# Sick of the blatent bias!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Reiku, Dec 6, 2011.

1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I've been very timid to prom's recent actions, but I am getting really sick of his nazi dictatorship guised as mod action.

I replied to captaim bork saying it was not my own definition, but was in fact the legendary Leonard Susskinds definition. I then stated that it was not* true stating they meant exactly the same thing because of this identity:

$<\psi_n|\psi_m> = 0$

for othogonality and for something perpendicular it is

$<\psi_n|\psi_m> = 1$

My posts were deleated then prom said, question answered!!!

AYE RIGHT PROM. What games are you lot playing! Think am gonna sit back like a good bitch every time? There is only so much of this behaviour I will take before saying something! :bugeye:

3. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
edited, not* true

5. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
It's absolutely not fair to anyone if a mod goes about editing posts to his will. It is biased and also disingenuous as it implies that there is never two sides to a story!!!

7. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
I am not saying being a moderator is powerful, but I will say that,"Some people get a little power and take it way too seriously". It usually sprouts from never having been in a position of authority before. I recall a story about a shipper/receiver/mailroom guy at a Soil Engineering Company I worked for who became a Union Rep. What a sad little man.

Prometheus is the ONLY moderator I have ever complained about on any forum in my life.

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
He should be warned about this behaviour! It should be completely illegal here for a mod to modify posts willy-nilly to his liking. Indeed, I've only seen posts modified when there has been possibly harmful or rude comments, not a genuine harmless post! I've never seen a mod do this in my life, but he keeps doing it and it is misleading for the audience, as anyone who knows no better will go into that thread and think I am automatically wrong, because captian bork has been allowed the last word on the subject, and I hadn't even finished explaining myself or the reasonings behind it!!!

I am so pissed off right now!

9. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
This is crap. Which is why it was deleted.

Next.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Why is it crap?

Explain. Don't just say it is.

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238

''Orthogonal states in quantum mechanics

In quantum mechanics, two eigenstates of a Hermitian operator, ψm and ψn, are orthogonal if they correspond to different eigenvalues. This means, in Dirac notation, that $\langle \psi_m | \psi_n \rangle = 0$ unless $\psi_m$ and $\psi_n$ correspond to the same eigenvalue. This follows from the fact that Schrödinger's equation is a Sturm–Liouville equation (in Schrödinger's formulation) or that observables are given by hermitian operators (in Heisenberg's formulation).''

Explain why what I said was crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality

Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
12. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
I presume you are using $|\psi\rangle$ as a vector. I will use the more usual $\vec{x}$ Consider the inner product of two vectors in Euclidean space $\vec{x} . \vec{y} = | \vec{x} | | \vec{y} | \cos \theta$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the vectors. If $\vec{x} . \vec{y}= 0$ that means $\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}$ (or multiples thereof) and the vectors are perpendicular, which in this example is synonymous with orthogonal. $\vec{x} . \vec{y}= 1$ has no special meaning unless the vectors are normalised (which is the case in QM). I presume you mean $\vec{x} . \vec{y} = | \vec{x} | | \vec{y} |$ (=1 in the case of normalised vectors) which happens when the vectors are parallel (or antiparallel).

This notion of orthogonality is carried through when you consider the inner product of two functions rather than vectors, although there is now no notion of perpendicular or parallel.

Is that sufficient or would you like to troll some more?

13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
So you think saying that, excuses the fact that you have completely ignored that the identities I have given are true and can be shown and demonstrated as such from wiki?

What I said is clearly not crap.

You know what prom, as a mod, in the future before moving something, have a debate on it first so you can show yourself a statement is unjustified. Wiki is on my side with this one. My statement was absolutely true!

This is how Susskind defined it, which always stuck in my head. And now I can find a similar example on wiki.

14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
(Or deleting something... you shouldn't even be doing this with a really good cause anyway!!!!)

15. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
Huh?!

You said orthogonal was $\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 0$ and perpendicular was $\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1$. This is quite obviously wrong.

16. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Where the eigenstates $\psi_m$ and $\psi_m$ are orthogonal to each other, then the identity holds that the inner product of them is equal to zero!]

This is not wrong. As for the second bit concerning them perpendicular, I will need to find where susskind said this now.

17. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
I don't think Prometheus actually read the qualifying statement you said before posting that Mister, or maybe just didn't agree with it so decided to censor it.

Maybe censoring, editing and deleting posts is a new thing the mods here are introducing.

18. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
right, I used north poles and south poles to explain the zero inner product, as was explained and then captain said I was talking rubbish, well here susskind states

''perpedicular will mean at 90 degrees, and orthogonality is used to mean distinctively different.''

as he explains, using a stick. very clear him saying this and what I stated was more or less the exact same thing to which captain had his little episode and said I was to be ashamed.

(near the end)
at 1:30:00 finishes the pivotal part at 1:31:25

Good thing I have a fantastic memory to memorize where these things had been watched.

19. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Why, Reiku? Why would you need to appeal to Susskind for support for something so basic, that I can barely remember when I first learnt it? Something you got so horrifyingly, blatantly, absurdly wrong, that I now doubt that you've even completed high school level math courses...

Who are you trying to fool? And why?

20. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
But if the thread had been left open, so people could contribute, I would have had a proper chance to explain this was not my definition. As I explained, closing it where prom did was disingenuous and unfair!!

21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Why you asking stupid questions like this?

You're the one who tried to convince everyone

"Events" are neither time- nor space-like''

Some would argue that mistake is pretty basic. Stop jumping on the bandwagon just because you know who I am --- my name is Mister. Use it.

22. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Yeah, you didn't understand that, at all. The "up" and "down" directions he's illustrating using the pointer do not correspond to vectors in $\text{R}^3$.
You mean "parrot".

23. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Then you should not have contributed. You stated it like it was fact, while it was, in fact, complete rubbish. It's hardly rocket science, and you got it completely wrong, meaning that you have no proper understanding, and thus had no place to contribute like you did.
Which is because they aren't, as was repeatedly explained to you. Simply denying it doesn't make it any less so.
No. You're Reiku, you were permanently banned from this place, you quite probably will be so again soon under your new moniker, and until you are, you'll damn well be called by it.