The recently created stub, Calyx (mathematics), has been nominated for deletion. Is this surface notable? AfD discussion linked above. Geometry guy 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Aitken's generalization of the Gauss-Markov theorem does not appear to get the recognition it deserves. Would it be in order to call the general theorem Gauss-Markov-Aitken? It it called this in any text book? Petergans ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some rather disturbing vandalism over at Runge-Kutta methods. Apparently this is part of a wider coordinated effort to vandalize the math articles. See [1]. A bit of Googling shows that there are indeed attempts to organize an attack from outside Wikipedia. I don't know for how long this has been going on, although it seems relatively recent. So be on the lookout for dubious edits from anon IPs. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that here it is not clear why substitution is an invalid operation.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please. Write , not . Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This has come up before, and I'd like to direct people's attention to this article's talk page. This article is seriously unencyclopedic, and it would require either alotof work, or deletion. I feel like maybe some opinions are needed there to hash out whether the article is worth fixing (instead of deleting the article after wasting time improving it). -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why this proof have ben removed? I found it interesting...-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm think that someone who understands this stuff should take a look at Radius of curvature. It starts with a strange and confusing definition, and it never really becomes clear what the article is supposed to be about. As far as I know, the "radius of curvature" (of a plane curve) is simply the reciprocal of the curvature, so there's no need to explain both things separately in separate articles. On the other hand, the Radius of curvature article seems to be preoccupied with the radii of curvature of ellipsoidal surfaces and suchlike. Is that a different meaning of the term, or is it just a specific application of the usual definition? I wonder if all the information about the generic meaning should be merged into the one article: curvature, and a separate article created to deal solely with the specifics of ellipsoids. Matt 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
The new article Proof by intimidation appears to be an attempt to insult mathematicians. Instead of talking in a general way about the logical fallacy of that name, it ascribes it especially to lectures in mathematics. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Jmlk17, " probability" is semi-protected for one week to prevent vandalism by unregistered and newly registered users. I requested this as I was getting fed up with the level of vandalism and disruptive edits. As I said in my request,
This is a vital article rated by WikiProject Maths as Top priority but only Start-class quality and the relatively small number of editors with the necessary expertise to improve it are likely either to be distracted or put off entirely by the level of vandalism.
So come on all you probabalists out there, you've now got a week free of distracting vandalism to improve the flagship article for your subject! (Nothing like a tight deadline to help concentrate the mind...) -- Qwfp ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Can some of you folks comment at Talk:Monty Hall problem#RfC: Consensus for rephrased solution? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ numbers}} has again popped up over coutnless math articles, right on top, above any pictures, and rather wide. I suggested that we remove it. Should we perhaps even nominate it for deletion? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the template from the articles for now. I see there is good progress here towards an alternative version of this template to go to the bottom of articles. On top it was really staying in the way of the very nice illustrations many of the number articles have. 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Alexandrov ( talk • contribs)
Since there's no more response to this discussion, I created a new template {{ Number Systems}} that can be used at the bottom of the relevant pages. Please continue any discussions about the template there. I put it on Natural number for a start, but I leave the rest up to you. SuperMidget ( talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Entries related to mortgages, such as Mortgage Calculator, Mortgage, and Mortgage loan could use some attention from WikiProject Mathematics. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to cause more of a fuss than I have already, but I am concerned about some formatting changes to vector-related articles (so far only cross product and vector (spatial).) The question is whether a vector, when written inline in the text, should be typeset at or as (a,b,c). I favor the latter since it doesn't force inline PNG rendering (which takes time, may cause the text to format badly, etc.) Furthermore the is the preferred notation of most physicists and differential geometers for an inner product, such as a metric. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
less thans | < x , y > | < x , y > |
chevrons | ‹ x , y › | ‹ x , y › |
Description | Characters |
---|---|
Standard keyboard symbols ("less than" & "greater than") | < > |
Unicode characters (left-pointing angle bracket) | U+2329 (〈) and U+232A (〉) |
more Unicode characters (left angle bracket) | U+3008 (〈) and U+3009 (〉) |
mathematical left angle bracket | U+27E8 (⟨) and U+27E9 (⟩) |
single-left angle quotation | U+2039 (‹) and U+203A; (›) |
Some are vigorously against less than or greater than as semantically incorrect, however the strange unicode characters don't display unless people have fancy fonts installed, so other prefer to keep things simple. -- Salix alba ( talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
After some discussion at Template talk:ProbDistributions#Too large I've drafted a revised navigational template to replace {{ ProbDistributions}}, which has grown too large. (This is the template at the bottom of some but not all of the probability distribution articles, not the infobox on the right.) For the moment the draft version is at User:Qwfp/tempprobdist. To keep all the conversation in one place, please post comments at Template talk:ProbDistributions not here. If I don't hear any views to the contrary, I'll go ahead and replace {{ ProbDistributions}} at the weekend. Thanks, Qwfp ( talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Working with awards and award-winners and CFDs -- and now TFDs! -- all this time it occurred to me that perhaps the best solution is a single compressed template. So, I drafted Template:Awardwinners; other editors' thoughts would be appreciated. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but I thought I'd at least ping some other folks involved in award-winner discussions for their opinions and thoughts. The math folks were particularly enamored of the math awards, so those of you with thoughts -- pro or con -- about award-winner categories being applied to articles, please stop by the template page and give your thoughts and reactions. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Any chance someone else is willing to handle the issue over at Talk:Vector (spatial)? I'm a bit stressed, and I don't feel like putting up with this trolling user. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we have an extra pair of eyes at Vector? I fear that the quality of the article is rapidly deteriorating thanks largely to the efforts of one persistent new editor qwho behaves like a troll. In particular, I've rewritten the lead to take care of the basics of vectors (and remove the cruft) which quickly got reverted with no reason. Sockpuppetry is also a concern, since he alternately uses an anon account and a registered account. Arcfrk ( talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's now also a related deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical). — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At Gauss-Newton algorithm, Petergans would like the step be given by
to be consistent with what is used at non-linear least squares, which he wrote.
I prefer the formula
(note the minus), because that's all the references I've seen use. The discrepancy with the sign is because Petergans uses residuals of a special form, while the formula with the minus works for general residues.
So, what would readers prefer, to be consistent with other books and websites, or with another Wikipedia article (written by the same editor who wants the change at Gauss-Newton). We've been going back and forth for a few days on this, with no agreement. More comments are welcome at Talk:Gauss-Newton algorithm#Latest changes. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A new editor has started working to improve this article, but as a new editor is unfamiliar with NPOV and NOR. It would be helpful to have a few other experienced editors look through the article to smooth out any biased claims, while still trying to keep the changes that improve the article or add detail in a neutral way. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The recently created stub, Calyx (mathematics), has been nominated for deletion. Is this surface notable? AfD discussion linked above. Geometry guy 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Aitken's generalization of the Gauss-Markov theorem does not appear to get the recognition it deserves. Would it be in order to call the general theorem Gauss-Markov-Aitken? It it called this in any text book? Petergans ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some rather disturbing vandalism over at Runge-Kutta methods. Apparently this is part of a wider coordinated effort to vandalize the math articles. See [1]. A bit of Googling shows that there are indeed attempts to organize an attack from outside Wikipedia. I don't know for how long this has been going on, although it seems relatively recent. So be on the lookout for dubious edits from anon IPs. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that here it is not clear why substitution is an invalid operation.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please. Write , not . Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This has come up before, and I'd like to direct people's attention to this article's talk page. This article is seriously unencyclopedic, and it would require either alotof work, or deletion. I feel like maybe some opinions are needed there to hash out whether the article is worth fixing (instead of deleting the article after wasting time improving it). -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why this proof have ben removed? I found it interesting...-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm think that someone who understands this stuff should take a look at Radius of curvature. It starts with a strange and confusing definition, and it never really becomes clear what the article is supposed to be about. As far as I know, the "radius of curvature" (of a plane curve) is simply the reciprocal of the curvature, so there's no need to explain both things separately in separate articles. On the other hand, the Radius of curvature article seems to be preoccupied with the radii of curvature of ellipsoidal surfaces and suchlike. Is that a different meaning of the term, or is it just a specific application of the usual definition? I wonder if all the information about the generic meaning should be merged into the one article: curvature, and a separate article created to deal solely with the specifics of ellipsoids. Matt 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
The new article Proof by intimidation appears to be an attempt to insult mathematicians. Instead of talking in a general way about the logical fallacy of that name, it ascribes it especially to lectures in mathematics. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Jmlk17, " probability" is semi-protected for one week to prevent vandalism by unregistered and newly registered users. I requested this as I was getting fed up with the level of vandalism and disruptive edits. As I said in my request,
This is a vital article rated by WikiProject Maths as Top priority but only Start-class quality and the relatively small number of editors with the necessary expertise to improve it are likely either to be distracted or put off entirely by the level of vandalism.
So come on all you probabalists out there, you've now got a week free of distracting vandalism to improve the flagship article for your subject! (Nothing like a tight deadline to help concentrate the mind...) -- Qwfp ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Can some of you folks comment at Talk:Monty Hall problem#RfC: Consensus for rephrased solution? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ numbers}} has again popped up over coutnless math articles, right on top, above any pictures, and rather wide. I suggested that we remove it. Should we perhaps even nominate it for deletion? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the template from the articles for now. I see there is good progress here towards an alternative version of this template to go to the bottom of articles. On top it was really staying in the way of the very nice illustrations many of the number articles have. 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Alexandrov ( talk • contribs)
Since there's no more response to this discussion, I created a new template {{ Number Systems}} that can be used at the bottom of the relevant pages. Please continue any discussions about the template there. I put it on Natural number for a start, but I leave the rest up to you. SuperMidget ( talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Entries related to mortgages, such as Mortgage Calculator, Mortgage, and Mortgage loan could use some attention from WikiProject Mathematics. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to cause more of a fuss than I have already, but I am concerned about some formatting changes to vector-related articles (so far only cross product and vector (spatial).) The question is whether a vector, when written inline in the text, should be typeset at or as (a,b,c). I favor the latter since it doesn't force inline PNG rendering (which takes time, may cause the text to format badly, etc.) Furthermore the is the preferred notation of most physicists and differential geometers for an inner product, such as a metric. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
less thans | < x , y > | < x , y > |
chevrons | ‹ x , y › | ‹ x , y › |
Description | Characters |
---|---|
Standard keyboard symbols ("less than" & "greater than") | < > |
Unicode characters (left-pointing angle bracket) | U+2329 (〈) and U+232A (〉) |
more Unicode characters (left angle bracket) | U+3008 (〈) and U+3009 (〉) |
mathematical left angle bracket | U+27E8 (⟨) and U+27E9 (⟩) |
single-left angle quotation | U+2039 (‹) and U+203A; (›) |
Some are vigorously against less than or greater than as semantically incorrect, however the strange unicode characters don't display unless people have fancy fonts installed, so other prefer to keep things simple. -- Salix alba ( talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
After some discussion at Template talk:ProbDistributions#Too large I've drafted a revised navigational template to replace {{ ProbDistributions}}, which has grown too large. (This is the template at the bottom of some but not all of the probability distribution articles, not the infobox on the right.) For the moment the draft version is at User:Qwfp/tempprobdist. To keep all the conversation in one place, please post comments at Template talk:ProbDistributions not here. If I don't hear any views to the contrary, I'll go ahead and replace {{ ProbDistributions}} at the weekend. Thanks, Qwfp ( talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Working with awards and award-winners and CFDs -- and now TFDs! -- all this time it occurred to me that perhaps the best solution is a single compressed template. So, I drafted Template:Awardwinners; other editors' thoughts would be appreciated. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but I thought I'd at least ping some other folks involved in award-winner discussions for their opinions and thoughts. The math folks were particularly enamored of the math awards, so those of you with thoughts -- pro or con -- about award-winner categories being applied to articles, please stop by the template page and give your thoughts and reactions. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Any chance someone else is willing to handle the issue over at Talk:Vector (spatial)? I'm a bit stressed, and I don't feel like putting up with this trolling user. Silly rabbit ( talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we have an extra pair of eyes at Vector? I fear that the quality of the article is rapidly deteriorating thanks largely to the efforts of one persistent new editor qwho behaves like a troll. In particular, I've rewritten the lead to take care of the basics of vectors (and remove the cruft) which quickly got reverted with no reason. Sockpuppetry is also a concern, since he alternately uses an anon account and a registered account. Arcfrk ( talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's now also a related deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical). — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At Gauss-Newton algorithm, Petergans would like the step be given by
to be consistent with what is used at non-linear least squares, which he wrote.
I prefer the formula
(note the minus), because that's all the references I've seen use. The discrepancy with the sign is because Petergans uses residuals of a special form, while the formula with the minus works for general residues.
So, what would readers prefer, to be consistent with other books and websites, or with another Wikipedia article (written by the same editor who wants the change at Gauss-Newton). We've been going back and forth for a few days on this, with no agreement. More comments are welcome at Talk:Gauss-Newton algorithm#Latest changes. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A new editor has started working to improve this article, but as a new editor is unfamiliar with NPOV and NOR. It would be helpful to have a few other experienced editors look through the article to smooth out any biased claims, while still trying to keep the changes that improve the article or add detail in a neutral way. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)