422:"More involved Lie groups are used in physics. Noether's theorem links continuous symmetries to conserved quantities. For example, the Poincaré group plays a pivotal role in special relativity, and quantum field theory. Symmetries are likewise central to gauge theory." - this makes it sound like the Poincare group playing a pivotal role in special relativity is an example of Noether's theorem. The Noether sentence should probably go last. All in all, I think this description is too short to be of much use to anyone who doesn't know the subject already. Local groups should probably at least get a brief mention, too.
371:
Thanks, RJH! 1) The geometric operations are the same as the elements. I'll have to clarify this. 2) As mentioned above, I'm currently trying to avoid / to introduce well any jargon used. It is impossible to avoid any notion or notation that might not be known by every reader, but a hatnote deferring
587:
Some of your references are lacking page numbers. Specifically I'm thinking of the
Wussing book, it's 336 pages according to Google, that's a LOT of searching for sourced information (current ref 5 just is to that book). Other examples might be the Mac Lane reference (current ref 17) or the Kurzweil
461:
6) Examples and applications section: Actually, a reviewer above asked to reduce the total number of sections. After thinking over it I decided to merge the (previously split) examples and apps sections. As it is, any application uses a particular kind of group, and the other way round, too. So, the
236:
Hmm, I can't agree with splitting the group and group theory articles based on one being basic and one covering advanced topics. That way the articles are not sticking to their topic, which all articles should. If they are really about the same topic, they should be merged and the one article should
241:
in order to ease the reader in and present basic information first, with detailed information in subarticles. If instead you are going to treat the articles as different concepts, then the articles need to be very careful about what they cover and not to cover what should be in the other. Currently
253:
Many thanks to both of you, Ruhrfisch and Taxman, for your comments. I see from the above, that the (necessary, I believe) separation between groups and their theory needs to be carved out more smoothly and better, and the article is still too technical for a lay reader. These, in addition to the
342:
The symmetry group example seems to conflict with the earlier definition, or else it is written in a confusing style. It says that the "elements of the group are operations". Therefore the operations are the members of the set. Then what are the group operations on the set? Is the functional
598:
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer
Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:56, 15 June 2008
506:
and that, if you intend to bring this article to FA status, that is sure to be one of the objections. Also keep in mind that any bot readings (e.g. for automatic determination how many articles are split, or for a hierarchical map of
Knowledge) are unlikely to pick up on your way of doing
122:. The latter is (or shall be) devoted to advanced topics related to groups, whereas the article under review is to cover more basic facets. Merging the two articles has been proposed several times, but consensus was reached not to do so (see for example
416:"The wished for existence of a multiplicative inverse of 2 suggests considering the rational numbers Q, the set of all fractions of integers a/b, where a and b are integers and b is nonzero." - that could be put more clearly. Also, should be wished-for.
159:
I am not a mathematician, although I do know a bit about group theory and symmetry. I was going to ask
Geometry guy to review this and see you already have, so here goes. The article looks pretty good to me, most of my edits will be pretty nitpicky:
137:
somewhat more, so as to include history and more material on applications. I'm also putting this to PR as to see whether there are significant hindrances to a possible FAC, so if you want to comment on that perspective too, please do so.
165:
446:
Ad 1) There is no particular reason, only that I like it better this way. The templates tend to catch up space and attention, so why not linking the key words in the subsection itself? I bolded them to make them more stand out more
350:. Much of the content assumes pre-existing knowledge that may not be available to the average reader. (See especially the History section.) There is also mathematical nomenclature that may not be clear to all (ex: '∈' in Subgroups.)
313:
Hm. I don't know about policies, but at this time I don't want to write another (even) more introductory article. I'm trying to make everything as easy and understandable as possible, which I had not focussed that much yet.
402:, but instead using boldfaced wikilinks for subgroup, symmetry, Lie group and the like? I think using the templates would be more in line with the rest of Knowledge works. For all I know, it could be part of the
453:
5) Would you be willing to help out at this point? Frankly, I have very little knowledge in these fancy physics stuff. I just asked at the WP:Phys and got roughly this as an answer. By local groups, do you mean
171:
The lead should be a summary of the whole article, an accessible and inviting overview. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - is
History in the lead, for example? Please see
191:
This section (first example) needs a reference or two and many other sections seem to as well - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a
195:
I liked the article and was able to follow it to about
Uniqueness of identity element and inverses. I read further but my brain is tired. One thing to be aware of are avoiding jargon where possible - see
413:, not just say that it is an object of study in some particular branch of mathematics. Adding a sentence to that effect would also make sure the first paragraph isn't a one-sentence-paragraph any more.
300:. To my mind, basically all wikipedia articles should be targeted to be easier to understand, especially the main article, then more difficult material should be in properly organized subarticles ala
612:
185:
do not repeat the title of the article in the headers or use "The" - so "Examples of groups" could just be "Examples". I am not sure the other uses of group can be avoided as headers.
419:
Representation theory: "It deals with the question which spaces a given group acts on." - sounds strange to me. Isn't it more like "which spaces a given group can be made to act on"?
584:
You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
513:
ad 6) Hm. Of course each application would involve a particular group, but I still think that giving the examples first, and a summary section on applications later would be better.
296:
Wow, is that really a consensus idea? The policy for a long time had been that isn't a good idea. I see there other places it has been done, but I personally think it amounts to
425:
I wonder if there's a better way to structure
Examples and Applications - should the applications get their own section, with a nice image of x-ray crystallography or whatever?
510:
ad 5) So much
Knowledge, so little time! But yes, I'll give it a try. And no, by local groups I meant local symmetries - like the gauge symmetries you briefly mentioned.
70:
164:
One of my standard peer review tricks is to suggest a model article - I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which, if any of the articles
66:
103:
51:
207:
I will leave it to someone more mathematically talented than I to get into the details of the math. I liked the first two examples very much.
43:
123:
617:
577:
276:, for example. Perhaps there could be a simple intro to groups and group theory, then more rigorous articles on each topic.
204:. I realize that math articles will generally be written at a level which is beyond most readers, so there are limits these.
212:
188:
I expected there would be a "Second
Example" after "First example: the integers" - could it just be "Example: Integers"?
458:? (From a quick scan of the article I can't see why they have any connection with our tiny little nice groups here).
549:
482:
377:
319:
297:
259:
146:
553:
534:
486:
437:
381:
365:
323:
308:
291:
263:
246:
230:
150:
530:
433:
347:
59:
499:
95:
211:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
470:
469:, I'd be more than happy to include it. Do you? Or of any other "real-world" application (The images in
273:
17:
545:
478:
373:
315:
255:
142:
526:
429:
281:
220:
115:
36:
571:
462:
two aspects are somewhat entangled. At this point, I would not want to (re)separate the sections.
118:
article is up to peer review. When reviewing, please note that there is another related article,
409:
Lead: The first paragraph should give some plain-language description of what a group actually
268:
There are some technical articles that have a simpler
Introduction to ... version as well, see
399:
359:
197:
277:
216:
182:
173:
606:
567:
503:
403:
395:
201:
99:
372:
to mathematical notation and additional wikilinks + explanations should do the job.
301:
238:
130:
119:
455:
355:
305:
243:
502:
doesn't seem to provide for your version, which would strongly suggest to use
591:
You have a citation needed tag on current ref 67. Need to resolve that issue.
517:
406:, but even if it were not, it would be advisable for reasons of consistency.
477:
image of an application like this seems to just clutter up the article).
390:
has a good impression of the article, overall, and a few comments:
516:
ad 6b) I can't find the images I'm looking for, either, but under
269:
450:
2 (Lead) and 3 (clarity) and 4 (representations) OK, I'll do that
520:
there are many nice crystal symmetries which should serve.
98:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
518:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Crystal_structures
200:
and making sure to provide context for the reader - see
465:
6b) If you have a nice image of x-ray crystallography,
134:
85:
78:
47:
544:
1) OK. I changed this. The bot argument convinces me.
613:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews
346:I'm concerned that this article does not satisfy
343:composition supposed to be the binary operation?
178:The article may need fewer sections / header too
394:Is there a reason for not using templates like
8:
215:(which is how I found this article). Yours,
111:This peer review discussion has been closed.
473:don't seem to meet this wish. Just putting
94:A script has been used to generate a semi-
133:status some time ago and has since been
588:and Stellmacher ref (current ref 46).
7:
467:which clearly shows a link to groups
141:Thanks in advance for your review,
254:other concerns will be worked on.
24:
102:style; it can be found on the
1:
213:Knowledge:Peer review/backlog
634:
104:automated peer review page
554:21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
535:19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
487:18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
438:16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
298:Knowledge:Content forking
242:the article does that. -
382:20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
366:15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
348:Knowledge:Explain jargon
324:20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
309:12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
292:01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
264:21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
247:04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
231:04:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
151:19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
129:The article has reached
500:Knowledge:Summary_style
443:Thank you much, Markus.
618:June 2008 peer reviews
471:x-ray crystallography
274:Introduction to virus
18:Knowledge:Peer review
168:may be good models.
157:Ruhrfisch comments:
28:Group (mathematics)
400:template:see also
288:
237:carefully follow
227:
86:Watch peer review
625:
286:
225:
83:
74:
55:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
603:
602:
546:Jakob.scholbach
495:You're welcome.
479:Jakob.scholbach
374:Jakob.scholbach
316:Jakob.scholbach
285:
256:Jakob.scholbach
224:
143:Jakob.scholbach
89:
64:
41:
35:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
631:
629:
621:
620:
615:
605:
604:
601:
600:
595:
594:
593:
592:
589:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
527:Markus Poessel
524:
523:
522:
521:
514:
511:
508:
496:
490:
489:
463:
459:
451:
448:
444:
430:Markus Poessel
427:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
407:
388:Markus Poessel
385:
384:
352:
351:
344:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
282:
250:
249:
221:
209:
208:
205:
193:
189:
186:
179:
176:
169:
155:
113:
108:
107:
91:
90:
88:
34:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
608:
597:
596:
590:
586:
585:
583:
582:
581:
579:
576:
573:
569:
565:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
519:
515:
512:
509:
505:
504:Template:main
501:
497:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
452:
449:
445:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
408:
405:
401:
397:
396:template:main
393:
392:
391:
389:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
363:
362:
357:
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
337:
325:
321:
317:
312:
311:
310:
307:
303:
302:summary style
299:
295:
294:
293:
290:
289:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
248:
245:
240:
239:summary style
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
228:
218:
214:
206:
203:
199:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
175:
170:
167:
163:
162:
161:
158:
153:
152:
148:
144:
139:
136:
132:
127:
125:
121:
117:
112:
106:for May 2008.
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
82:
81:
77:
72:
68:
63:
62:
58:
53:
49:
45:
40:
39:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
574:
563:
562:
525:
474:
466:
456:local groups
428:
410:
387:
386:
360:
353:
335:
334:
280:
219:
210:
156:
154:
140:
128:
120:group theory
110:
109:
79:
75:
61:Article talk
60:
56:
37:
27:
48:visual edit
607:Categories
338:comments:
284:<: -->
278:Ruhrfisch
223:<: -->
217:Ruhrfisch
198:WP:JARGON
96:automated
578:contribs
568:Ealdgyth
564:Comments
447:clearly.
135:expanded
507:things.
183:WP:HEAD
174:WP:LEAD
71:history
52:history
38:Article
498:ad 1)
306:Taxman
244:Taxman
202:WP:PCR
599:(UTC)
566:from
283:: -->
270:Virus
222:: -->
131:WP:GA
116:group
100:house
80:Watch
16:<
572:talk
550:talk
531:talk
483:talk
475:some
434:talk
378:talk
361:talk
320:talk
304:. -
272:and
260:talk
192:ref.
181:Per
166:here
147:talk
124:here
114:The
67:edit
44:edit
404:MOS
398:or
356:RJH
336:RJH
126:).
609::
580:)
552:)
533:)
485:)
436:)
411:is
380:)
364:)
322:)
262:)
149:)
84:•
69:|
50:|
46:|
575:·
570:(
548:(
529:(
481:(
432:(
376:(
358:(
354:—
318:(
287:°
258:(
226:°
145:(
76:·
73:)
65:(
57:·
54:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.