text:
Talk:Mathematical universe hypothesis

Theory?
While I find Tegmark's proposals intriguing, I dispute calling this one a "theory". It's more of a provacative proposal that future theories adopt a particular and controversial featureCH (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this just one of those ideas that occurs to pretty much everyone independently at some time or another? At least to philosophy students or distracted physics undergrads.
 * I'm not sure what "feature" you are referring to. Tegmark's "everything" or UE is frequently discussed as a potential TOE (for example in "New Scientist" magazine http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html  or...  http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031031-1.htm). It appears to be a theory rather than a tautology (which it is sometimes derided as). Please elaborate on what you mean by "feature" and why it should not be referred to as a TOE. In the meantime I'm going to remove the "feature of" insertion.Joncolvin 07:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Being non-falsifiable, this proposal would not even qualify as science, let alone as a theory of everything. It is perhaps a "theory of everything" in a philosophical sense, but not in a scientific sense. Intriguing and attractive as it is, there is no way that experiment could possibly shed any light on the matter and therefore it lies outside the realms of science. Robin S 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * An extremely positivist viewpoint, Robin. This theory does in fact make predictions: one such prediction is that physics will become more "mathematical" as it progresses deeper towards the ultimate TOE. To date this prediction has been successful. Tegmark does not pretend that his theory is science; it is metaphysics, but metaphysics of a predictive nature. It bridges science and philosophy in a similar manner to the anthropic principle. Joncolvin 05:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The last point of criticism "is self-contradictory because one cannot subsume all possible (partly contradictory) mathematical structures into one structure" is the result of a misunderstanding and has no bearing. The Ultimate Ensemble is not "one structure" ... the parts have absolutely no relation to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.98.125 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is a wikipedia article, not a research paper. It correctly reports what criticisms other physicists have made---there is even a citation showing you where this criticism was made. Just as a matter of interest, however, if the different parts have absolutely no relation to each other, and we are "in" one part, then presumably you agree with the criticism that the proposal is unverifiable, since we could never find any empirical evidence of the existence of the other, absolutely unrelated, parts. Dark Formal (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It is a "theory" in the philosophical sense: a reasoning mindset. Philosophical theories are not provable in the scientific sense, they work, or they don't. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It is much more than just a philosophical theory. I argue it is a scientific theory. If you study the articles written on the topic by M.T., you'll see that there is math that goes with it, and some ways are suggested to test aspects of the theory. --IO Device (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this page is not a physics or philosophy forum. It doesn't matter what any editor thinks of the subject, or what terms they think should be used -- all that matters is what terms reliable sources use. -- 70.185.144.90 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Relation to Schmidhuber's ultimate ensemble
Apparently both Max Tegmark's ensemble and Jürgen Schmidhuber's ensemble of all computable universes were published in 1997. Their relation should probably be clarified. Discrepancy (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Only if there's a reliable source that does so. -- 70.185.144.90 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Inadequate "Responses" section
The Criticisms section has three subsections. The first two are criticisms and the third is entitled "Responses". It's good to have a "Responses" subsection, but it needs to summarise Tegmark's answers to the two attacks. It's unsatisfactory just to point the reader to Tegmark's book as if the article was a teaser campaign. I suggest that somebody who has read the book gives a short precis here of the relevant arguments. Tommy Herbert (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The theory is well defined if you write it this way
The "Criticisms" section says: "Some argue that the "set of all mathematical structures" is not well-defined."

The Kolmogorov_complexity of the universe is 0, but the Kolmogorov_complexity of any part of the universe is more than 0. This means that if the universe was able to be converted to a form the computer would take as input, and if zip files were better optimized, then the universe would compress to a 0 byte zip file. This does not mean it could be represented as 0s and 1s or as a file at all. It means there is no total information because it all balances to 0. Many things decrease Kolmogorov_complexity as they get bigger. For example, "all integers" has more integers than "all integers except 107 and 30", but the Kolmogorov_complexity of "all integers except 107 and 30" is bigger. Similarly, if the universe includes all math structures, then that is very simple to describe: The Kolmogorov_complexity of the universe is 0. Also, the Kolmogorov_complexity of nonexistance is 0, which means if Max Tegmark's theory is true, then the universe does not exist. Its simple. BenRayfield (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathematical structures in the level-4 multiverse exist relative to other mathematical structures. What you're saying is that the KC of both existence and nonexistence is 0, and from that you're implying that existence==nonexistence, from which you imply nonexistence (this is a contradiction). I don't see the logic in your implications. --IO Device (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The KC of nonexistence is 0? Nonexistence isn't a thing, so how can it have a KC?Joncolvin (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Joke?
Tegmark is known to produce elaborate intellectual jokes one time in ten or so. Funny enough, a few of them gain some considerable serious interest despite being jokes. Is this one of them? Just consider the sound of "MUH" and possibly also "TOE"... Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? You're practically defaming the man. MUH ain't a joke. Just consider the number of articles by him on the topic. --IO Device (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps more of a Shaggy dog story than a joke. And who cares how many articles X writes about X's idea? What counts is how many articles other experts (not popular media like New Scientist) write about X's idea. 84.177.47.244 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical monism has been intuitively obvious to me since childhood. Rest assured that folks like Tegmark exist. Rather than projecting your nominalist's incredulity onto others, you should make an attempt at understanding a world-view that is clearly unnatural for the typical mammal. Expand your mind. 75.139.170.90 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Intuition is not a reliable source of knowledge so say you intuitively knew it as a child means nothing. As has been said this is a philosophical theory not fact or science. Folks like Tegmark exist but that doesn't make them right. You need to expand your mind and not rely on intuition.2600:1700:1C80:5190:134:731B:172D:3A10 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Improving "Criticisms" Section
The paragraph summarizing the three-way debate (Hut-Alford-Tegmark ) is correct. It simply states the criticism made in section VI.A of that paper, in the paragraph beginning "Finally, the Fundamentalist describes himself as...". One way to improve this section of the WP article would be to also include summaries of the other criticisms made in that paper. And also criticisms from other papers. Dark Formal (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "three-way debate" is fictional! The paragraph summarizing it obviously implies it's a real life debate in which two critics (rather than the two characters portrayed by his coauthors) were criticizing MUH, when (in fact of fiction) all the characters were speaking generally. See WP:SYN.
 * It is not acceptable for the structure of this article to be the lead followed only by criticism subsections. For clarity, does this article include ANY criticism that WASN'T in Tegmark's own paper? I'd suggest rather than heaping on more criticism, a first step would be to include the ACTUAL citations to Tegmark, (rather than Tegmark's citations), and to include Tegmark's replies to those criticisms (or to drop whatever's too obscure).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I have no idea what you mean. It is not fictional, it is a real debate, in print. The three authors explicitly say in the Introduction that each of them is the advocate of one of the positions in the debate. The criticisms of MUH in the paper are direct and explicit: did you read paragraph I pointed you to? If you are so worried about WP:SYN then we can easily rewrite the summary in this WP article using quotes from the Hut-Alford-Tegmark ("HAT") paper. Do you want me to do that? I don't understand what you are trying to say in your second point. When you say "does this article include ANY criticism that WASN'T in Tegmark's own paper?" what are you getting at, and what do you mean by "Tegmark's own paper"? Since the HAT paper contains some of the few explicit published critiques of MUH it seems entirely reasonable to summarize it here. Dark Formal (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, I did read it, that was the Math, Matter, or Mind ("HAT") abstract. That's not the article that I've been discussing however, (see below or the citations you reverted).
 * No, it is not a real debate. Having "divergent views" makes for a protracted discussion, not a "vigorous debate" with "forceful critics". I'll explain:
 * The coauthors are cooperating. They're working for a greater good.
 * If any one of them were to actually "win", it would defeat the express purpose, of cautioning non-physicists to be "wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity".
 * So, that's just swell they're all looking out for one another, but:
 * The goal of a real debate is to win.
 * When you read the article I'm referring to, perhaps you'll agree that we do need to say where we got it WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT I know I was more than a little annoyed to be directed to wade through a bunch of (mostly unrelated) cites, some without page numbers, only to find all of it Tegmark's article.
 * So, if we're going to tell the reader what Tegmark said these other guys said, but you don't want his name repeated like a mantra, (fair enough, except for missing all the cites and assuming what? I'm some kind of Tegmark fanboy [cured]). I guess several criticisms could be consolidated into one section where it's made clear that Tegmark discusses them all in that particular article.
 * Here's what I had. I pushed Vilenkin out of this paragraph. If you think it's best, we can keep the part about Formalism (mathematics) and an axiomatic "Platonic ensemble" being "incompatible" per Gödel. However, Tegmark's spent a lot of time on that and his response is presumably not [curses foiled again]. If it's not a deal breaker for math, how is it a deal breaker for math + sassy math-based life forms? (i.e. might be too technical for non-mystics).

 * I think WP:UNDUE is a concern; it can't just be shooting fish in a barrel without begging the question of Tegmark's responses and why they were relegated to a short paragraph at the bottom when the article is about his theory. I'm not game for trying to add replies myself, but I'd be satisfied with removing the POV visual cues introduced by section headers, (there's not that much text and there's no need for a subsection).
 * Criticism
 * Other criticism
 * Response
 * I want to point out, that the abstract does not once mention ANY of it, but I did find some Level IV and "Mathematical Multiverse" discussion at the end of the article. Per WP:SYN, they're supposed to specifically address Mathematical universe hypothesis, but I think Level IV or "Mathematical Multiverse" will do in a pinch.
 * Here's the MMM ("HAT") abstract:
 *

 * The general one-liners for each stereotype are:
 * current physics has already found the basic framework for a complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details...
 * no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever capture reality...
 * reality might be approached arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on completely different frameworks...
 * Tegmark is number 3, the mystic.
 * You say: if I'm "so worried about WP:SYN then we can easily rewrite the summary in this WP article using quotes from the Hut-Alford-Tegmark ("HAT") paper." By summary do you mean the "Description" section? Because the lead is not something you've been reverting. Generally, I'd like it better if you did something in addition to as opposed to instead of... Personally, I'd prefer that we make ( quite a few, if not all ) of that last set of reverted edits, and improve the article from that basis forward. Anyway, hopefully things will get cleared up if you take a good look through this article. It's the one that appears to be the source of the criticisms (which were used without attribution to Tegmark or his responses):
 * The Mathematical Universe (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646)

 * —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I agree that the paragraph on Tegmark's responses is inadequate and needs to be improved. But I don't see anything wrong with the article's current section structure with "criticism" followed by "response". There is nothing POV about that. Look at Keynesian economics, for example, which also uses this structure. The article needs a better description of Tegmark's responses, not wholesale restructuring. I'd be happy to read Tegmark's response article, as you suggest, and give this a try, if it is OK with you.

Just because Tegmark attempts a response to his critics in one of his articles doesn't mean all the criticisms have to be placed in the frame of his response. The reader deserves to get a summary of and citations to those criticisms on their own terms, not filtered through one party in the debate. That's an elementary application of WP:NPOV. You are right that adding page numbers to the citations would be very helpful.

Who knows whether Tegmark's response article was the original source used by the authors of this page. That's irrelevant, because WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT doesn't say you have to cite the first thing you ever read on the topic. It just says cite sources you have read. Then WP:NPOV implies that one shouldn't filter it through one party's account of the debate.

Concerning the HAT paper, I think you'd get a better picture by reading more of the paper beyond the abstract. You said "Tegmark is number 3, the mystic" but he is identified as the fundamentalist (see the introduction section) and his position is obviously MUH. Read section III.C where he lays it out explicitly, "self-aware substructures" and all. There is no WP:SYN involved in identifying HAT's "fundamentalist" position as MUH. Also I think you'll find that the paper is clearly a debate. There are real (sometimes strongly-worded) criticisms and real responses, which is the definition of a debate. Your concerns are: (a) the goal of a real debate is to win and (b) the authors say they can agree on some some greater message that emerges from their debate. Neither of these proves that it isn't a debate. It's a debate where there may not be an obvious winner (isn't that usually the case with interesting and difficult questions?) and where the authors manage some very limited co-operation, agreeing on some greater message that emerges from their debate. They certainly don't agree on the point at issue here, which is the MUH (the "fundamentalist" position in the debate). Dark Formal (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Machine Elf 1735's reply to Dark Formal:
 * You "agree the paragraph" is inadequate but "don't see anything wrong with the article's current section structure with 'criticism' followed by 'response'". Aside from being poorly structured, the repeated use of the word "criticism" visually reinforces the theory's lack of support. Rather than co-opting the article's structure, it's easy enough to cite a statement that Tegmark's theory hasn't been warmly received. That POV is, in fact, the dominate POV, so there's no need to promulgate it via innuendo and lies of omission. Here is a copy of the Keynesian economics structure which you (inexplicably) believe uses this article's structure:

 Keynesian economics
 * 1) Overview
 * 2) Precursors
 * 3) Schools
 * 4) Concepts
 * 5) Keynes and the Classics
 * 6) Wages and spending
 * 7) Excessive saving
 * 8) Active fiscal policy
 * 9) "Multiplier effect" and interest rates
 * 10) Postwar Keynesianism
 * 11) Main theories
 * 12) Criticism
 * 13) Monetarist criticism
 * 14) New classical macroeconomics criticism
 * 15) Austrian School criticism
 * 16) Methodological disagreement and different results that emerge
 * 17) Keynesian responses to the critics

Mathematical universe hypothesis
 * 1) Description
 * 2) Criticisms
 * 3) Definition of the ensemble
 * 4) Other criticisms
 * 5) Response
 * 6) See also
 * 7) References
 * 8) Further reading
 * 9) External links

 * Criticism, which can sometimes be considered "constructive", should be integrated into the body of an article, when possible, to achieve a single NPOV perspective, rather than isolated POV perspectives. By established consensus, there is, arguably, something wrong with it. Unless you can focus on why it cannot be done, then whereas 1) Tegmark himself integrated the criticisms, and 2) all the criticisms are from that article, there's no reason to isolate Tegmark's responses in a single section at the bottom of the article. (Not that I'm game to provide them). I'm willing to compromise in so far as having most of the article appear as subsections under "Criticism" if that's satisfactory? "Other criticism" is not a viable subsection name under that section however.
 * You say: "I'd be happy to read Tegmark's response article, as you suggest, and give this a try, if it is OK with you." If you still haven't read the main source, I can see this is largely a waste of my time and you show no concern in that regard. You don't need my permission to edit WP and in this instance, I've increasingly lost confidence in your ability to do so constructively.
 * Not having read the source, you say: "Just because Tegmark attempts a response to his critics in one of his articles doesn't mean all the criticisms have to be placed in the frame of his response." However, all the criticisms are from that particular article and, far from "framing" them, omitting his responses (from this, the MUH article) and failing to cite his article as the (obvious) source would be pathetically incompetent or simply deceitful. As you can't be bothered to read the source, you remain presumably unaware of this, thank you. The remainder of the paragraph reflects that willful ignorance.
 * Concerning the "HAT" paper, on which you fixate, I have read it, although not recently. Regarding the religious metaphors obscuring it, I stand corrected: Tegmark is not the so-called "mystic" but is, rather, portrayed as the "fundamentalist". (What could have given me the "wrong" impression?) Regardless of the article's contrivances, Tegmark's limited presentation of his theories demonstrates that the other two authors were willing to allow their article to serve as a vehicle for Tegmark. As I said, references to Level IV and Mathematical Multiverse might comply with WP:SYN but what's blisteringly "obvious" is that a metaphorical perspective most assuredly does not comply. Our protracted discussion over what constitutes a real debate has lost its relevance. Wikipedia wins.
 * I submit it's perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to WP:V that the contributor to this article failed to properly cite his or her true source and instead cited Tegmark's sources. (I hope this discussion is sufficient to suggest Tegmark's sources require further examination; I feel suggesting their contingent removal would have been quixotesque and besides I've verified them to a limited extent myself, so I think they should remain.)
 * I will once again add the appropriate inline references and strongly caution User:Dark Formal that repeatedly removing WP:RS citations, which they admit they haven't read, can be considered disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT), with all that implies.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I have done as I said I would, and fleshed out Tegmark's responses to the criticisms, including citations (including section numbers to help readers to track them down) and direct quotes wherever possible. I have done the same for the criticisms themselves, for the ones I had access to. I can add more quotes soon. This should help to remove any appearance of synthesis. I followed your suggestion of "having most of the article appear as subsections under 'Criticism'". I think it is obvious that WP:NPOV requires that the criticisms be presented on their own terms with quotes from their original authors, and not framed through Tegmark's quotations of them; equally it is important to include Tegmark's responses, which I have tried to do fully and fairly. I haven't yet found his response to the last criticism. You had a sentence or two about the testability of the theory in the Description section: that issue is now one of the subheadings in the "Criticisms and Responses" section. Dark Formal (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 * You included a vague suggestion from Tegmark (2008) §VII that Vilenkin raises "other issues arising from Gödel's theorem". It seems Tegmark may have cited the wrong book by Vilenkin (failing WP:V). Unfortunately, I don't see where Tegmark clarifies what those issue might be vis-à-vis Gödel and Vilenkin.
 * Likewise, the assertion attributed to Stoeger, Ellis, Kirchner (2006) fails verification. That paper discusses both testable and untestable hypotheses, (often quite generally), and I haven't found where it directly contradicts Tegmark's claim that MUH is testable, or where it even discusses MUH specifically, (perhaps in passing?) So, unless I've missed it, your "response" from Tegmark is WP:SYN, Tegmark does not respond to that paper directly. However, I have included part of your quote from Tegmark (2008) in part (b) of your response because it helps to clarify the kind of "probability distributions" to which he was referring in 1997. (Point (a) seemed vague and somewhat trivial or out of context however).
 * I've restored the cited text which accurately describes the "HAT" paper. Stop removing it. I did include the issue brought forward that the coauthors have raised. Surprisingly, your "response" isn't even from Tegmark's "fundamentalist" character in that paper, it's from Tegmark (2008) §VII which doesn't seem to explicitly hearken back to "HAT"? I'm afraid it would seem to be WP:SYN once again, unless you could point me to the reference directly?
 * If anything, §VII would seem to be much more apropos to Schmidhuber, but you didn't mention it in that context? I included your dismissive "response" to Schmidhuber: that his objections are not a "show stopper". However, that could hardly be a fair summary of Tegmark's response, (even if MUH were comparable to string theory).
 * If you've read Page (2006), which is available, you would surely realize that you've chosen a response which Page specifically anticipates and argues against. Tegmark can't defeat that argument by merely restating one of its premises. (Although he seems to take the argument much more seriously than I'd have thought it warranted.) I simplified Page's accusation to read "self-contradictory 'nonsense'" which was close to Page's own summary. I don't recall Page using your characterization of "partly contradictory", which I can verify if necessary, but considering your response on Tegmark's behalf is inadequate... and (perhaps taking after Tegmark) Page's "math" seems to achieve apotheosis prior to arranging its annihilation... perhaps it's just too technical for this article?
 * Finally, with the exception of "Definition of the Ensemble", your headers were POV in so far as they stated only the criticisms, and they were SYN in so far as they overstated the scope of the criticisms.
 * I think that covers it. Let me know if missed anything or if I've been unclear. Thank you for trying to integrate some of my changes; much appreciated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal: The majority of your changes consisted of removal of valid content. For example, all the description of Tegmark's explicit response to the Godel criticisms, in terms of CUH. Please contribute your own correct content, don't delete the fruit of other peoples hard work.

On specific points:
 * Vilenkin's "other issues arising from Gödel's theorem". I agree it is vague. I was going to look it up when I got the chance. For now, I deleted it.
 * Stoeger, Ellis, Kirchner: that paper is about multiverse theories in general. It explicitly cites Tegmark's MUH paper as an example, and goes on to discuss the whole class of such theories. It is clearly criticizing the whole class (incl MUH) for untestability. I have modified the text to make that clear. I included Tegmark's explicit list of testable features of MUH because it is obviously (tautologically) relevant to this issue.
 * I've restored the original text which accurately described the "HAT" paper. Stop removing it. It was in the article before you started editing it, and you have never shown that there is anything wrong with it. Just read the paper, it is obviously a real debate, with strongly-worded criticisms flung back and forth.
 * Concerning the relevance of sec VII to Schmidhuber, feel free to add material saying so. The dismissive response to Schmidhuber is not mine, it is Tegmark's. If you can find a quote from him giving a better response, feel free to add it. Note that Tegmark explicitly identifies Godel-related criticisms as his motivation for that section (see VII.B) so it is appropriate to discuss sec VII as a response to the Godel-related criticisms.
 * Concerning Page's criticism. Again you have taken correct (if incomplete) content and replaced it with something less clear and specific. How does it help the reader to learn that Page called Tegmark's theory "self-contradictory nonsense"? That's an insult, not a criticism. I quoted Tegmark's response directly. If it's weak, its weak. This is WP: we report what's out there.
 * Headers: I made the subsection structure at your suggestion, remember? I have modified them trying to make them less POV. As I've said already, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to frame all the criticisms in terms of Tegmark's response to them. It also greatly reduces the readability of the Criticisms section. Let's stick with the subsectioned structure, which you agreed on before, and try to improve the content within it.
 * Your version had a para about the "External Reality Hypothesis". It is probably inherited from old versions of the page. If you read Tegmark's response paper you'll realize that the ERH has nothing to do with responding to criticisms, it is just a way to derive the MUH.

Please don't destroy the work that has gone in to this page. There is much that needs improvement, such as the "Consistency with our simple universe" section, which I haven't been able to verify. Dark Formal (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I've been working more on addressing your concerns. I gave a more appropriate quote from Page, skipping the Tegmark objection that (as you said) he had already anticipated. I included Tegmark's immediate response in the HAT paper to the Godel criticism. I rewrote the Vilenkin criticism (final subsection) using actual quotes from his book. I included his characterization of Tegmarks's response, but unfortunately he doesn't give a source for it so I can't get Tegmark's actual words on the topic. I am trying to get to the point where it is all solidly verified, and avoiding inadvertent WP:SYN by using direct quotes wherever possible. Dark Formal (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Round 5 (response):
 * Per WP:TALKO, I've added Template:Unindents, Template:Anchors and collapsed some of the information I had posted for ease of reference. With the ongoing and extended nature of the discussion, (hopefully drawing to a close soon), the threading may be unclear to the casual editor, as well being difficult to navigate. I'll briefly recap a few points I think bear repeating or explaining:
 * Comments prefaced with "Dark Formal:" are from rather than to Dark Formal.
 * The "HAT" summary is verifiable by a glance at the "HAT" abstract. We should disclose that the co-authors are play-acting a "religious" dispute, primarily for a non-physicist audience.
 * Mocking whole sentences verbatim (not as a quote) can easily mislead other editors scanning this page. (I've insisted on no more reverts of "HAT" summary). Since I'm a "Destroyer", (which might be kinda bad-ass if it wasn't of fruit), I don't mind pointing out it demonstrates WP:IDHT.
 * Dark Formal and I started editing the article at about the same time, although his first 3 rounds consisted only in reverting edits I had been trying to make. This is only my second response subsequent to his first "fruits" at the start of.
 * A one time IP in 2007 paraphrased material from Tegmark's Mathmatical universe ("MU") paper but did not cite Tegmark. Instead, the contributor cited Tegmark's own citations. The material consisted of Tegmark's descriptions of several criticisms of MUH, but did not include his responses, (as if the contributor had gathered various criticisms in the wild). From the paraphrasing, it's pretty obvious Tegmark's paper "MU" was the only source used, (for example, section five, V, parts E and F). This has been cleaned up, (there has been progress).
 * prev''' 22:41, 18 December 2007 86.7.219.67 (talk) (2,974 bytes) EDSUM: (Included refs to a sample of opposing views: this still needs expansion.)
 * Dark Formal wasn't exactly faced with an onerous burden in order to recover any work. He just reverted a fourth time and made a few changes. Here's the diff, skipping my edit, and I didn't request #5 or #6:

 * From your first batch of talk page posts :
 * As I said, I have found a better response for Schmidhuber, and I anticipate it will be used in lieu of yours, because your response fails WP:V, (cited as section V.E of "MU"). I do not, as a matter of course, check up on your work, unless I have to... Remember, I've said twice that I wasn't game to expand on Tegmark's responses. You might want to reflect on how the entirety of my edits in were regarding the issues that I listed, not some kind of rampage. Please consider that, from my perspective, you tend to leave me little choice and demonstrate little concern. The "CUH" is a what-if, an "exploration", which directly mentions Schmidhuber. As a second response for "the secularist", (reading more like a result of than a response...) it's much too tenuous to insist on responding from a different paper, based merely on Gödel, (which is ubiquitous), and which wasn't even a problem for Tegmark.
 * The second batch, 16 hours later, was much more reasonable and the changes were more substantial too, thank you. I'm given to understand you got logged off for a couple of them, (it happens). For our reference, here's some of the content items I'm concerned with:
 * Your proposed response on Tegmark's behalf to Schmidhuber's criticism (fails WP:V):
 * "In response, Tegmark notes [2] (sec. V.E) that the measure over all universes has not yet been constructed for the String theory landscape either, so this should not be regarded as a 'show-stopper'."
 * An "exploration" of adding a Computable Universe Hypothesis ("CUH") "MU" section seven, (VII), page 20 (with clarification vis-à-vis exploration, acceptable as a response for Schmidhuber but WP:SYN as a second response to "the secularist"):
 * "Tegmark's response [2] [sic] (sec. VII) is to suggest 'drastically limiting the number of mathematical structures to be considered', by modifying the MUH to a much more restricted 'Computable Universe Hypothesis' ('CUH') which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecideable/uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces 'serious challeges', including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) 'virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH'."
 * "In response, Tegmark notes [2] (sec. V.E) that the measure over all universes has not yet been constructed for the String theory landscape either, so this should not be regarded as a 'show-stopper'."
 * An "exploration" of adding a Computable Universe Hypothesis ("CUH") "MU" section seven, (VII), page 20 (with clarification vis-à-vis exploration, acceptable as a response for Schmidhuber but WP:SYN as a second response to "the secularist"):
 * "Tegmark's response [2] [sic] (sec. VII) is to suggest 'drastically limiting the number of mathematical structures to be considered', by modifying the MUH to a much more restricted 'Computable Universe Hypothesis' ('CUH') which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecideable/uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces 'serious challeges', including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) 'virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH'."

 * OK.
 * And yet, I found it unverifiable as you were using it at the time, and as modified. Please provide citations (with page numbers). I've summarized citation requests below, thanks.
 * It's not tautologically true that a testable feature is (a) "physics research will uncover mathematical regularities in nature"? I hope you realize I paid you a compliment regarding the other item (b) on that list.
 * You didn't restore it the original text. I've responded at length to why I've deleted it, and regardless it's not not citeable, it's someone's editorial opinion and clearly yours too. You've been around long enough to know that when I started editing the article makes no difference; did that stop you from deleting any of my text that predates you? Have at it. I've told I've read the paper. Please see my citation requests:.
 * See here for "CUH".
 * No, it wasn't correct. As you're probably now aware, it's a term used in logic and I quoted Page, like I said I did. Nonsense. Your response was inadequate and you fixed it in the second batch. You should also have stricken out many of these comments. What we do, is collaborate with each other. You made some mistakes and you fixed them. Well done. Moving on...
 * No, I said I was willing to compromised regarding the structure if you insist. I can't say I find it implausible that you remember something other than what's written on this page. Thank you for modifying them, I really appreciated that. WP:IDHT, please don't your contrary assertions about "framing" ad nauseum. That's all been taken care of. Yes, I did agree: you're welcome.
 * You mean the one it took you a week to read but didn't stop you from arguing? The one you had never even heard of? The one you're still playing WP:IDHT games about? That "response paper"? Shameless.
 * No, it wasn't correct. As you're probably now aware, it's a term used in logic and I quoted Page, like I said I did. Nonsense. Your response was inadequate and you fixed it in the second batch. You should also have stricken out many of these comments. What we do, is collaborate with each other. You made some mistakes and you fixed them. Well done. Moving on...
 * No, I said I was willing to compromised regarding the structure if you insist. I can't say I find it implausible that you remember something other than what's written on this page. Thank you for modifying them, I really appreciated that. WP:IDHT, please don't your contrary assertions about "framing" ad nauseum. That's all been taken care of. Yes, I did agree: you're welcome.
 * You mean the one it took you a week to read but didn't stop you from arguing? The one you had never even heard of? The one you're still playing WP:IDHT games about? That "response paper"? Shameless.
 * No, I said I was willing to compromised regarding the structure if you insist. I can't say I find it implausible that you remember something other than what's written on this page. Thank you for modifying them, I really appreciated that. WP:IDHT, please don't your contrary assertions about "framing" ad nauseum. That's all been taken care of. Yes, I did agree: you're welcome.
 * You mean the one it took you a week to read but didn't stop you from arguing? The one you had never even heard of? The one you're still playing WP:IDHT games about? That "response paper"? Shameless.
 * You mean the one it took you a week to read but didn't stop you from arguing? The one you had never even heard of? The one you're still playing WP:IDHT games about? That "response paper"? Shameless.

 * Responses to your second batch of posts (including few remarks on subsequent edits):
 * Thanks, much appreciated.
 * Look good, I didn't want to pull any punches and I thought "nonsense" seemed less insulting than "inconsistent and inconceivable". In the future, it's good to include the page number inside the ref: Section 4 is five pages long, and really not meant for non-physicists/mathematicians (o_O)
 * IMO, "the secularist" in "HAT", (Alford), was a bit of a shill and Tegmark is only too happy to discuss it. Even so, this article is about his theory, so I think it would be good to use his complete response in an extended quote because it also speaks to complexity issues. His #3 reference could be substituted, perhaps like this:
 * My hypothesis is that only Gödel complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence. This drastically shrinks the Level IV multiverse, essentially placing an upper limit on complexity, and may have the attractive side effect of explaining the relative simplicity of our universe. If you define mathematical structures as (equivalence classes of) models of axiom systems [*] then they are guaranteed to be Gödel-complete (consistent). Please note that although we conventionally use a Gödel-undecidable mathematical structure (including integers with Peano’s recursion axiom, etc.) to model the physical world, it is not at all obvious that the actual mathematical structure describing our world is a Gödel-undecidable one — lacking a theory of quantum gravity, we have certainly not found it yet. Even a world corresponding to a Gödel-complete mathematical structure could in principle contain observers capable of thinking about Gödel-incomplete mathematics, just as finite-state digital computers can prove certain theorems about Gödel incomplete formal systems like Peano arithmetic. * Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory? page 5, part A Max Tegmark On Math, Matter and Mind, page 12, (with Piet Hut and Mark Alford) Tegmark addresses Formal System fundamentals, symbols, rules for what strings are well-formed formulas and for what WFFs are theorems, and complete sets of theorems.
 * I verified the material on page 203 and footnote 8 on page 222 material which you provided, it's all good... You tend to put cites at the beginning, that's fine. Putting them at the bottom usually works too. I'd be willing to self-revert the {cn}, but I'm guessing you {cn}ed yourself by mistake?
 * This evening, you've included a reference to "MU" part V. section B which certainly doesn't mention Vilenkin. It may well be related, (it is a theory of everything after all), but I would like to understand what exactly was not in Vilenkin, and which you had in fact sourced from "MU" part V section B (but forgot to cite). Also, why you placed the {cn} tag in a different spot.
 * I agree that vocabulary can sometimes be an issue. However, so can context and omissions... Although you've agreed to include Tegmark's immediate reply to "the secularist's" comments in "HAT", (and drafted a version of that inclusion), I'm none-the-less still concerned that you seem to remain intent on using Tegmark's "exploration" of adding CUH to MUH, which is found in a later paper. As I've said, it seems to be appropriate for Schmidhuber, whom Tegmark mentions directly, but it's much too tenuous based merely on Gödel, which Tegmark didn't even see as being a problem. The string theory response to Schmidhuber, where ever it's from, is a quote, one that, IMO given Tegmark's "CUH" exploration, seemed disproportionately dismissive, even unrelated. As you indicated you were not interested in Tegmark's reply to Schmidhuber and invited me to enhance it, I'm willing to minimally address this problem by using the "CUH" material mentioning Schmidhuber. Furthermore, I'll do so in such a way that makes the "what if" nature of the "exploration" apparent. Finally, I'll remove the current discussion of "CUH" as a second response to "the secularist's" question.
 * However, I'll pass on this round of edits (except to restore the "HAT").
 * I understand that the following are properly cited in your opinion, and I want you to know that I hear that. Please understand that I'm not asking for an explanation when I ask for citations. I'll still be needing them, even though you made adjustments. As you're aware, it's verifiability rather than truth that counts. So, there's no need to convince me that they're right, and there's only one way to convince me that they verify. Please excuse the repetition, but I'll need specific references, (by page number please) for each of:
 * Stoeger, Ellis, Kirchner (2006), if MUH is said to be included in a certain class, and that class is said to be untestable, I'll need both page numbers if they're not on the same page.
 * The page number of "HAT" where "the secularist", Alford, states that MUH, "Mathematical Multiverse", or "Level IV" is an untestable hypothesis, (or an internal notation, with an additional page number on which that reference is resolved to one of the above). Please don't infer by this that I haven't reread it.
 * I'd like to make it clear that I am challenging the edits regarding MUH being untestable. If you like, you are certainly welcome to tag it with {cn} but I'll leave that up to you. (The version which I wrote, makes no such claim).
 * Finally, unless you can provide a policy based reason for reverting the regarding "HAT" (On Math, Matter and Mind), I expect you to stop removing it, (as I've said many times). In absence of such a reason, it's WP:TE.
 * Thanks for your patience. I'll have a look at Jannes (2009) later. I'm concerned, of course, that once again you, yourself seem to be arguing with Tegmark, and again playing at pin-the-syn-on-the-donkey with the one article you might anticipate some resistance to... but I am looking forward to seeing how his hypothesis suffers from an "ism". Not necessarily an ad hominem I hope, but look no further than Aristotle if Platonism's the issue, (simpliciter, if not "radical"). De Caelo I, 10 ^_^* —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stoeger, Ellis, Kirchner (2006), if MUH is said to be included in a certain class, and that class is said to be untestable, I'll need both page numbers if they're not on the same page.
 * The page number of "HAT" where "the secularist", Alford, states that MUH, "Mathematical Multiverse", or "Level IV" is an untestable hypothesis, (or an internal notation, with an additional page number on which that reference is resolved to one of the above). Please don't infer by this that I haven't reread it.
 * I'd like to make it clear that I am challenging the edits regarding MUH being untestable. If you like, you are certainly welcome to tag it with {cn} but I'll leave that up to you. (The version which I wrote, makes no such claim).
 * Finally, unless you can provide a policy based reason for reverting the regarding "HAT" (On Math, Matter and Mind), I expect you to stop removing it, (as I've said many times). In absence of such a reason, it's WP:TE.
 * Thanks for your patience. I'll have a look at Jannes (2009) later. I'm concerned, of course, that once again you, yourself seem to be arguing with Tegmark, and again playing at pin-the-syn-on-the-donkey with the one article you might anticipate some resistance to... but I am looking forward to seeing how his hypothesis suffers from an "ism". Not necessarily an ad hominem I hope, but look no further than Aristotle if Platonism's the issue, (simpliciter, if not "radical"). De Caelo I, 10 ^_^* —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Formal writes: To make progress we need to isolate issues that can be addressed one by one. Here are the issues that I could understand most easily. Let's try to settle them and then go on to the others.
 * CUH: I agree that CUH seems appropriate to Schmithuber's scenario, but isn't that WP:SYN? Tegmark explicitly states that CUH is a response to the Godel objection. Does he say it is a response to Schmithuber? The thing that amazes me about Tegmark's response is that it is what you said it presumably wasn't, namely [curses foiled again]. He abandons MUH, making no attempt to defend it against Godel, and offers as an alternative CUH which he admits lacks the features that motivated MUH in the first place, since it no longer includes all of math, and in particular it does not include the kind of math that has been sucessful in describing nature! MUH, RIP!.
 * Including the long version of Tegmark's response in HAT to the Godel objection: I'm not against doing this, but it will make the Godel subsection rather long. We need to leave in the CUH material because that is his more fully considered response, which to his credit includes his admission that CUH is a big climb-down from MUH.
 * Vilenkin section reference to "MU": The problem I was trying to fix is that Vilenkin says that Tegmark's solution is to weight the ensemble, but gives no citation. So I cited MU sec V.B because that is where Tegmark invokes weights to deal with the problem Vilenkin is complaining about. He says "The fact that our universe seems relatively simple has led many people to suggest that the correct measure somehow involves complexity. For instance, one could reward simplicity by weighting each mathematical structure by 2^−n ,where n is its algorithmic information content". Tegmark doesn't cite Vilenkin, he just says "many people" (they are as bad as each other, aren't they! Can we make WP:V a policy for all journals?), but he is explicitly talking about the same objection as Vilenkin's.
 * Stoeger Ellis and Kirchner on testability. On p2 they identify "Tegmark (1998,2003)" as one of the multiverse scenarios that they are discussing. Then at the start of sec 7 they say "The issue of evidence and testing has already been briefly mentioned. This is at the heart of whether an ensemble or multiverse proposal should be regarded as physics or as metaphysics.", then then a few lines below they say "... in the case of a true multiverse, there is not even the possibility of any indirect causal connection - the universes are then completely disjoint and nothing that happens in any one of them is causally linked to what happens in any other one (see Section 6.2). This lack of any causal connection in such multiverses really places them beyond any scientific support".
 * testability in HAT: Before I try to defend it, I'd like to try to find a better citation and then defend that. As noted above, Stoeger is OK, but it would be good to have more.
 * The policy-based reason for my reverting your summary of HAT is WP:V: your characterisation of the paper is not consistent with the content of the paper. For instance, in the conclusion they write "Despite our similarities in research interests, knowledge and cultural background, we espouse conflicting views that we have termed fundamentalist, secular, and mystic." Seems clear it was a real debate. Dark Formal (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jannes: Gosh do we really have to quote this part of Jannes argument? I suppose NPOV requires it but objectively it is an incredibly weak argument. Essentially Jannes' argument is "Chipanzees /Orca's/dogs (snails?) can't do math, therefore math is at least partly a human invention". It's so silly nobody has even bothered to respond to it in a quotable publication, as far as I can tell. Joncolvin (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I was getting the impression it was something like that. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to take it seriously. Nice to see you back.—Machine Elf 1735  01:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This comment makes me think there is an additional structure: God. "It seems to introduce an additional mathematical structure, but all of them are supposed to be already included in the set" - any ideas? 217.119.44.188 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * God = math. But as Godel and Hilbert showed, there are limits to our knowledge of it. Joncolvin (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Wolfram :"A New Kind of Science"
Do you think they are related? --46.24.151.10 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think ANKOS is more relevant to the fine tuning debate (Wolfram's systems require fine tuning to exhibit complexity) than MUH. That said, it is a nice illustration of how complexity can arise from very simple formal systems.Joncolvin (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Joncolvin Fine tune or salvational crosses? Evidences of countless crosses are undeniable. Tanengtiong0918 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @46.24.151.10 No. Common sense tell us infinite physical energy and matters are impossible, and dimensions are limited in universes. There could be just this universe and the parallel one. Even the parallel one is just a hypotheses. Pseudo-science that is. Tanengtiong0918 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Russell K. Standish (2006)
From The Library of Babel:

 * Russell Standish's Theory of Nothingundefined uses the concept of the Library of Babel to illustrate how an ultimate ensemble containing all possible descriptions would in sum contain zero information and would thus be the simplest possible explanation for the existence of the universe. This theory therefore implies the reality of all universes.

This refers to a book by Standish from 2006 with the title Theory of Nothing, described on the given website. Obviously his book does not precede Tegmark's hypothesis, but I wonder if it acknowledges Tegmark as precedent. The book seems to deserve mention here as supporting or possibly inadvertently recreating Tegmark's idea.
 * Russel Standish' Theory of Nothing explicitly credits Tegmark as its inspiration. Much of it is based on discussions on the "everything" list, which was created to discuss Tegmark's Ultimate EnsembleJoncolvin (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the article where Standish is mentioned, Borges might deserve mention as possible inspiration for Tegmark. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to say too much at once
The section tries to say too much at once. This leads to long, rambling and over-detailed sentences, which would take at least five minutes to disentangle – even for whomever may be fluent in this particular sub-field of philosophy, namely Mathematicism. Frankly, it's a nightmare to try to make sense of. I wouldn't know how to paraphrase it accurately, being unfamiliar with Hockney's work (and not much inclined to become so, either). For anybody willing to try, I suggest – as a tiny first step – replacing every "a/b" phrase by the more readable "a or b". And good luck! yoyo (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually, mathematicism is the general philosophical category that Tegmark's, Hockney's ('philosophical mathematics,' later renamed 'ontological mathematics') and preceding ancient/Classical & German Idealist MUHs he built on, and newer academic 'philosophical mathematics' (see new talk section) of basically same definition as his, are in. Oh well; even five years usually isn't enough to understand the theory, and supposedly difficult sentences (run-on size in USA English, but not so often in traditional UK English) are the last thing to worry about when it has even more difficult equations (and in relation to those, I haven't said enough at once.) My usage of slash is a technical (and maybe other?) writing convention in which the second word is a sub-category of the first, but not necessarily vice versa. The fact is I tried & succeeded to say things and then people who don't want so spend the five minutes are trying to read too much at once--dchmelik (t|c) 10:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 * yoyo: You mean "for whoever may be may be fluent ..." (not whomever).

philosophical mathematics
This Oxford University philosophy journal described (in 2015) a book by a PhD professor author using Mike Hockney's term ('philosophical mathematics') and basically same definition, for a forthcoming MUH: New Foundations for Physical Geometry, by Tim Maudlin (Maudlin, Tim. New Foundations for Physical Geometry: The Theory of Linear Structures. Oxford University Press. 2014.) Others used the term at least since the 1960s in a different sense.--dchmelik (t|c) 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Translations
kin universes = a specific set of mathematically related univeses (study set theory and mathematical filters, they're are used in some theories of topological cosmogony) = a generation of univeses (that might be a subset though) = Greek: συμπαντογενεά, κοσμογενεά (note that cosmogony/creation of a universe is not cosmogeneration/mathematically related univeses which share some common cosmogonous topological properties (in topological algebra); they are different nouns) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:700:AC0C:14C4:8940:2AC1 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Tegmark's theory is not worth a Wikipedia article
Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is so utterly lacking in foundation that I find it absurd to even waste time discussing it.

It is absolutely inappropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article, unless MGCH is also worth an article here (MGCH = Moon is Green Cheese Hypothesis).

title: Talk:Mathematical universe hypothesis


text:
Portal:Spain/Intro

Spain (España), officially the Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España), is a country in southern Europe. It is located on the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe. The country consists of Peninsular Spain which is located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, two archipelagos, one in each sea, and two autonomous cities in North Africa. The mainland area of Spain is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the southern and eastern areas, the Cantabric Sea to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the west. Spain is organised as a parliamentary democracy and is a constitutional monarchy. Spain has been a member of the European Union since 1986 and is a developed country, with the ninth largest economy in the world and fifth largest in the EU. With an area of 504,030 km², Spain is the second largest country in Western Europe (behind France).

Spain flourished under the Roman empire Hispania, thus becoming one of the Empire's most important regions at the time. During the times of the Middle Ages, Spain was under Germanic rule, only later to come under the rule of the Islamic caliphate. Spain emerged as a unified country in the 15th century, following the completion of the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula in 1492. It has been an important source of influence to other regions, chiefly during the Modern Era, when it became a global empire that has left a legacy of over 500 million Spanish speakers today, making it the world's second most spoken first language.

 More about Spain ...

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

title: Portal:Spain/Intro


text:
Vietnamese martial arts

Traditional Vietnamese martial arts (Võ thuật Cổ truyền Việt Nam; Chữ Hán: 武術古傳越南) often referred to as Võ thuật (Chữ Hán: 武術), can be loosely divided into those of the Sino-Vietnamese descended from the Han and those of the Chams or indigenous Vietnamese.

Traditional schools

 * Võ thuật Bình Định/Bình Định Gia – umbrella title for all the traditional styles of Bình Định in central Vietnam.
 * Võ Lâm Tân Khánh Bà Trà - The Tân Khánh martial arts was established in the 17th century. It was developed as a method of self-defense against enemies and wild animals.
 * Traditional Vietnamese wrestling.

Modern schools
Modern styles, or Phái (schools), include:

 * Nhất Nam
 * Vovinam – Founded by Nguyễn Lộc. Also called Vovinam Việt Võ Đạo (Việt = Vietnamese, Võ = martial, Đạo = way)
 * Võ Việt Nam (Cuton) or Võ Đạo of Phạm Văn Tan.
 * Vietnamese Wing Chun - a style of Wing Chun founded by Yuen Chai-wan.

 * Overseas
 * Cuong Nhu of Ngô Đồng (d. Florida 2000), known also by the Japanese title O Sensei.
 * Qwan Ki Do, founded in France.
 * Tam Qui Khi-Kong, now popular in Russia.
 * Traditional Vietnamese wrestling.

Terminology

 * võ sư – master
 * võ phục – tunic
 * võ kinh –  martial arts scripture
 * Võ Bắc Việt –  Northern Vietnam style
 * quyền – fist, such as Hùng kê quyền, Hồng Gia quyền, Lão mai quyền
 * Võ thuật Bình Định – martial arts of Bình Định
 * Đấu vật – ring wrestling (can also mean western wrestling)
 * Hand techniques (đòn tay)
 * Elbow techniques (chỏ)
 * Kicking techniques (đá)
 * Knee techniques (gối)
 * Forms (Quyền, Song Luyện, Đa Luyện)
 * Attack techniques (chiến lược)
 * Traditional wrestling (Vật cổ truyền)
 * Leg Attack take-downs (đòn chân tấn công)
 * Staff (côn)
 * Sword (kiếm)
 * Halberd (dao dài, "long knife")
 * Rope dart/chain whip (nhuyễn tiên, different from Chinese rope dart)
 * Khăn rằn - The khăn rằn is a southern scarf that originated from the Khmer krama scarf. The khan ran can be used to lock the enemy's arm, lock the enemy's wrist, lock the enemy's leg, pull the enemy's leg and to attack the enemy's face.

title: Vietnamese martial arts


text:
Sumanene

Sumanene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and of scientific interest because the molecule can be considered a fragment of buckminsterfullerene. Suman means "sunflower" in both Hindi and Sanskrit. The core of the arene is a benzene ring and the periphery consists of alternating benzene rings (3) and cyclopentadiene rings (3). Unlike fullerene, sumanene has benzyl positions which are available for organic reactions.

Organic synthesis
The structure of Sumanene can be inferred from oxidation of 1,5,9-trimethyltriphenylene but the first practical synthesis starts from norbornadiene. Norbornadiene is converted into a stannane by action of n-butyllithium, dibromoethane and tributyltinchloride. An Ullmann reaction of this stannane with CuTC affords the benzene core. The methylene bridges (--) created in this conversion then migrate in a tandem ring-opening metathesis and ring-closing metathesis by the Grubbs' catalyst. The final structure is obtained by oxidation by DDQ.

 * Sumanene synthesis.gif

Properties
Sumanene is a bowl-shaped molecule with a bowl depth of 118 picometers. The 6 hub carbon atoms are pyramidalized by 9° and the molecule displays considerable bond alternation (138.1 to 143.1 pm). Sumanene also experiences bowl-to-bowl inversion with an inversion barrier of 19.6 kcal/mol (82 kJ/mol) at 140 °C which is much higher than that found for its corannulene cousin. Like any benzylic proton, the sumanene protons can be abstracted by a strong base such as t-butyl lithium to form the sumanene mono carbanion. This strong nucleophile can react with an electrophile such as trimethylsilyl chloride to the trimethylsilyl derivative.

The trianion has also been reported. Electron transport properties have been investigated as well as carbon NMR

Derivatives
Sumanene derivatives such as naphtosumanene and trisialsumanene  have been described. Chiral sumanenes are of some interest with respect to inherent chirality, examples are chiral trimethylsumanene and a chiral sumanene cyclopentadienyl iron complex

title: Sumanene


text:
The God of Hell

The God of Hell is a play by American playwright Sam Shepard. The play was written in part as a response to the events of September 11, 2001. The plot concerns Wisconsin dairy farmer Frank and his wife Emma, and how their peaceful middle-American life is destroyed by Mr. Welch, a mysterious, ultra-patriotic government employee in pursuit of Frank's old friend, Haynes.

The God of Hell was first produced at The Actors Studio Drama School Theater in New York City. It was directed by Lou Jacob, and starred Tim Roth as Welch, Randy Quaid as Frank, J. Smith-Cameron as Emma, and Frank Wood as Haynes. Previews began October 29, 2004, with the official opening on November 16, 2004. The show closed on November 28, 2004.

In October 2005, the play received its European premiere at the Donmar Warehouse in London, and featured Lesley Sharp as Emma, Ben Daniels as Welch, Stuart McQuarrie as Frank and Ewen Bremner as Haynes.

The play received its Australian premiere on April 7, 2007. Directed by Robyn Mclean, it was acted by Russel Newman as Frank, Paul Bertram as Haynes, Ripely Hood as Mr. Welch and Annie Cossins as Emma and stage managed by Simon Fox.

title: The God of Hell


text:
Lawrence Alexander Sidney Johnson

Lawrence Alexander Sidney Johnson (26 June 1925 – 1 August 1997) known as Lawrie Johnson, was an Australian taxonomic botanist. He worked at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, for the whole of his professional career, as a botanist (1948–1972), Director (1972–1985) and Honorary Research Associate (1986–1997).

Alone or in collaboration with colleagues, he distinguished and described four new families of vascular plants, 33 new genera, 286 new species (including posthumous publications), and reclassified another 395 species.

Of the families he described, Rhynchocalycaceae (with B. G. Briggs, 1985) is accepted by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG). Hopkinsiaceae and Lyginiaceae, (which he and B. G. Briggs proposed in 2000 be carved out of Anarthriaceae), have not been accepted by the APG.

Lawrie Johnson died of cancer in 1997.

He received many honours and awards, including:
 * 1979 The Clarke Medal of the Royal Society of New South Wales
 * 1984 The Mueller Medal of ANZAAS
 * 1986 Elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science
 * 1987 Appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) "For service to the science of botany as Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney"

Works

 * A classification of the eucalypts with  L. D. Pryor, 1971, ISBN 0-7081-0563-7
 * The names of acacias of New South Wales with a guide to pronunciation of botanical names with Norman Hall, 1993, ISBN 0-7310-0118-4
 * The Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney  with A.N. Rodd, 1978, ISBN 0-7240-1609-0

title: Lawrence Alexander Sidney Johnson


text:
I Wish It Would Rain

"I Wish It Would Rain" is a 1967 song recorded by the Temptations for the Motown label (under the "Gordy" imprint) and produced by Norman Whitfield. The lyrics of this mournful song about a heartbroken man whose woman had just left him were penned by Motown staff writer Roger Penzabene. The lyricist had just learned that his wife was cheating on him and in his sorrow and pain, Penzabene penned both this and its follow-up "I Could Never Love Another (After Loving You)." Tragically the distraught Penzabene committed suicide barely a week after the single's release.

Release
Issued with the Melvin Franklin-led "I Truly, Truly Believe" as its B-side, "I Wish It Would Rain" peaked for three weeks in February and March 1968 at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 pop singles chart and at the number-one position on the Billboard R&B singles chart. The single was the focal point of the Temptations' 1968 album The Temptations Wish It Would Rain.

Billboard described the single as an "easy beat blues rocker" that "will soar to the top in short order." Cash Box said that "touches of Bacarachian style add a refreshingly new dimension to the terrific sound of the Temptations" and that "hard percussion and coasting strings give a solidity and gentleness to the soul vocal."

Personnel

 * Lead vocals by David Ruffin
 * Background vocals by Eddie Kendricks, Melvin Franklin, Paul Williams, and Otis Williams
 * Written by Norman Whitfield, Barrett Strong, and Rodger Penzabene
 * Produced by Norman Whitfield
 * Instrumentation by The Funk Brothers.

Notable cover versions

 * "I Wish It Would Rain" has been covered by a number of artists, most prominently by:
 * Gladys Knight & the Pips, peaking in the US at number 41 pop and 15 R&B.
 * New Zealand singer songwriter, Jon Stevens recorded and released a version of the song in 1994, with money raised benefiting drought-stricken farmers. The song peaked at number 49 in New Zealand.
 * Bruce Springsteen covered the song in his 2022 studio album, Only the Strong Survive.

title: I Wish It Would Rain


text:
Talk:Kashima Shin-ryū

Untitled
Doshu was enrolled in a Kashima Shinto ryu dojo, not Kashima-Shinryu. I will erase the information here until more accurate information can be supplied.
 * Why not expand the article instead? There is a ton of material published about KSR after all. I have rewritten this completely. The misconceptions some aiki-folks have about KSR can be mentioned in passing. jni 06:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely familar with the school, however this article can be expanded and updated to note who the current soke is in side box panel and the article (as a simple expample) 199.165.138.161 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
The article requires a bit more wikifying, especially in adding in-line citations and providing additional sourced material. Some rewriting here and there may be beneficial, but I'll leave it to the judgement of future editors. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kashima Shin-ryū


text:
Militia Immaculatae

The Militia Immaculatae (meaning the "Army of the Immaculate One"), called in English the Knights of the Immaculata, is a worldwide Catholic evangelization movement founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe in 1917.

History
The Militia of the Immaculata (or MI) was founded in Rome at the "St. Bonaventure" Pontifical Theological Faculty (now the International College of the Conventual Franciscans) by a Conventual Franciscan, Saint Maximilian Kolbe. The MI is open to all Catholics and encourages intercession to the Virgin Mary for the conversion of sinners.

Kolbe presented the idea of forming the MI to his Jesuit spiritual director, as well as to his Franciscan Superior at the house of studies in Rome, and was encouraged to proceed. The purpose of the MI is to draw souls back to the knowledge and importance of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to how every soul can easily enter into this consoling mystery through their own personal Act of Consecration to the Immaculata.

It was established as a pious union on January 2, 1922, by the Vicariate of Rome.

Joining the MI involves making a personal act of consecration to Mary. Members wear the Miraculous Medal as an outward sign of their consecration.

"The purpose of the Knights is contained in these words: to do all you can for the conversion of sinners, heretics, schismatics and so on, above all the Masons, and for the sanctification of all persons under the sponsorship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Mediatrix. - Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, 1938."

The association grew and spread to different countries. On October 16, 1997, the Pontifical Council for the Laity decreed the "Milizia dell'Immacolata" to be an international association of the faithful of pontifical right. MI claims to have over 3 million members in 48 countries.

The organization publishes Miles Immaculatae, a six-monthly magazine of Marian culture and Kolbian formation. Founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe, specifically for priests and pastoral workers, it is now the official publication of the International Center.

title: Militia Immaculatae


text:
User talk:Hossmann~enwiki

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. 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! Wikipedianinthehouse 21:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Definition of a 'steal'
I like the idea of the Draft Steal page, but you should really put the definition of a steal on the page. I added a few players to the list, but I considered these players steals because they had successful careers based on where they were drafted. I think that a player who is drafted 200th something overall in a draft should be considered a "steal" if they become an everday player in the NHL. So all I'm asking is to put the definiton of a draft steal on the page, so that future people who add on to this page know who is acceptable to put on and who isn't. Croat Canuck 03:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC) A few things, first off, thank you for the complement. Secondly, I will add the opening statement soon... probably when I feel like it. Thirdly, I took a look through what you have edited, and while I agree with a few of your additions, some of them either do not qualify (like Bates, Battaglia, Axelsson), didn't really make an impact on the NHL (Baron, Albelin, Arvedson), or need another year or two of playing to see if they can be considered as steals (Arnason, Barnaby, Aucoin, and Afinogenov). Those additions that I feel to be "unqualified" will be deleted... for now. Otherwise, thank you for contributing. Hossmann 14:53, September 17 2005

List of NHL Draft Steals (deletion or not)
I know you are a little puzzled as to why I put the article up for deletion, so I think I need to make myself a bit clearer for my reasoning to do so. I do think it is a great topic, but it is much too debatable as it stands to be a Wikipedia article. There is no model or milestone that seperates players from being declared a 'steal'. There are also too many variables which make it hard to declare a player a steal such as:
 * Impact on the team the player was originally drafted by: it is obviously a steal by a team if they find a star in the late rounds, however it isn't a steal if the player has his success on other teams. On the page there are players like Anson Carter and Craig Conroy, who only played a few games with the teams that drafted them. How does that make them a steal? So a steal would have to have a set amount of success with their original team.

 * How far back the player was picked: It also depends how far back in the draft a player was picked in order to be considered a steal. For example Kim Johnsson was the last player selected in the 1994 Entry Draft at 286th overall. I would declare him a steal because he has become a very good defenseman in the NHL. However, if Johnsson was picked 70th overall, he would not have the same merit of being declared a steal because his career is not exceptional for being drafted 70th.

 * Career Success: Obviously this is the biggest one. A player's career success is hard to nail down, because there are many different kinds of players. There are goal scorers, playmakers, tough guys, rushing defenseman, stay-at-home defensemen, checkers, big-game players etc. So who is to judge that Pavel Bure's career is more successful than Jon Klemm's? Bure may have scored a lot of goals, but he was a defensive liability. Klemm may not be as offensively gifted, but he also helps prevent a lot of goals. He also is on track to play more games than Bure, and he has already won more Stanley's than Bure (2-0). So who is to say that who has had the better career? It is entirely debatable, and that is the problem.

 * Longevity: There are also cases where players have very successful careers but just did not play long enough. Look at Todd Bergen. He played only 14 regular season games for the Flyers in the 1984-85 season, but he scored 11 goals and had 16 points. He definitely made an impact, and he was a core component for the Flyers that year as he scored 13 points in 17 games in the playoffs. Bergen was drafted 98th overall by the Flyers, but it is debatable as to whether or not he was a steal, because he definitely proved to be a very talented player, but he didn't play long enough to show he could sustain it.

 * Stanley Cups Won: This is the goal of all NHL hockey players, and it too should play a very important role in determining a player's success.

There are just too many variables too determine without a hard formula as to whether or not a player is a steal. If the article is to have any merit, it should dissolve any sniff of POV (example: This is a list of players who were picked 100th overall or later who managed to collect 400 career points in the NHL). That has absolutely no POV, and all people on the list would have no debate as to whether or not they belong on it.

Sorry, this was a bit lengthy, but you said you were suprised I put it up for deletion, and I felt you needed to know I wasn't trying to pick on the article. By the way, my edits that I did a month ago were put up before you had a clear definition of a draft steal. If the definition had been there a month ago, I would have put the article up for deletion then. Croat Canuck 03:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL Draft Busts
I think we can save this list from being deleted if we come up with strong criteria for inclusion. I have done my best on the vote pages to show other examples of similar articles that there aren't any problems with. I really think this is a great list with a lot of potential and I really don't want to see it go. Masterhatch 17:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your lists survived deletion. That makes me happy because I think they are good lists. Masterhatch 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! I can take away those asterisks now... --Hossmann 23:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL Draft Steals
Smart thinking with revamping the List of NHL Draft Steals. It makes it less controversial and easier to contribute to. Croat Canuck 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Autism Every Day/Katherine McCarron
Hi, I have just moved the paragraph suggesting a link between Autism Every Day, and the death of Katherine McCarron over to the Talk Page. I think it is too serious/contraversial a claim to make without a reference. I did a quick Google for such a reference, and could only find the idea suggested in blogs (which I do not feel are appropriate for such a claim). I have no problem with it going back in if you can find a good reference. Chovain 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Hossmann! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is 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  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Chris Ferraro -

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Hossmann. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hossmann~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hossmann~enwiki


text:
Reinfeld, Manitoba

Reinfeld is an Unincorporated Urban Community (UUC) in the Rural Municipality of Stanley in the Pembina Valley region of Manitoba, Canada, about one km east of Winkler. Mainly a Mennonite community, its relative vicinity to Winkler makes it a possible candidate to become a suburb in the future.

History
In the 1880 Village Census of the West Reserve, Reinfeld was populated by 12 males and 1 female. By the 1890s it was a well developed village. Because of its proximity to Winkler, Manitoba it has seen rapid growth of late.

title: Reinfeld, Manitoba


text: Talk:Chicago suburbs (Indiana)

title: Talk:Chicago suburbs (Indiana)


text:
Talk:Flag of Indiana

Assessment
I am assessing this article to B quality. Although it is not very long, the information in it well referenced and it is well wrote and I don't see how much more information could be added. Charles Edward 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is well wrote and referenced. There is not much more information that could be added on this topic s I am submitting for a ga review. Charles Edward 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mooresville picture
I was driving South on Hwy 67 a few weeks ago and passed the "Welcome to Mooresville" sign, which sported an Indiana flag and said (something like) "Home of the Indiana State Flag". Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera on me, but it would be a good addition to this article if anyone travels that direction. Mingusboodle (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the State of Indiana
Indiana state statute defines this flag as the "Flag of the State of Indiana". --Buaidh (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We should probably move the article then to the correct name. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I diagree. What statue? Indiana Code: IC 1-2-2-1 nowhere says "Flag of the State of Indiana". The header says "Indiana State Flag," which is a general term; the text only has "state flag." Also, this article should be consistent with every other flag article. I believe the same for the state seal, even though it has that text on it. It is otherwise referred to as the Indiana State Seal. Reywas92 Talk  21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-link
Hello, isn't the self-link to Paul Hadley in the first line of the article a problem ? --Maurilbert (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

History
The flag currently used dates back to 1916, the centennial of the state's founding. This begs the question what, if any, flag was in use before then? Inquiring minds want to know...Jmdeur (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Something I myself have wondered. I have tried to see if there was a common battle flag used during the Civil War, or other wars, for Indiana units, but I have not been able to come up with anything. —Charles Edward (Talk 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I have no idea how official or widespread it was, but this older flag appears in a 1903 book I found while working on a different article. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Brian the Editor, thank-you for that link. I've been trying to find the answer to this question for a long time.  The flag you linked to is basically just the Indiana State Seal on a flag.  The index of this legislative manual names the illustration as the state flag.  This would make a great addition to the article if we could get a little more info, and maybe a clearer picture. Canute (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it. I think it definitely belongs, but perhaps one of you could rearrange the article so it looks more presentable, or maybe add some text about the previous flag. Canute (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Hadley
I am interested in creating a separate Wikipedia page for Paul Hadley, but his name links to this Wikipedia page. Does anybody know how to unlink his name from this article? HoosierMan1816 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flag of Indiana


text:
Kioni Bay

Kioni Bay is positioned in the northeast of the Greek island of Ithaca, around the bay from the village of Kioni. Kioni village has remained relatively unspoiled by major tourist development. The village has been characterised as a 'traditional settlement' and therefore strict planning rules apply. Kioni Bay is a popular destinations for sailing boats.

Geography
The Kioni Bay is situated east of the village of Kioni. Kioni is linked with a road going westward to Frikes and the rest of the island. The Nirito mountains dominates the southwest.

title: Kioni Bay


text: Talk:Foellinger-Freimann Botanical Conservatory


text:
Marcus O'Sullivan

Marcus O'Sullivan (born in Cork, Ireland on 22 December 1961) is an Irish retired middle-distance runner. He competed for Ireland at four Summer Olympics. After Steve Scott and John Walker, he is the third all-time by total of sub-4 minute miles run over the course of his career, at 101.

Running career
Although he wasn't planning to go to any of Ireland's universities, O'Sullivan's running encouraged him to go to Villanova University at 19. While competing on a collegiate level, he worked towards a degree in accounting and later attained an MBA and a CPA.

The three World Indoor 1500 metre Championships won by O'Sullivan were in 1987 (Indianapolis), 1989 (Budapest), and 1993 (Toronto). In his victories in 1987 and 1989, he set championship records. He was 4th in the 1991 Seville world indoor championships.

At the 1985 European Athletics Indoor Championships, O'Sullivan won a silver medal in the 1500m.

O'Sullivan qualified for four Olympic Games for Ireland: 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996, at both 800 metres and 1500 metres. He reached the 1500 metre finals at the 1988 Seoul Olympics.

He set an indoor 1500 metres world record of 3:35.4 on 10 February 1989, and was generally regarded as a better competitor running indoors. This is evidenced by the fact that O'Sullivan won the prestigious Wanamaker Mile in Madison Square Garden's Millrose Games six times (1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1996).

His personal best for the mile, which was set indoors in 1988, is 3:50.94. His personal best for the 1500 metres, which was set outdoors in 1996, is 3:33.61.

O'Sullivan, along with Irish runners Ray Flynn, Eamonn Coghlan, and Frank O'Mara established the still standing world record in the 4 x 1 mile relay, when they combined in Dublin on 17 August 1985 to run 15:49.08.

O'Sullivan now runs the RunningWorks cross country camp during the summer, and is the head coach of Villanova cross country and track and field. He was coached by Tom Donnelly of Haverford College and advised Bob Kennedy in the later years before Kennedy's retirement.

In addition to his ties to American record holder Bob Kennedy, O'Sullivan has coached elite professional runners such as Canadian indoor world silver medalist Carmen Douma-Hussar, and New Zealander Adrian Blincoe.

He has a daughter named Laura O'Sullivan, who attends the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and a son, Christopher O'Sullivan who attends Villanova University.

He also runs a summer camp called Running Works, along with Cricket Batz. It takes place in Canadensis, PA, and is a one-week sleep away camp where High School cross-country runners stay in cabins.

Marcus was added to the Leevale Athletic Club s Hall of Fame in 2008

title: Marcus O'Sullivan


text: Category:ABBA songs

title: Category:ABBA songs


text:
User:Jewisharific

A note to my fellow Iortm Binar-ians: If you read this, leave a note in the Discussion section of this page, or send me an e-mail. And please use my Gmail. God help you if I find an e-mail in my hotmail inbox. For every message I find in my hotmail inbox, I shall kill you all once more.

title: User:Jewisharific


text:
Talk:Brodmann area 22

Removed material (too detailed)
A experiment was taken in early 2000 involving the left side of six men and women’s brains who died within 18-24 hours. What was revealed was that neuron clusters from each side of the brain was similar in size; however, they found that the distance between the clusters on the left side were about 20 percent farther apart, and had more fiber connections among the cells, also it had a more complex cellular structure. Researchers believe this is why that part of the brain (Brodmann’s area 22) is active in processing language.

Meaning

Assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, Jeffrey Hutsler, said "This study clearly shows that an area associated with speech processing differ from the same area on the other side of the brain.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Brodmann area 22. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527142553/http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu:80/Scripts/ancilcentraldirectory.aspx?ID=75 to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/ancilcentraldirectory.aspx?ID=75
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527142548/http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu:80/Scripts/ancilcentraldirectory.aspx?ID=1055 to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/ancilcentraldirectory.aspx?ID=1055

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Additions to be edited
Hello,

I have been working on adding to this page by adding a section on language and a section on methodology for BA 22. I am not editing any of the existing information on the page. Here is a sandbox link to the sections I have added for revision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGross04/sandbox

MGross04 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brodmann area 22