "unexpected" sense, and that we might want to change the terminology in use in WP. Proper time defines an "interval" in the "unexpected" sense, that is tosay, as what we might want to call the "square interval".  My quote above gives two examples: one in the lead of this article, where the term magnitude clearly is used in the sense of "square magnitude", and the link in that quote displayed as "magnitude" also defines it in the square sense. As a related point: we will have to distinguish clearly between "square magnitude" and "magnitude squared", since they can differ by a sign, the former being the more useful quantity, latter always being positive.  —Quondum 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The quantity alluded to risks being any one of eight different numbers, well not all eight being different, but still. There is the ambiguity in the metric resulting in a factor of two. Then, whether should you take the square root or not is another factor. Additionally, some authors throw in an additional minus sign (one more factor of two) in the definition. Probably best is to chose one of these and remark that others exist. YohanN7 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I would prefer to avoid the question of "what is a magnitude?", but rather answer the question: "What given a vector $$X^\mu$$, what do we call the derived quantity $$X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$? —Quondum 16:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * It amounts to choosing one of the eight possibilities. What do we call $$\pm X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$?

 * So, what do we call this? Not "the magnitude (or even the norm) of $$X^\mu$$", I hope. —Quondum 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * If you agree that it's sensible not to call $$\pm X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$ a "magnitude", then why are you finding it necessary to differ between "square magnitude" and "magnitude squared"? In ordinary language and maybe even in mathematical language they amount to the same.
 * What do you expect to mean by "square magnitude", is the square of the norm of a vector X, $$|X|^2 = X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$ referring to magnitude?
 * What about "magnitude squared", does magnitude refer to the norm $$|X| = \sqrt{X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu}$$ and the square of this $$|X|^2 = X^\mu  g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$ the "magnitude squared"?
 * About the quote,
 * In a pseudo-Euclidean space, the magnitude of a vector is the value of the quadratic form for that vector.
 * it's a vaguely worded unreferenced one-sentence statement, making the claim that the magnitude of a vector is the square of what we expect ("value of the quadratic form" $$X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$). How often is this definition of magnitude used throughout physics?
 * You're right I have not come across other examples from expected ones I wrote above. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Using quotation marks at first mention together with a remark could offer an acceptable way out. The "norm"... or the "magnitude"... The "metric" b t w is, I believe, a full-fledged fully defined pseudo-metric (and the "inner product" a semi-inner product, confusing? absolutely!). What prevents defining a pseudo-norm (of a vector) for the purposes of WP? Note, I haven't read (in a while) what the article actually says. YohanN7 (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At any rate, sticking to the squared quantity (whether with a minus sign and with whatever favorite metric signature) may be good in order to avoid delving into obscurities in the form of "imaginary intervals". There are the well-defined quantities "timelike" and "spacelike" in the description of a vector to take into consideration. YohanN7 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but in any case the terminology is still confusing, if we call the squared quantity $$X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$ a magnitude of vector X instead of the norm (or equivalent names...) $$\sqrt{X^\mu  g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu}$$ of a vector X.
 * In 3d Euclidean space we don't call $$|\mathbf{r}|^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2$$ the "magnitude of the position vector $$\mathbf{r} = x \mathbf{e}_x + y \mathbf{e}_y + z\mathbf{e}_z$$", instead $$|\mathbf{r}| = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}$$ seems more natural. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is confusing. Another example is at, where we see a "spacetime interval" is the quadratic quantity, but "time-like interval" and "space-like interval" are linear.  There has been debate on this before (I forget on which page), and the literature is not helpful. For example, MTW p. 310 refers to the bilinear form defined by the metric applied to a differential form as an interval.  Not a very happy state of affairs.
 * M: why are you finding it necessary to differ between "square magnitude" and "magnitude squared"?' – There are two quantities to distinguish: $$X^2 = X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu$$ and $$\left|X\right|^2 = \left|X^\mu g_{\mu\nu} X^\nu\right|$$.
 * Y: 'sticking to the squared quantity [...] may be good' – agreed, but we do not seem to have a simple name for this.
 * —Quondum 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 * That's clearer, thanks, I was trying to pin down what quantities you actually meant, which is why I kept giving explicit expressions and asked what you meant by the terms you were trying to distinguish. I'll think about this before further posts. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Looks like I'm wrong about this:
 *  The "metric" b t w is, I believe, a full-fledged fully defined pseudo-metric (and the "inner product" a semi-inner product, confusing? absolutely!)
 * So forget that terminology. (For every new definition I learn, I forget two old ones.) YohanN7 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please add a note of the non-standard definition of the four-velocity as defined by Landau-Lifshitz? This is still considered a classic text that is frequently cited, and has the definition u_i = dx_i /ds such that the normalisation is 1 and not c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.241.149 (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Four-velocity