User talk:James pic

Welcome!

Hello, James pic, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

If you would like to keep in touch with the mathematicians over here, you could put Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics on your watchlist. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your complete rewrite of the real analysis article ([1]). Great job! —METS501 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But note that one should write

  ==Key concepts==  

instead of

  ==Key Concepts==  

:) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, yes. Thanks. James pic 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rewrite of the real analysis page mentions complex analysis more than real analysis. Seems somewhat inappropriate 74.124.80.62

Most of that is in the section on Scope, and it seems natural - to me at least - to discuss the relationship between real analysis and its close relative complex analysis, as much of the difficulty in defining real analysis comes in differentiating it from complex analysis. I do, however, take your point, and I'll look at ways of defining real analysis more intrinsically. James pic 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the barnstar!

Repliedthemockturtle 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, James. In your edit to Riemann sphere, you emphasize that it's a closed manifold, not just topologically closed. But every space is closed in itself, so the latter concept is vacuous, unless we assume the sphere to be embedded in some other space, which is not the case in that section. I think we need to reword it to make this clearer.

If "pic" is a pseudonym inspired by the

I've edited it again. I think it now emphasizes "closed surface" without getting into any question of "closed set". Jost is a good reference, and I think that "compact" is a good term, because compactness is a property of topological spaces, whereas closedness is not a property of spaces but rather of subsets. If you want to discuss any more, you can reply here. Cheers. Joshua R. Davis (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,