Silly Rabbit's mention of quaternions above reminded me that I want to put
Quaternion (disambiguation) up for deletion. See the discussion at
As always, give reasons for your opinions.
Ozob (
talk)
09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to shorten the vertical arrows of the diagram this (the source code is attached). Any ideas? GeometryGirl ( talk) 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
\documentclass{amsart} \usepackage[all]{xy} \begin{document} \begin{equation*} \xymatrix@C=1em{ \cdots\ar[r] & H_{n+1}(X_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(A_1 \cap B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(A_1) \oplus H_n(B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(X_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_{n-1}(A_1 \cap B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & \cdots \\ \cdots\ar[r] & H_{n+1}(X_2)\ar[r] & H_n(A_2 \cap B_2)\ar[r] & H_n(A_2) \oplus H_n(B_2)\ar[r] & H_n(X_2)\ar[r] & H_{n-1}(A_2 \cap B_2)\ar[r] & \cdots \\ } \end{equation*} \end{document}
Is it just me, or is are the mathematics articles on Wikipedia less comprehensive than most other topics of the same importance? There are relatively few mathematics featured articles, and many of the subprojects seem to be, well, dead. Leon math ( talk) 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have contributed a great deal to content review processes, and they are entirely compatible with mathematics articles, partly (in the case of GA) through my efforts. However, in my own edits to mathematics articles, I am much more interested in bringing a range of mathematics articles to B-Class, than taking any of them further. Of Wikipedia's 2.5+ million articles, less than 10000 are GAs or featured (0.4%). Improving the dross to a reasonable standard is far more important a goal than making a handful of articles exceptionally good.
The main historical failing of mathematics articles is the lack of sources. Just check out a few mathematics articles at random. Many have no sources at all. There seems to have been some idiotic belief that mathematics sources itself. I don't say this with my content review "verifiability" hat on, but as a user of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now a great resource for looking up mathematical information. However, stubby mathematics articles would be so much more useful if they provided references (preferably online) to sources which fill in the gaps. Clicking on an article and finding inadequate content with no references is a depressing experience. Geometry guy 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not focus on what part of WikiProject Math is more important. It seems that our overall conclusion is that there aren't enough editors that possess all of the following traits: (1) have the knowledge/ability to help, (2) are willing to put information on Wikipedia, and (3) are concerned with the organization, procedures, and conventions of Wikipedia. (I fail number 1.) Hmm... this problem is not easily solved. I guess it's just like Geometry guy said; we can only do as much as we can, and there's really nothing that can be done to drastically improve the situation. Leon math ( talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This complex clothoid/Euler spiral is used everyday, being used in roads and on railways to blend together curves of differing radii (or straight sections). An editor recently has introduced a large amount of new material in the form of including PDF page screen shots into the article (rather than TeX notation). I have copied this material to User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve for their improvement, but it would be useful to have some wider review of what is appropriate (the 8-page proof is perhaps more than necessary for a Wikipedia article).
Track transition curve, User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve, Talk:Track transition curve#Formulation of Euler spiral. — Sladen ( talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This category, and its two current inhabitants, Classical Hamiltonian quaternions and The vector of a quaternion, should in my opinion be transwikied to WikiBooks. I feel that these are both needless and unsanctioned content forks of quaternions. They seem to be filled with the personal opinion and original research of the author, and are rather poorly written. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Came across invariants of tensors and noticed that it currently focuses exclusively on rank 2 tensors i.e. matrices. Matrix invariants are already covered at characteristic polynomial and related articles. Is there a more general article that could be written here about how determinant, trace etc. generalise to higher rank tensors, or is this a dead end ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor had earlier comment at the page Iowa class battleship that the two mathematical formulas in the paragraph below were actually the same:
That same year (1935), an empirical formula for predicting a ship's maximum speed was developed, based on scale-model studies in flumes of various hull forms and propellers. The formula used the length-to-speed ratio originally developed for 12-meter (39 ft) yachts:
and with additional research at the David Taylor Model Basin would later be redefined as:
- .
It quickly became apparent that propeller cavitation caused a drop in efficiency at speeds over 30 knots (56 km/h). Propeller design therefore took on new importance. [1] [A 1]
Sine I have failed four separate remedial level math classes at collage, and haven't passed a math class with a grade better than C- since seventh grade, I was wondering if someone from this project could independently verify that the two formulas are in fact the same. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
...is working again. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at this:
In "displayed" TeX, I'd write the digamma function as
or in some contexts like this:
I don't want to change an "inline" thing to TeX, since that causes comical mismatches of size and alignment, but the "prime" is barely visible. Is there a better, more legible, way to write a "prime" in non-TeX notation, and if not, can one be created? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how this article ever got to GA (luckliy it was demoted). I am starting a rewrite now; any help there would be appreciated (in particular, a good lede is necessary). -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Go to modulo and click on "what links here".
In the modular arithmetic article, 63 and 53 are congruent to each other modulo 10.
In the modulo operation article, "modulo" is a binary operation and (63 modulo 10) = 3.
The modulo article is far more general than just arithmetic.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got the book a a preset a very pleased I am too with it. Of course I immediately dipped into he centre and also started looked up things I know about in the index. Very interesting. I didn't find much or anything about the things I thought of which indicates if it really was comprehensive it would be a bookcase of books - it is pretty huge as it is. I seem also to have been corrupted by Wikipedia, I kept thinking I should edit this to add wikilinks and better citations. Where it differs from WP mainly is it is much more chatty and readable with things like "Why should nonequivalence be harder to prove than equivalence? The answer is that in order to show....", or "For fun, one might ask a fussier question:". On further references it can say things like "For further details n sections 1-4 the reader is referred to standard textbooks such as ...". I can thoroughly recommend the book.
The book has a small section in its introduction on "What Does The Companion Offer That the Internet Does Not Offer?" (I feel like quoting WP:STYLE about the capitalization!) and I have to agree with what it says: that the internet is hit and miss, sometimes there's a good explanation sometimes not. The articles are drier just concerned with giving he facts in an economical way and not reflecting on those facts. And it doesn't have long essays on the fundamentals and origins, the various branches , biographies of mathematicians and the influence of mathematics. Not that I agree with all that, basically I think what it amounts to is one wouldn't make oneself comfortable, get a cup of coffee and curl up to read the articles in wikipedia. The book has a problem with that too as it is so heavy but otherwise it is a far better read overall.
Does a book like this have lessons for us? Should WP style be a bit more chatty? Or should we be dry and economical and just inhabit a different domain from books like this? Dmcq ( talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently created Category:Additive number theory and I'd like help/feedback.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I am seriously concerned about the article on manifolds. First of all, it seems (from an uninvolved user's point of view) that a group of people rejected this article from becoming featured simply because they couldn't understand this. I am glad at least that it was rejected but there should seriously be some restrictions on the people who vote (some people seem to think that if they can't understand it, no-one else can) (if anyone has the time, just have a read through the article). But here is a specific section (the article is never going to be featured at this rate):
Other curves
Manifolds need not be connected (all in "one piece"); an example is a pair of separate circles. They need not be closed; thus a line segment without its end points is a manifold.
And they are never countable; thus a parabola is a manifold.
Putting these freedoms together, two other examples of manifolds are a hyperbola (two open, infinite pieces) and the locus of points on the cubic curve y2 = x3−x (a closed loop piece and an open, infinite piece). However, we exclude examples like two touching circles that share a point to form a figure-8; at the shared point we cannot create a satisfactory chart. Even with the bending allowed by topology, the vicinity of the shared point looks like a "+", not a line (a + is not homeomorphic to a closed interval (line segment) since deleting the center point from the + gives a space with four components (i.e pieces) whereas deleting a point from a closed interval gives a space with at most two pieces; topological operations always preserve the number of pieces).
I can give (if necessary) similar criticizm of almost all other sections. Recently I re-wrote the lede: I would seriously consider re-writing the whole article and deleting some of the sections there. -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
, if not harmful. For example, removing reasonable content as per "delete nonsense section" is pretty bad.
I have reverted your recent edits. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I just did a minor edit to Cauchy principal value. After the edit, every line of TeX in the article looked like this:
I've seen this a number of times lately. It will probably go away soon, but just when is completely unpredictable. Why is this happening? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of (bolded red) parsing errors in this article, related - I think - to mathematical equations. Would someone more familiar with this area take a look? Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that these articles should be deleted: Topic outline of algebra, Topic outline of arithmetic, Topic outline of calculus, Topic outline of discrete mathematics, Topic outline of geometry, Topic outline of logic, Topic outline of mathematics, Topic outline of statistics, Topic outline of trigonometry. Charvest ( talk) 20:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that the portal is the ideal place for these pages. Martin 13:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the worst of these articles for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of algebra Charvest ( talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This question sometimes comes up and it bears answering as often as possible, since a lot of people have never heard that we should be using SVG, and of those who have, few seem to have an easy way of actually accomplishing it. This is addressed at Help:Displaying a formula#Convert to SVG, but their proposed solution relies on a somewhat arcane and arbitrary invocation of two different utilities, followed by a roundabout filtration through two major software packages, which is necessitated by one of them (pstoedit) requiring a costly proprietary plugin to work properly. And the end result is still unusable if your diagram has diagonal lines. Here's the right way:
pdflatex file.tex pdfcrop --clip file.pdf tmp.pdf pdf2svg tmp.pdf file.svg (rm tmp.pdf at the end)
Both pdfcrop and pdf2svg are small, free (if new and somewhat alpha) programs that work properly. I advocate pdflatex since with the alternative, you might be tempted to go the route of latex→dvips→pstopdf before vectorizing, and that runs into a problem with fonts that has to be corrected with one of the arcane invocations above. (There is a correct route, which is to replace that chain with dvipdfm, that I have never seen anyone suggest. Somehow, the existence of this useful one-step solution to getting PDFs from plain latex is always ignored.)
I have proposed at the talk page of that Help article that this procedure replace the existing one. It has been road-tested on, most notably (for the complexity of its images) Triangulated category and found to work quite well. Since the interested parties hang out here more than there, I'm soliciting feedback from whatever TeXperts and hackers might be lurking. Ryan Reich ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Since writing this, I have investigated Inkscape's internals and found that the following pstoedit invocation is also good:
pstoedit -f plot-svg -dt -ssp tmp.pdf tile.svg
It also makes smaller SVG files, sometimes (with the large ones) by quite a bit. This invokes the GNU libplot, and I cannot decide whether this piece of imperfect software is preferable to the one which is pdf2svg; let it be your call if you use it. Ryan Reich ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
...except that it couldn't make a nice SVG out of the pictures now at Cone (category theory), whereas pdf2svg could. I don't think I can really recommend pstoedit for this task. Ryan Reich ( talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Negative and non-negative numbers. Katzmik ( talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have an preferrably an illustration (or an idea for one) to illustrate the concept of vector space? I'd like to nominate that article for FA soon, but I feel without a good lead section image it's only half as beautiful. Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics categories which is used as worklist by mathbot to fill in the list of mathematics categories.
Question: can this list of categories be also useful to Wikipedia readers, after some formatting changes or prettifying perhaps? Then we could move it to the article namespace, at list of mathematics categories, and treat it in the same way as the other mathematics topics. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Krull–Schmidt theorem with {{ db-histmerge}}, since there was a WP:CUTPASTE move done to it. The ndash article has no new (relevant) history to it, all of the history is in the hyphen article, which is now a redirect. Can an admin fix this? JackSchmidt ( talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Grey relational analysis? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Gauss–Jacobi mechanical quadrature is vaguely written. In particular, what does the function pn(x) have to do with the statement that follows it? Could someone who knows the answer to these questions clarify by editing the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_module_category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.181.225 ( talk) 12:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As usual vandals are up to no good at geometry. Having scanned through the editing history for 2008, it appears that vandals were at the peak during mid year; their activity lowest around December. But since January they are back for more. I am worried about this article because everyone knows what geometry is and at least one tenth of people who come across this article are out to vandalize. So this article is never going to be safe against vandalizm. Instead of wasting our times reverting edits there every hour of the day (that article will probably fill up 80% of anyone's watchlist), can we take some action? -- PS T 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on vector spaces is up for featured article nomination. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in comments as to the appropriateness of the following comment by Gandalf61:
Katzmik, we all know where this is going. You want to bang your non-standard calculus drum and assert calculus could be taught without the concept of limits and so they can't be central to calculus. And you could be right - in theory. However, in practice, limits play a central role in the field of calculus as it is taught and used by most mathematicians, and most mathematicians would be happy with the first sentence of this article as it stands, and your contention that this is a misconception is a tiny minority view. Now you may say that is just my opinon. But if you are really interested in what the wider community thinks, then I suggest you go ahead and flag this discussion at WT:WPM. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(←) Hey cool, we find our way back to policy. "At each stage"? According to whom? And what interpretation of "stage"? "The only way" according to whom? "Intended model" according to whom?
No viewpoint has a right to hegemony or even undue influence on Wikipedia. There are plenty who believe that set-theoretic foundations and questions such as these are entirely the wrong approach, but there are others who dedicate their lives to resolving them. So we must try our best to keep our personal prejudices to one side, and report on what reliable sources say, with due weight. </boring> Geometry guy 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
These two articles are in an unsatisfactory state. They look as if they could probably be phrased in such a way that any mathematician could understand them. But the author seems to assume knowledge of some related topics that most mathematicians don't have, and seems to lack knowledge of some things that most mathematicians know. I doubt that the person who wrote these two article can do what needs to be done, and I could do it only with more work than I'm going to put into it today or this week. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I are an expert both in data structures and in topological graph theory, and I don't find the article very intelligible either. When I tried to read it I got the strong impression it referred to the same thing as a rotation system, one of the ways of encoding embedding graphs on two-manifolds, and I'm still pretty sure that's what the bulk of the article is about. But the author removed my {{ mergeto}} tag, assuring me it actually referred to higher dimensional things as well, as the "general definition" section claims but never clearly describes. As for "generalized map" it seems to be a copy of only that section, making the signal-to-noise ratio even worse. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new page titled List of topics named after Bernhard Riemann. It is of course incomplete. Please help expand it by doing two things:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
World Mathematics Challenge is up for deletion as a possible hoax. Ben Mac Dui 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Complex argument (continued fraction) and Talk:Complex argument (continued fraction). A "prod" tag proposes deletion. The article is very clearly and cleanly written and that's quite unusual for dubious material. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Did the continued fraction get merged into some other article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Carol number has been nominated for deletion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What should we make of Richard's principle? Someone has proposed deleting it as "original research". The topic seems similar to (maybe even the same as?) that treated in the article titled impredicativity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, so is this actually related to the stuff at impredicativity? I think that latter article could certainly be expanded, but I'm not up on that stuff. I remember that Paul Cohen found some things to say about impredicativity in his lecture-notes book called Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, but it's been a long time since I looked at that. Cohen thought impredicativity had some implications for set theory, but I seem to recall he was somewhat non-committal about its ultimate consequences. Does predicativity really mean Cantor's arguments don't work (I doubt it)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Maximum spacing estimation has been nominated for A-class. Interested parties please leave comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation.
Also, A-class review is still ongoing for Riemann hypothesis. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Riemann hypothesis. It might need to be closed as a "no pass" but I think it's still possible to improve it in a short time. -- C S ( talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This year, the Riemann hypothesis will mark its 150th birthday. I think it is one of the problems that has gained some wider (i.e., beyond maths) spread, so it would be cool to get it featured. The original paper was published in November 1859, so if we make it, we could argue that it be displayed at the main page. Who is willing to join in into that effort? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Boubaker polynomials. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard's principle. -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know many of you might question my sanity because of this, but I've been trying to explain the difference between conditional and unconditional probability to a user on the talk page for the Monty Hall problem. I don't know if it might be helpful, but could as many folks from this project as possible please make some sort of comment in the thread at talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean, Talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection. No wonder if you are tired! I admire your work and patience. I am never able to make a discussion longer than 3-4 exchanges. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
But take it easy (and avoid the carpal tunnel syndrome!). Sometimes we fail to convince an editor, and resolve the conflict otherwise. That is the life, especially in Wikipedia. I am an expert in probability, but do not think it helps to convince... Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have notice that many math related articles have little to no referencing. Therefore, I wanted to know if you had any policies or guidelines concerning referencing and citing information in math related articles, and, if not, would people be interested in developing one? kilbad ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Monty Hall Problem talk page I have been documenting what I believe is an Ownership violation by Rick Block.
Viewed by themselves, I think Rick's edits today are indicative of such a problem. Glkanter ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Glkanter has taken a look at the responses and decided they verify his accusations of ownership (he wrote "All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!") If you are interested in your response not being misused, I suggest leaving a comment on the MHP talk page. I left a comment in the most recent section created by Glkanter, "WP:Ownership Allegation Update." -- C S ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
In hopes of ending a continuing series of arguments at talk:Monty Hall problem, I am proposing adding additional text to the article, perhaps in a new section, please see Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or unconditional, once again. I know the problem is of little mathematical interest being essentially trivial. However, as this is one of only 23 Featured Articles about mathematical topics I would hope several folks from this WikiProject could take a few moments to express an opinion about this proposed addition. Thank you very much. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who have participated in the recent AfD that has been so polluted with false statements by sock puppets, can I ask that you look at the list of references on the AfD's talk page once again. I (and a few others) have tried to clean them up to the point that verifying enough of them is trivial.
Combining these two yields that the mathematical concept (not the scholar) has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and so should be presumed notable.
Obviously, each of you should make up their own mind if the concept really meets wikipedia's notability criteria, but I think many of us have been tricked into not even reading over the references. The ones with DOIs on the talk page are almost all "good". JackSchmidt ( talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
user:Jim.belk has proposed merging generalised circle into inversive geometry. I have the impression the material now there may have been taken entirely from Hans Schwerdtfeger's book. I don't know why the word "generalised" is used, so if it doesn't get merged, maybe the title should be changed, although I'm not sure what to change it to. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
....and now I find this page: User:Paul Murray/Geometry of Complex Numbers. This appears to be a draft of an expansion of the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran across this template, Template:Math2english, on Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion. If the laws didn't have English equivalents included in the article), I would understand the purpose of it, but as the article stands with the template, I'm at a loss to see how something like
is supposed to be translated into English beneficially or have a picture. Has anyone seen this template before? It is not mentioned on Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible. The addition of this template to an article also has the side-effect of adding it to category: technical and circumventing the explicit instructions at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible to leave an explanation. -- C S ( talk) 03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible/Archive 1, it looks like this template was once mentioned in WP:Make technical articles accessible but was removed because it was stupid. Algebraist 08:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you chaps and chapettes please take a look at the intro to this article and tidy it, so it at least states that it's discussing maths (as opposed to a game that is continuous, like some kind of eternal Timeless Test or marriage).
I note also that the link to discrete game points to Game Theory. Perhaps it could have its own article?
Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a few proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions, the latest one being two months old. Unless someone protests I am going to promote them by moving them downwards. I think the page is still quite incomplete, and it would be nice to have some new proposals and overall more activity on the page. Last year there were only 5 edits to the page and 3 to the talk page! -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
At power of a point I've been seeing this for the past hour or so:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait! This is a problem. Over the last 48 hours, this has been happening with unusual frequency. I've just run into several cases today, and I found another user complaining of it on a talk page within the past few hours.
Purging the server cache works, but it's suddenly needing to be done with unusual frequency. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help out with this article? I am working on wikifying articles and this one is tagged for wikification. It currently has no lead. Also I think the title has to be changed, to avoid the slash. Would Proofs of theorems relating to connected space make sense? Someone who knows a bit about topology and is used to editing maths articles could probably sort it all out quite quickly. Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think these pages are part of the "article proofs" project, with the aim of including proofs of all the claims that are made in the corresponding main article. I don't have any strong opinion about them, but I agree that they are not independent articles. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or you also see the difference between
what's about
( Igny ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
\Longrightarrow
on my own LaTeX installation it's not ugly like the above.
Ozob (
talk)
02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)user:Wikid77 has been "fixing" various TeX displays to allow articles to fit windows of certain sizes, and he has no understanding of the conventions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) for non-TeX mathematical notation, and also doesn't seem to understand the effects of what he's doing—how to get math displays to look the way he intends (e.g. he seems to do some attempts at spacing that don't work). In one case, logarithmic distribution, I entirely undid his work but then changed the display into two lines by using "align" within TeX, in the hope that that would address whatever his concern was. How shall we try to help him? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
TeX does allow line-breaking by use of the "align" environment. That's what I did with logarithmic distribution. I don't know if that addresses "Wikid77"'s concerns or not. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math> <math>\displaystyle A + 9</math>
s, that is, HTML non-breaking spaces. This produces slightly uneven spacing: Compare the first line, which has no line break, to the second, which uses Wikid77's method: (You may have to get really close to your screen to see this)
<math>\displaystyle X + Y = A +</math> <math>\displaystyle 9</math>
. I don't think Wikid77 has considered this problem. (After all, breaking along a binary operator is usually less desirable than breaking along an equals sign or inequality anyway.) I'm going to leave another reply on his talk page; but he doesn't seem to listen to objections very well.
Ozob (
talk)
13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I've just created the article titled Radius-invariance of the volume of a band around a sphere, about a bit of folklore in elementary geometry. Sometimes the proof of this is assigned as an exercise in sophomore calculus.
Concerns:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
On a related topic, don't they teach geometry in high school any more? Our article titled sphere derives the volume of the sphere only by calculating integrals. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was recently looking at Fundamental theorem of calculus, and I again was asking myself how appropriate proofs are on wikipedia. The two proofs in this page (in my opinion)
But I feel that this is an increasing trend with pages on wikipedia. Even after reading the looking at the MOS I am left with the following questions. When do we include proofs? (Some pages need them, for example 0.999...) How many proofs? (Some pages that I feel don't really need any proof have multiple proofs)? Do proofs blur the boundary between wikipedia and wikibooks? (Some pages are in fact only a proof.)
Overall, I was just curious to hear other peoples thoughts on the subject. Thenub314 ( talk) 09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted for lack of an assertion of notabilityat 18:34 on 4 November 2007 by user:Sandahl. Should we rewrite the article, making the assertion of notability clear, and then restore the edit history? Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Inertia tensor of triangle has been proposed for deletion via WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
An initiative has just been launched to try to breathe more life and kudos into A-Class and A-Class review activities. Project members are warmly invited to participate. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group. Geometry guy 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed four or five new articles today from the same contributor on the topic of fast numerical algorithms, especially classical 18th century work. The content is reasonably high quality and contributed in both English and Russian, but the wiki style and wiki integration is poor. I tried to fix some things, but probably this could use some more help, especially from people who can link to these articles from our existing relevant articles or even just merge them into topically identical existing articles:
If anyone is comfortable editing in Russian, I think some of the same issues are in the Russian versions. I suspect English is not the new contributor's native language, but the English in the articles is usually good. JackSchmidt ( talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an old A-class article, one that attained its rating before the system went into effect. The nomination is here. I went through and fixed what I thought were the biggest issues: lack of citations, some errors, and just cruft. More eyes would be helpful. -- C S ( talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a cfd for Category:Second wranglers currently going on here. Some informed views would be useful. Occuli ( talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is weird. This was an article about an Australian combinatorialist, who is not the same person as the American mathematical physicist at the University of Toledo, who was born in Connecticut. A couple of edits earlier, someone added the "University of Toledo" category, although the Australian mathematician was never affiliated with that institution. Then this edit changed the article to be about a different person. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
and Geoffrey Martin (American mathematician). Charvest ( talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But the deletion discussions should be separate. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about some possible plagiarism by
Lantonov (
talk ·
contribs) at
WP:ANI#Plagiarist caught red-handed and refusing to cooperate. Among his contributions are some math articles:
Hewitt–Savage zero-one law,
Rook polynomial,
Projective geometry,
Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace,
Hölder's inequality,
Curvilinear coordinates,
Pseudotensor and maybe others (I didn't go back through his whole edit history). It may be worthwhile for some project participants to check whether there are any problems with his additions to these articles. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article " History of quaternions" for deletion. The discussion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of quaternions. -- A. di M. ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also appreciate more eyes on Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. It begins with a summary of Hamilton's own notation, which may well be sound, but continues into the same Quaternions Good, Vector Analysis Bad, as the article considered for deletion (it wasn't, but I redirected it - this may or may not hold). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the link "Show new selections" on the mathematics project page good for? It links to the same site, but with an "action=purge" attached. Ringspectrum ( talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
We finally have an article titled Cavalieri's principle. Happy editing! Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, it now redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The vector of a quaternion has been sitting there for months. The article has obvious issues in regard to some of the usual Wikipedia conventions. Maybe it has other issues too. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Another new article for elementary geometry buffs to work on: Lune of Hippocrates. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your collective comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Using scriptstyle to make in-line symbols "fit". Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is anybody knowledgeable in infinite matrices? In matrix (mathematics), I wrote a little section on that, but that may all well be POV, so I'm trying to find a good source for this topic. Who knows a book/book chapter on infinite matrices? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to mention — User:76.120.151.113 has been going through the polyhedron articles and changing every number-word (such as "one") to a numeral, as well as adding some strange alternate names such as "Heptagonal Deltahedron" for the triaugmented triangular prism. Can something be done? Should something be done? Am I getting over-excited about a petty matter of style? — Tamfang ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Boubaker's polynomials (again) — it appears the same sockpuppets behind the mess in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) are back, again attempting to game Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) by inserting language implying that mentions of a sequence in unreliable web sources such as OEIS and PlanetMath is relevant to judging the notability of the subject here. In this diff, the editor in question asserts that ”Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd, Popo le Chien and Asenine” are all in favor of the change (how the group in favor can include at least one bot is beyond me). The two socks in question have also made a number of edits to math articles but when I checked all were at the level of harmless punctuation changes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Some blocks and WP:Numbers has been semi-protected. I think that resolves it. -- C S ( talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking of bringing the Euclidean algorithm to Good Article level. The topic seems small enough to be feasible, but has wide applications; it might make a good "cornerstone" article from which readers might begin to understand more advanced topics, especially in algebra. I was thinking of organizing the topic stepwise, beginning with integers (which many non-mathematical readers will understand) and advancing gradually to rationals, reals, polynomials, quadratic fields and then to general Euclidean domains. We might add applications such as some factorization algorithms and Sturm chains, and some generalizations such as Gröbner bases. If anyone wants to help, I'd appreciate it; thank you! Proteins ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was careless in using the term "quadratic field"; I meant the ring of quadratic integers.
I'm glad you agree that the EA is an important article to be improved, and I hope that you'll contribute. I'm afraid you'll have to expect a few mistakes from me, since I'm not a mathematician, and I'm just beginning to think through the topic. If you can be patient with my mistakes, I'll be patient with your corrections. ;) More generally, I'll be grateful for the help of anyone at this WikiProject in bringing the article to GA. Proteins ( talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been raised in an AfD here that this article could do with an expert eye so I am asking for an editor to give it the once over thanks. BigDunc Talk 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Dyson's transform has been tagged for deletion 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, I know that the Simple English Wikipedia does not have a good standing with many EnWP editors; I just tried to make the article on the Riemann hypothesis (on Simple) better, but I am not from hard-line, pure mathematics (but applied maths). Anyway, we would like to welcome any editors wanting to help us with mathematics-related topics. -- Eptalon ( talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Mathematics}} is broken after a recent bot update. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could have a look at this cfd. There is some abuse of notation involved in the category structure – putting a category C at the bottom of an article X means 'X is a member of C'; putting a category C at the bottom of a category D usually means 'D is a subcategory of C'. However when we put A = Category:Categories named after criminals at the bottom of B = Category:Al Capone the meaning can only be 'B is a member of A' (not 'B is a subcat of A'). Of course I may be wrong about this and if so perhaps someone could explain my error to me. Occuli ( talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Knot theory has been nominated for Featured Article. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Knot_theory. -- C S ( talk) 10:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me with this Talk:Wedderburn's little theorem, please? Ringspectrum ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The unmistakable behavioural patterns of Katsushi in Riemann hypothesis, as well as the choice of the topic, makes me believe that the user is a sockpuppet of our friend User:WAREL. Shall we do something about it? — Emil J. 12:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Some editors are under the impression that Warel is a banned user. This doesn't seem to be the case (although I had thought so too). -- C S ( talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but this blog post (from the maintainer of the polymath wiki) concerning an automated tool for converting LaTeX-formatted documents to wiki-formatting looks like it could be of interest to editors here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"if the perfect image (image under a perfect map) of a certain space X is connected, then X must be connected." A counterexample is given in Examples and properties, 6.
Does anyone know if the statement becomes true if we add "the preimage of every point of Y is connected" (or something like that) as a hypothesis? Ringspectrum ( talk) 06:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for Constructivism (mathematics) I wrote:
This little enterprise might be of interest to folks not orbiting the constructive maths-think bubble. All help appreciated. It's probably best to reply on Talk:Constructivism (mathematics) — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an attempt to introduce mathematical jargon into the first line of our A-class article Manifold. Please, comment at Talk:Manifold. Arcfrk ( talk) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the question I raised at talk:Donsker's theorem? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at the way this article appeared BEFORE this edit. Someone intended a period at the end of the "displayed" TeX, which consisted of several lines in the "align" environment. The period was OUTSIDE of the <math> tags, and was slightly above one of the lines in the MIDDLE! Moral: TeX on Wikipedia doesn't work like TeX in NORMAL use. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember an attempt -- quite successful, IMO -- to bring an article with more involved mathematics, namely homotopy groups of spheres, to a decent (GA) standard. I'd like to propose another such collaboration, and would be glad if many people join in. The topic I propose is duality (this is waiting as a COTM, too), so something (m)any of you will have encountered, but it looks like a subject where having contributors from many mathematical backgrounds is highly beneficial (more so than as usual). Who is willing to join in? I think a reasonable aim would be Good Article level. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why Jitse's bot hasn't been picking this one up for the current activity page, but: Panos Papasoglu, an article on a Greek geometric group theorist, has been up for deletion for a few days now already. There's still time to comment before it closes, but probably not for much longer. Discussion is here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb has been prodded for deletion . 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 06:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the end of 2008 I have found the List of probability topics in a somewhat neglected state; see Talk:List_of_probability_topics#A:_Articles_missing_from_the_List_of_probability_topics and Talk:List_of_probability_topics#Organize_the_list. I tried taking care of it, but was still unhappy. Thus, in December 2008 I have created a new version named Catalog of articles in probability theory. Just look on both and see the difference. It was suggested once (in December 2008) to merge the new list into the old one, but this did not happen, still.
It seems clear to me that this new experimental format has some advantages (at least in this case); however, it has an important drawback: it is computer-assisted, thus, it should not be edited manually. Instead, one should edit its source (for now, see User:Tsirel/Catalog source; ultimately it should be "Talk:Catalog_of_articles_in_probability_theory/Source") and call a bot that formats the source and rewrites the "Catalog". Such a program is written (see the source User:Tsirel/Bot code and parameters User:Tsirel/Bot parameters); for now, I run it myself. Ultimately it should be callable by anyone, similarly to the "mathbot" by Oleg Alexandrov, instrumental to both lists of probability articles, "traditional" and experimental (and to many other mathematical lists, of course). See also my exchange with Oleg Alexandrov User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov#Another_bot_needed?
Thus, I am asking approval of my new bot, CataBotTsirel, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CataBotTsirel. Naturally, the Bot Approvals Group is wondering whether WikiProject Mathematics finds my experiment interesting, or not. Your comments are welcome! Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 08:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is already approved for trial (7 days); I use it, see User talk:CataBotTsirel. You are welcome to edit the "Catalog", but indirectly, as explained in its lead. It may happen that you want edit some headings etc; in this case, edit User:Tsirel/Bot parameters (respecting the syntax). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is on trial for 7 more days. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please help with Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I am trying to use Wikipedia's strengths to make this a really useful article for the non-professional.-- Lagelspeil ( talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this issue could more readily be settled if an arithmetic geometer were available to comment on the article (rather than on the overall state of Wikipedia). Maybe User:RobHar? The article in question is worthy, and could use improvement on both the "high" and "low" ends. Acannas ( talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated Elegant Exponents for deletion. A couple of people on te discussion in WP:Articles for deletion/Elegant Exponents have talked about merging the useful content into exponentiaion. I don't think there is any useful content and wonder why a person expended effort on it in it first place, but I'm raising it here as stranger things than my being wrong have happened before now. Dmcq ( talk) 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Calculus on manifolds was until moments ago a redirect to differential geometry. I"ve changed it to a disambiguation page listing that and also differentiable manifold and Calculus on Manifolds (book). Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on supernatural numbers confuses two very separate notions (formal products of infinitely many primes, versus elements of nonstandard models of arithmetic). Not sure what is the best course of action. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Frequently_viewed/List is quite interesting, I think, but outdated by roughly a year. Could somebody update that list? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The article titled Frank Grosshans is
If you offer an opinion in the deletion discussion, don't just say Keep or Delete; also give your arguments. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Grosshans. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article titled Mollweide's formula, I wrote:
I wanted to link to solution of triangles or whatever the suitable title is, but we had no such article.
Why should there be such an article when we already have law of sines and law of cosines, and those two cover it all, and in addition we have law of tangents?
A new article just to link to all of those seems a bit like a disambiguation page, since the articles it links to are where the substantial material is.
But it seems to me there could be a dozen or so articles that refer to the concept of solution of triangles, where it would be appropriate to link to an article explaining what that is, so the new not-quite-disambiguation page should be there. And now it is. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute in the Curl (mathematics) article over the proper definition of the curl (see Talk:Curl (mathematics)#Definition of Curl). I imagine that an outside opinion would be helpful. Jim ( talk) 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2nd wranglers cfd has been closed as delete and the closer has declined an invitation to re-open. Perhaps someone would like to start a DRV on both the wranglers categories. The first was deleted on the argument '1. This is a valedictorian category. 2. We have deleted a valedictorian category (risible cfd). 3. So we must delete this one.' Occuli ( talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(break)
Ok, here are links to the various CfD and DRV discussions that I could find:
I also uncovered this discussion:
I can't help but wonder if the Tripos Wranglers category should have gone to DRV as well?
If no one here objects, I'll be WP:BOLD and point the soft redirects the other way so the bots will recategorize articles under Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Second Wranglers.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we really need to go through another round of discussion for a simple renaming. Is there any controversy about the capitalisation change? If not then an application of WP:IAR could be appropriate. Total number of articles is within the scope of WP:AWB so don't need to get bots involved. -- Salix ( talk): 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Now we just have to wait for the bots to recategorize the articles. Usually it only takes a day or two but sometimes it takes a little longer.
Tothwolf (
talk)
00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still hoping to interest the talented mathematicians here in improving the Euclidean algorithm article. I've had a few nibbles, but basically I've been alone in transforming this into this. Does anyone want to help significantly before I submit it to GAN, and thence to FAC? I've more that I want to add, of course, but a fellow editor or two would make it more fun. It's an important article, don't you agree?
It's wonderful to see that Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is getting attention, but please let me call your collective attention to Fermat's Last Theorem itself? It seems as though it could be improved significantly with relatively little effort from the people here. It's a rewarding article, since the problem is one of the most engrossing of the last four centuries, one that has inspired much of algebraic number theory (the current WPM collaboration) and captured the public's imagination. I'll be glad to work on it myself, in a few weeks, but as a biochemist, I feel poorly qualified, especially relative to the many mathematicians here. Proteins ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be delighted to help you as best I can with the knot theory article. By lucky coincidence, I have a little collection of knot-theory articles on proteins and nucleic acids. (I'm not sure whether anything has been published on polysaccharides.) Give me a few days to dig them up. And thank you for taking my unhappily critical comments about the FLT in the best possible way; I'll be happy to help in making FLT a good article, hopefully with your and others' help. Proteins ( talk) 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Misc. comment: Lagelspeil has been blocked as a returning banned user, so don't expect any further work from him/her on Wiles' proof of the FLT. -- C S ( talk) 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a view on the two new articles List of indefinite sums and List of indefinite products ? I have found some (minimal) sources that use the term "indefinite sum" to mean the inverse of the forward difference operator - enough for me to give this article the benefit of the doubt - and added them to the article. But I can't find any useful sources for the term "indefinite product", and I am beginning to wonder whether this is a neologism/OR. I have left a note on the author's talk page. Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "indefinite sum" seems self-explanatory, in view of the way the term "indefinite integral" is used. Just do for sums what "indefinite integral" does for integrals and that's it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I find maths very interesting, I am trying to understand many more complex aspects of maths and in my mind this is the best website to use. However, sometimes I feel you need a Masters degree in Calculus to understand many of the pages. Somehow even the most simple articles are turned into mind blowing formulae and all sorts of complicated explanations. On many articles, there are no examples that actually involve numbers to demonstrate somethings use. For example, I find functions hard to understand, I thought I had the grasp of it after reading a book so I came onto here and after reading I am now more confused. It's easy to forget this is an encylopaedia and sometimes behind all of the info there still needs to be a simple, easy to understand description. 95jb14 ( talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In general, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that a reader with no idea whatsoever about a topic can pick up an article in an encyclopedia and understand exactly what is going on. This has never been true in other encyclopedias, like Brittanica, and those have a much more elementary presentation than we do. it is not our role to provide numerous worked-out examples; even proofs should only be included when there is really encyclopedic interest in them.
Of course articles, like function (mathematics) should be written to be as accessible as possible – but not any more accessible than that. Readers should not expect wikipedia to replace a good textbook, because the role of any encyclopedia is to provide an overview for people who have a vague idea what is going on, and provide a reference for people who know a topic but need to check a particular fact. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The article Steven Roman has been tagged for speedy deletion if anyone wants to comment. Charvest ( talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
On a related subject, Yousef Alavi has been proposed for deletion. I'm not certain he passes WP:PROF, so I haven't unprodded his article myself, but others may want to take a look. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article and noticed it is missing a math ratings template. Thanks! momoricks (make my day) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been engaged with a bit of a dispute with Milo Gardner on Aliquot regarding whether his additions concerning Egyptian fractions are sufficiently relevant to include in the article. More eyes would be welcome. If there's discussion of the issue it should probably be on the talk page there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is he notable enough? He claimed that he invented shattering, which is not true. At best, he and his advisor were the first who used the term shattering in his PhD dissertation in 1975 in relation to the process defined by V&C 6 years earlier. Are there any other accomplishments which necessitate presence of the article about this mathematician? ( Igny ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm currently trying to write a good article on matrices. One of the still weak points is the history section. Does anybody know a good reference for this topic? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Try Matrices and determinants and Thomas Muir: History of determinants r.e.b. ( talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 11:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive my complete lack of familiarity with mathematics on Wikipedia, but the article Internal_-_Proof:_Orthogonality_of_Solutions_to_the_General_Sturm-Liouville_Equation looks like it could be deleted, even though it (looks to me like) it contains some salvageable information. Could someone more familiar with the area take a look? Cheers, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 16:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Polynomial recurrence has been prodded for deletion 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 06:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I spent 2 weeks searching the web, trying to find a proof of the orthogonality of Associated Legendre Functions for fixed m without success. So, working together with a theoretical physicst (retired) we developed one. Some of the proof relies on logic I found on the web and some we developed on our own. We would like to contribute this proof to the Associated Legendre Function wiki page (using a link to a separate page for the proof). It was suggested to me by RHaworth (who seems to be a Wikipedia administrator) that I work with an established editor on this. I am happy to do so. Please contact me if you are interested in working on this. Dnessett ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not proposing an original proof. The proof is an amalgamation of steps I found on the web, these fragments being hard to follow. The proof contains a reference to a book that is partially available on Google:books. The reason I am making this proposal is I am learning Quantum Mechanics (with the help of a Theoretical Physicist) and could not find anywhere on the web a proof that the Associated Legendre Functions for fixed m are orthogonal. This is stated on the Associated Legendre Function Wikipedia page, but it is not easy to demonstrate (there are a few calculus tricks that are non-obvious). So, providing a proof would help others who find themselves in the same position understand why these functions are orthogonal. A draft of the proposed proof is at: User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthogonality for fixed m. Dnessett ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about PlanetMath, but when I went to its web site and searched for "Associated Legendre Function" I found nothing (there was some material on Legendre Polynomials, but they are a limited subset of Associated Legendre Functions). There is a Wikipedia article on Associated Legendre Functions and it would seem to me appropriate to provide a subpage of that article that proves the orthogonality of those functions (right now it is just stated). These functions are components of Spherical Harmonics, which are used extensively in the solutions of differential equations expressed in spherical coordinates. Speaking from personal experience, I found it hard to accept by fiat that the Associated Legendre Functions are orthogonal. So, I would argue that others who are investigating subjects that use these functions would find a proof of orthogonality beneficial. Dnessett ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For those who may be interested, a first draft of the proposed proof page is found at User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthogonality for fixed m Dnessett ( talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) [Sorry, I already stated this above. I'm not sure what is the proper etiquette here. Should I remove this redundant comment or leave it, since it is part of the historical record?] Dnessett ( talk) 19:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that the proposed proof not only shows orthogonality of the Associated Legendre Functions, but also provides the normalization constant. Consequently, I have created a new page User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthonormality for fixed m that is properly labeled. The old page will remain, but all my future work on the proposal will occur on the new page. Dnessett ( talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat connected to the previous section. There are many honorable titles in academics of various degrees. I wonder which are worthy of inclusion here. In my personal opinion, many of these titles should not be notable enough. In fact, from the experience of people who I know, earning the title is akin to becoming a member of an elite club, not quite notable enough on its own merit. In many cases it says more about the person as a politician rather than as an academician. I am talking about various named professorships, distinguished professors, etc. How about professors who gained other types of recognition/ achievements, like publishing 100+ papers, or 10+ books, or getting a million dollar grant? Where should we draw the line? What do you think? ( Igny ( talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I personally haven't met any titled math professors that seem to have achieved their distinction from politics. Rather, I see a number of such people who generally avoid politics and have hefty mathematical reputations. I'd like to know if Igny's assertions are based on either plentiful experience, academic studies, or perhaps s/he has experience in other subjects and certain countries. -- C S ( talk) 23:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Igny's comment. I strongly believe that developing a set of meaningful criteria for inclusion of living mathematicians into Wikipedia is a serious issue that we need to discuss at length. Refering to WP:PROF is a non sequitur. We need to come up with guidelines, or better yet, clear criteria that are suitable specifically for mathematicians, that are consistent with Wikipedia's mission, and that make sense from the practical point of view. So far I mostly see a knee-jerk reaction on a part of a few people ("who are you to question professional merit of my peers"?), which is off the mark, with some overtones of inclusionism, and only occasional rational arguments. I personally prefer to err on the side of caution and not create articles unless there is a good reason to do so (it's not a secret that removing material from WP is harder than adding it, and that many reasonable AfDs fail in the face of entrenched resistance of only a few persons or due to general apathy). Further, it would be nice if we can reach consensus on the kinds of information that should and should not be included into the math biographies.
I will list some things to consider in developing the criteria, and I hope that more than the usual two or three people will contribute their perspectives. Arcfrk ( talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Artinian ideal has been proposed for deletion via a "prod" tag. It gets 30 hits in google books and 78 hits in google scholar. I have qualms about its deletion because Wikipedia's coverage tends to be broad. But algebra is not my field.
I added the identification of the eponym as Emil Artin. Is it possible that it's actually Michael Artin? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Should this article exist? Is this a common name for this theorem? Jim ( talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. Does anyone think having an infobox in a math article is a good idea? What I have in mind is something like this (see right):
Technical level | Undergraduate |
---|---|
Commutative? | Yes |
noetherian? | Yes |
Domain? | Yes. (Dedekind) |
Dimension | ≤ 1 |
Examples | Field, Polynomial ring in one variable, Set of integers |
Generalizes | Euclidean domain |
Special case of | UFD, Bézout domain |
R[X] | UFD |
If localized | Discrete valuation ring |
Applications | Finitely generated modules over a PID |
(This is something I prepared for the purpose of the discussion, so the details are not my concern right now.) If there was a similar proposal before, I'm not aware of it.
Part of the reason I'm proposing this is that I think infoboxs are inherently more accurate than those chains of rings we have in some articles; e.g., one in principal ideal domain article. I understand the motivation behind those chains: to put a topic in a large context. I believe infoboxs can do a better job. -- Taku ( talk) 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify a few things first. I never meant to suggest we replace text by infoboxes. (I though that was obvious...) I never said the lede of the PID article has a problem, and my infobox idea is going to solve it. All I meant was that an infobox is probably a better idea than a chain of rings currently we have. I never meant to claim infoboxes are "inherently" superior forms of describing math. I agree that an infobox cannot convey some important subtlety, which text can provide better. But that's basically the point of an infobox. While the article can discuss a topic in depth, infobox can provide a summary of the article; they work complementary to each other. I also don't believe math is best communicated via prose. Why do you, for example, put examples in bullet points on a white board when you teach a class? Because, apparently, sometimes leaving some technical details out help students remember essential points. infoboxes duplicate information, but that's exactly the point: putting the same information in different forms help readers digest information. I think this is why infoboxes are popular throughout Wikipedia. We are in bussiness of conveying information after all and we seek to maximize the effectiveness.
As to "technical level" section in my muck-up, I thought that's important because, often, math articles are often accused of not clearly specifying the background necessary to understand them. It is inevitable that some math articles are simply unreadable without proper prior-training. Also, it is important that an article clearly states if the topic that the article discusses is of interest only to researchers or something every math major learns in college. Of course, "technical level" isn't a good way to do. A possible alternative would be "prerequisite". Does anyone have suggestion? -- Taku ( talk) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. I didn't propose to put an infobox that exactly looks like one I put above to every math article. No. Obviously, not every math article needs an infobox, and each article needs a different kind of infobox. The one above should be called "Template:Infobox ring" or something and should be put to articles on rings or rings-like structures. I was interested how people feel about infoboxes in math articles in general, not specific one above. If "prerequisites" is not a good idea, then that's ok. As I said above, I only made that mock-up to generate discussion about infobox. The details could be worked out later if people are for infoboxes. -- Taku ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My general feeling is that infoboxes are a very bulky way of conveying very little information, and that they discourage editors from putting the same information in a more readable form into the prose of the article. Also, when placed prominently in an article they get in the way of illustrations. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have anything in particular against Taku's infobox over other infoboxes...but to echo Paul's comment: I have never seen an infobox in an article improve the article. Articles on chemical elements is an interesting example and one I may be easily persuaded are useful. However, looking at the cluttered infobox in carbon, I wonder how useful it really is. -- C S ( talk) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Shreevatsa made a good point; I was completely unaware of infoboxes in probability articles (probably because I don't edit them.) This led me to believe that I didn't start the thread with a right question. Let me ask a slightly different question. Does anyone can think of any math articles that can be benefited from having infoboxes? In particular, do you think ring articles (e.g., PID, UFD, Bezout domain, GCD domain, ...) can use infoboxes to improve the convenience of readers? -- Taku ( talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The page Talk:Method of lines says it is a copyio. Charvest ( talk) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
For practice with templates, I rewrote a calculus template that was collapsible and that you can have open to the correct category. I did add some articles as well to help from a physics perspective. (Being collapsible, the space issue is diminished quite a bit.) I stole the autocollapse mechanism from Template:PhysicsNavigation but I tried to keep the calculus style.
If there is no objections, I am likely to replace this current calculus template with the one I rewrote soon. I don't know enough about the math projects style to push the button without some warning, though. TStein ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Motomuku, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WAREL, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WAREL, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_47#WAREL/DYLAN LENNON. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Valya algebra and Commutant-associative algebra — both created by a single purpose account (no other substantive edits), appeared to be hoaxes at the first glance, since I'd never heard these terms before. After investigating a bit, I found out the following.
I strongly suspect that the other books quoted (e.g. Malcev) contain nothing on the subject and have only been put in in order to lend an air of legitimacy to the topic. The terms appear to have been used by a single author (and possibly, only on a single occasion); as such, I would think that they are not notable, in spite of having appeared in an established (non-mathematical) journal. It is entirely possible that these articles were created with a purpose of promoting a fringe topic. Whether or not that is the case, what would be an appropriate course of action? What are the specific policies that these articles violate that can be quoted in filing AfD? Arcfrk ( talk) 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose to add a subpage to the Sturm-Liouville namespace that proves solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation corresponding to distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal. I am asking for help from an editor who works on this namespace to work with me on this. The proposed proof is found at Orthogonality proof. To avoid unnecessary suggestions, let me state that this proof is not original research and there does not seem to be consensus whether proofs belong on Wikipedia or not. On the latter issue, I have contacted established editors asking for their views, but have not yet received a response. If I do not hear from anyone by next week, I will just add the subpage and see what happens. Dnessett ( talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and so am being somewhat cautious in adding pages to the main Wikipedia namespace. It was earlier suggested (when I made a mistake that placed an unwelcomed page in the main namespace, see [ Internal?]) that I work with an established editor of the Sturm-Liouville namespace. I have attempted to do this, but no one has stepped forward. Dnessett ( talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
After rereading your question, I now realize I didn't understand it on first reading. I am proposing a subpage so that readers uninterested in a detailed proof need not wade through significant text in order to get to the next point. Dnessett ( talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Value: I and another collaborator were motivated to add this proof when I spent two weeks searching the web looking for a proof that Associated Legendre Functions are orthonormal. I failed to find anything except a Google Books excerpt that made significant jumps in logic. When I contacted my collaborator (a Theoretical Physicist helping me to learn Quantum mechanics), he showed me how the orthogonality of these functions follows from the fact that they are solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation. He then explained why solutions with distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal and noted that this information was also missing on the web. So, we decided to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Effectiveness of sketch: The sketch might be effective for someone experienced with Sturm-Liouville equations, but for me it was not. I expect other students also would have trouble following the sketch. Better explanation: I am open to doing this, although the sketch in the main article serves that purpose. Why would you repeat that in the subpage? Dnessett ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The situation is this. I (and others, for example, see physics forum discussion, although that discussion is about the sub problem of Legendre polynomials) have found it difficult to understand why the Associated Legendre Functions are orthonormal. This can be shown directly or by noting they are solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation, which solutions are orthogonal if they have distinct eigenvalues (which then only demonstrates orthogonality, not orthonormality). The proof of the orthogonality of solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation is non-obvious, even when sketched as it is in the main article. Is it the role of Wikipedia to help people understand the fundamentals of a theory? I don't know. I only know that when I searched for some help on the web, nothing useful showed up. So, if it is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that this doesn't belong here, fine. I will try to find somewhere else to put it. However, I am not sure how an understanding of consensus is developed. So far, only a couple of editors have responded to this proposal. Would someone give me some guidance on the criteria I should use to simply give up on Wikipedia and go elsewhere? Dnessett ( talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New Thought: After some thought, I wonder if the following would satisfy your objection. As I understand it, you are uncomfortable with articles that are not self-contained. How about creating a section at the bottom of the Sturm–Liouville theory page that contains the proof. This keeps the proof with the material with which it is associated (so there is no problem with self-containment), but it also doesn't disturb the flow of the reader who isn't interested in the detailed proof. A link to the bottom of the page where the proof resides could be put into the main article. Would this answer your objection? Dnessett ( talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You make a legitimate point, but your general argument applies to all Mathematical articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Mathematical articles are not supposed to contain original research. They are summaries of knowledge already existing in textbooks, papers and other written sources. So, by your criterion all Wikipedia Mathematical (perhaps all Wikipedia) articles would be unnecessary. Also, let me point out that the proof is a summary of that given in the reference at the bottom of the proposal page. That source provides the explicit proof and does not simply state that orthogonality follows from the two properties you note. Dnessett ( talk) 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think your argument that: "Each one is separately available in many textbooks..." applies to just about everything on Wikipedia, but leave that aside for the moment. The reason for not dividing the proof into two parts, as you suggest, is it moves the reader away from the main concern. It requires the reader to suspend his/her interest in why solutions are orthogonal and take up the higher level issue of symmetric operators and their properties. Of course, in the final analysis the form of a proof is a matter of taste. But, presenting the proof in the form as it stands in the proposal has precedent (in the referenced book), which argues for keeping it in its current form. Dnessett ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested to Boris Tsirelson, the value in presenting the proof as an integrated whole is pedagogical. Factoring it into two parts requires the reader to suspend his/her interest in the orthogonality question and move the focus of attention to the theory of symmetric operators. If, as I was, the reader is interested in why solutions to the S-L equation are orthogonal, but not particularly interested (at least at this point) in delving into the theory of symmetric operators, then the separation frustrates his/her interest. If the reader is a graduate student in Physics or Mathematics, then perhaps forcing him/her to consider the general issue would be healthy. But, not every reader of the article will be in this position (e.g., I am not). My interest is convincing myself that the solutions are orthogonal and then returning to my real interest, which is studying Quantum Mechanics. Let me once again admit that the form of a proof is a matter of taste. Some may find the bifurcation of a proof into two parts a cleaner and clearer way of presenting the proof. But, again as I stated previously, the form of the proof in the proposal is similar to that in the reference, which provides some evidence that this approach has merit. Dnessett ( talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am using Shankar in my studies. The place where the orthonormality of Spherical Harmonics (and therefore the subsidiary issue of the orthonormality of the Associated Legendre Functions) is introduced is in Chapter 12, which covers rotational invariance and angular momentum. The Hydrogen atom is covered in the next chapter. Spherical harmonics are introduced before we get to the section that covers the solution to rotationally invariant problems (which is section 12.6). So, while your point is valid, I (as an example of a student) am in the process of learning the facts you mention. However, since I prefer to understand things as I go along, I dived into the orthonormality question as soon as Shankar stated it (without proof). That may be more detail about my situation than you desired, but it does provide an example of why people reading Wikipedia might desire the proof provided in the proposal. Dnessett ( talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Another reason to use the existing proof, rather than breaking it up into two parts: The proof in the proposal elaborates the sketch given in the article. To provide a different proof approach would confuse the reader. Dnessett ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a larger issue at hand in this discussion that directly affects the proposal. That is, should Wikipedia include proofs? Subsidiary to this question (if it is decided that proofs are legitimate material in a Wikipedia article) is: when is the inclusion of a proof allowable? This is something the Wikipedia community must decide and perhaps there should be a discussion of this issue at some "higher level" before proceeding with discussions about this particular proposal. However, given that such a "higher level" discussion does not yet exist, I would like to contribute the following thoughts. Wikipedia is used by a large number of people for different reasons. At least three categories of Wikipedia users are relevant to the proof question: 1) those who understand the subject intimately, 2) those who basically understand the subject, but need a place to find details in order to refresh their memory, and 3) those who are learning the subject. Users in the first category tend to be those who write articles. Those in the second and third categories tend to be those who read articles. Discussions about what to include and what not to include in Wikipedia articles are dominated by those in the first category, since they are the Wikipedia editors who do the work. Those who intimately understand a subject many times are interested in eloquence and elegance, rather than in transparency. Since they understand the subject, many details seem to them obvious and therefore unacceptable as material in Wikipedia articles. Readers (those in the second and more importantly the third category) are underrepresented in discussions about Wikipedia content. Many if not most don't even know such discussions exist. So, I think it is prudent for those writing the articles to attempt to take the perspective of users in the other categories. What is obvious to Wikipedia article writers in many cases is not obvious to Wikipedia readers. Dnessett ( talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "monolithic" sketch (a term I don't recall using), if you look at the proof sketch and then at the detailed proof in the proposal, you will see that the latter elaborates the former. So, if you think the sketch is in two parts, then it seems to me you would judge the detailed proof to be in two parts. Dnessett ( talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion, off and on, as to whether, when, where, and how to include proofs, some of which is archived on these two pages:
I believe that the consensus has been though, that in most cases, proofs are not appropriate. There are exceptions, notable proofs for example (with references) can be appropriate.
Paul August ☎ 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I googled "Wikiversity Sturm-Liouville". One of the hits is a page on ordinary differential equations Wikiversity ODEs. This page is in a chaotic state, which means adding a proof of S-L orthogonality to it would be premature. So, there seems to be three choices: 1) wait for the page to become coherent enough to contribute the proof, 2) work on the page myself and get it into sufficient shape to add the proof, and 3) continue pursuing the proposal for adding it to Wikipedia. Choosing the first option would mean there would be a significant amount of time before the proof is available to readers. Choosing the second option isn't practical, since I am not an expert in differential equations, nor do I want to put in the significant amount of time it would take to become one. Choosing the third option has the advantage that the proof would be available relatively soon (if the proposal leads to the proof's inclusion), but has the disadvantage that it is not clear that inclusion is either certain or likely. So, I would appreciate some feedback on these options or suggestions of other options. Dnessett ( talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a page on PlanetMath that mentions S-L problems (see Eigenvalue problem). However, they are given as examples. There is no page that I could find that addresses the S-L problem directly. Of course, I could work on creating such a page, but I don't feel I have sufficient depth of expertise to do so. Consequently, this option is very much like option 2 in the entry above. Dnessett ( talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Dnessett ( talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if those who hold that a proof must provide significant improvement to an article might suggest some criteria by which this is judged? It's pretty hard to come up with arguments for inclusion when no objective standards for those arguments exist. Dnessett ( talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to avoid the immediate temptation to defend my proposal in light of the opposition expressed by C S, because as David Eppstein correctly writes, the objective of this discussion is to determine whether the inclusion of the proof in that proposal "would be an improvement to our S-L article", "not to solve (my) internet hosting issues." Unless I am mistaken, C S thinks there are no objective criteria that indicate when a proof will improve an article. It's a matter of taste. Is that what others think? Dnessett ( talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The comments by Trovatore suggest he advocates the "Bring Me A Rock" approach to developing articles. For those not familiar with this approach it conforms to the secular parable named (not surprisingly) "Bring Me A Rock," which goes something like this. A King tells one of his servants, "bring me a rock." The servant leaves the castle, goes to the river and selects a rock from its bank. The servant thinks it is a nice rock, it is smooth, pleasantly colored and not too big. He brings the rock back to the King. The King looks at the rock, frowns and says, "not that rock, bring me a different rock." Even if the standards for judging what should and what should not go into Wikipedia articles are subjective, it is only fair to articulate them. This allows those who "aren't in the know" to have some way to judge what they should attempt to insert into an article and what they should not. Dnessett ( talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We had lots of stubby articles on generalisations of metrics: pseudometric space, quasimetric space, semimetric space, hemimetric space, premetric space, inframetric. Except for the first I have boldly merged them all into the pre-existing section Metric (mathematics)#Generalized metrics. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have definite information about the intended meaning of the MSC category 54E23: Semimetric spaces? As it is under 54 (General Topology), I expect that it is for semimetric spaces, but last time I looked the annotated MSC didn't make this clear, and many publications on pseudometric spaces (which are also often called "semimetric spaces") were in this category. I asked the MSC2010 team, but never got a response. If we can be sure about the intended meaning it should go into a footnote, to discourage incorrect categorisation. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You are kindly invited to see and expand my new stub Unbounded operator (which was redirected to Closed operator, Operator norm, Bounded operator and what not). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When we post on talk pages of mathematics articles, we are usually unlikely to get a response within a fixed period of time, unless of course the article is frequently viewed. Sometimes however, we may make important comments at talk pages of articles, which might play a role in improving its quality. In this case, I feel it reasonable to create a certain page that is linked to from WikiProject mathematics (page X, for example). When we post an important comment on the talk page of an article, we write the name of the article, along with out signature on page X. And those who watch page X, will be notified of the article at which a comment has been placed, and will be able to reply. This will allow much more progress for even the more specialized articles, and will give us some place to notify people without piling up comments on this page. Of course, if the comment is highly important, it would be best to post here, but any comment which may improve an article is important, and it is best therefore to have a page which notifies people of such comments. Any thoughts? -- PS T 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about the suggestion above, but I think one thing that could work is to have a bot check talk pages of math articles and see which ones have recent comments. Then a page, like the current activity page, could be updated. It could have info like how often during a recent span some talk page is updated. I think this is simple and sufficient for the problem being discussed. -- C S ( talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I should add that just because I made a suggestion here doesn't mean I think this is a problem that should be addressed, given our limited resources. Consider things like tags that are already added to articles and listed on the current activity page. I don't really see more than a handful of people going through and fixing the problems indicated by the tags. A lot of these tags are added by non-math people which strongly indicates that those are important articles to fix so that non-math people can read them. Rather than creating more mechanisms so that people interested in the intricacies of some advanced topic (of which only a couple people know enough and are motivated to edit) can be notified of it, I'd suggest it's more important to just do the plentiful work that is already available, namely the tagged articles. -- C S ( talk) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We are having the same trouble, like everyone I suspect, at physics. I will be keeping a close eye to see if this works. Should we not also try to find ways to make the existing mechanisms work as well such as RfC or the cleanup tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TStein ( talk • contribs)
Thanks User:C S for your comments. I am not sure how to operate a bot (although I have not really looked at them in detail). On the other hand, the procedure below seems to be going well ( User:Hans Adler is contributing as well as some other editors). We'll see what other people think and how this goes but if you have an idea using a bot, feel free to get it started. -- PS T 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the recent article additive map should be deleted. Before taking formal action, let me explain myself and see whether others agree.
1) What is called here an additive map of rings would be referred to by most mathematicians as a homomorphism . Since the multiplicative structure of the ring is not being used, it is somewhat strange that the article requires the objects to be rings: why not groups, or semigroups?
2) There is almost no actual content in the article. It is mostly an unmotivated definition.
3) The section on additive maps on a division ring is so incoherently written that I cannot understand it. Moreover, it is easy to show that an additive map from a division ring of characteristic zero to itself is simply a linear map of the underlying -vector space. (Similarly, an additive map on a division ring of characteristic p is a linear map of the underlying -vector space.)
4) There are two "references" given to justify that the article is not orginal research. However, the references do not cite anything in the sources but simply list two entire texts, the first of which is 1400 pages long. This is not acceptable bibliographic practice.
Plclark ( talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Links (provide a link to the talk page in question, a comment on the discussion in question if the discussion is long, and your username if possible - otherwise just the link will do):
For the red links that start with the character "0", why are there so many numbers? Math Champion ( talk) 03:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The new page titled Alan Turing Year is moderately orphaned: probably more pages should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done
Matrix (mathematics) is now a Good Article Nominee. Please consider reviewing the article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Mathematical eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trisk to confirm (or refute) my view that this article is codswallop. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with the requisite knowledge ascertain whether this is a suitable topic for an article, if it is a "translation" might be in order.
Guest9999 (
talk)
23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The article goes through the proof that
BEFORE mentioning that that is what is to be proved. Moreover, it phrases the beginning of the argument as if that is already known. As I said: badly written. Whoever wrote it seems to have some idea what the proofs are, but doesn't know how to write them and explain them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made significant improvements to the article as well as included some context of this concept in mathematics. The mistake that I have made was to correct the previous version rather than erasing it and re-writing it completely. As a result, there are still possibly some incorrect logical implications within the proof of which I do not know. Therefore, I would probably leave the article as it is now, and let others polish it to perfection. -- PS T 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This concept is also know as " epsilontics" and also includes the epsilon-N definition of a limit. However, reliable sources are thin on the ground and I agree with merging or replacing by a redirect until sufficient sources are found to support an article on the math culture associated with this. Geometry guy 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think this should be merged into (ε, δ)-definition of limit, since they are on the same topic. The more general topic, of course, is the use of approximation and estimation techniques; that topic is mathematical analysis. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ideal ring bundle is an orphaned article. It it's a valid topic, then it needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a base-27 numeral system septemvigesimal or heptovigesimal ? Both articles are unsourced. Clearly a merge is required - but under which title ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across the orphaned article Generating set of a topological algebra. In addition to being linked from somewhere it needs a proper introduction at the very least. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series has been nominated for deletion. I wondered if this should be considered another case of a badly written article being mistaken for a bad article. I've done some cleanup and organizing, but more can be done.
So help improve the article if you can, and opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. As usual, don't just say Keep or Delete; give arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Recently, Nbarth ( talk · contribs) has moved some articles to new names which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In particular, I noticed that he moved Lambert quadrilateral to Ibn al-Haytham–Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral to Khayyam–Saccheri quadrilateral, saying "full term, credit original discoverer". JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think these are the wrong names for those articles and they should be moved back. This is English Wikipedia. Nbarth has argued that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming is in conflict with naming convention guidelines but actually, that section of the NPOV policy explicitly states:
Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.
It couldn't be any clearer. Even Nbarth has stated the common English names are Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral resp. -- C S ( talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone is once again adding circular links from recursion to itself. Could someone else deal with it this time? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Euclidean algorithm at FAC. Please consider reviewing the article. Thank you to the several mathematicians here who helped to improve the article over the past few weeks. It was much appreciated and the favor will be returned. Proteins ( talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Sexy prime#neologism.3F. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Equipossible and Equiprobable could really need some help:
Equiprobability "allows" one to assign probabilities? Etc. etc.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article titled Loyer's paradox for deletion. I hesitated for a few weeks before doing this because the article's author had said he would replace the content. Some time has gone by with no progress on this. I'll withdraw the nomination if he can do that. But for now, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyer's paradox. Don't just say Keep or Delete; give your arguments for your position. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there are nearly half a dozen articles treating tensors:
and maybe even more.
Besides the awful naming of these articles (what is 'classical' about the component treatment of tensors), is it in anyway useful? It seems to me that there must be a better way of organizing these articles. Any thoughts? ( TimothyRias ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
You know, this is a pretty old mess. I seem to recollect that there should be a simple, concrete article explaining basic tensor stuff like sum convention, raising/lowering indices, etc., without using abstract algebra. I don't know what happened to it (if it ever existed), but the "classical treatment" version is clearly inadequate. The problem seems to be that tensors are a subject that a wide variety of people are interested in reading about, undergrad engineers, people studying relativity, etc. Due to frequent complaining about articles being unreadable (understandable and justified in my view), some kind of compromise was arranged with different level articles. Unfortunately, the above organization doesn't seem to be how I remember things (some of "intermediate treatment" seems to have been at "classical treatment" before...). It might be worthwhile asking User:Kevin_Baas what happened; he's one of the few people, I think, that has been there through the entire history of these articles. -- C S ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment that Hamilton's ideas, and the quaternionists point of view, have somewhat of a claim on the right to share the tensor name space with those of the matrix algebra point of view. Tensor of a quaternion being an example of a defunked article on the subject. 130.86.76.31 ( talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The new article titled Algorithmic Lovász local lemma has no introductory section. This raises two questions:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Rubik's Cube is tagged as being a part of this WikiProject, so I am letting the members know that I have started a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. You can find a list of my concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks and good luck! Nikki♥ 311 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, looks like the PlanetMath undergoes an extensive editing. If so, the more eyes the better... ptrf ( talk) 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The sizes of the left and right curly braces above do not match, and in fact, the one on the left isn't big enough for the last set of fractions on the first line. Can something be done about this while retaining the format the breaks the whole display into two lines? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an edit war brewing at convolution over the placement of the {{ SpecialChars}} template. There seems to be no precedent for placing this at the top of maths articles, and there is no editing guideline as far as I can tell either — certainly nothing at WP:MOSMATH. My chief objection is that the template is ugly and pushes the meaningful content further down the page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
János Komlós is, as of a few minutes ago, a disambiguation page. Before that, it said this:
Several years ago, we used to frequently see pages putting unrelated topics on the same page like this because they were known by the same term (see the edit history of tar, which was about computer software and viscous gooey stuff), but I don't recall seeing this odd way of using the word "he" (or "she", or maybe even "it") before. I'd use that word only if referring to the same person.
The page on the mathematician needs something added about notability. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not Wolfram Alpha can be used for reference on WIkipedia has been raised several other places on WIkipedia. It seems to me that the place is it most likely to be desirable for reference is within WikiProject Mathematics. WIkiProject Mathematics already makes extensive use of Wolfram's other web resources and is familiar with the computational abilities of Mathematica.
So, what guidelines should apply? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm involved with a dispute with an anonymous editor over how to write the fractional part of a number and whether it is permissable or desirable to make some minor rearrangements to an equation rather than copying it directly from a source, and I'd welcome additional opinions on this dispute. See Talk:Calkin–Wilf tree#Newman's formula, and please leave responses there rather than here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A top-priority, frequently-viewed article, Euclidean algorithm, has just been promoted to Featured Article — thanks very much to everyone who helped in that effort!
No article is perfect, so of course I'll continue to (try to) improve this one. I appreciate your keen criticisms and I'll do my best to incorporate them.
I've begun a rudimentary sketch of an article at Fermat's Last Theorem, and I'd be grateful for your suggestions and ideas. If anyone is interested in helping out there, I'd appreciate that as well. The article is still quite primitive, however. Proteins ( talk) 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments#Error in Morgan et al? there's a claim that the primary academic source about the Monty Hall problem computes the conditional probability of winning by switching using the wrong Bayesian prior. The source is Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., & Doviak, M. J. (1991). "Let's make a deal: The player's dilemma," American Statistician 45: 284-287. Are there any Bayesians here who could comment on this? The specific issue is whether the probability of winning by switching (which is 1/(1+q) where q is the host's preference for the door that has been opened, i.e. door 3 in the usual problem setup) given the noninformative prior should be computed using:
1) a uniform distribution of q in the conditional case, i.e. q is uniformly distributed in the conditional case where the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3. This makes the probability of interest
or
2) a uniform distribution of q in the unconditional case, so the distribution in the conditional case must be computed as a conditional distribution
where f(q) is the conditional distribution of q given the host has opened door 3.
The paper uses #1. Several users are claiming #2 is correct. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We've had a well-written submission at WP:AfC on this person, and would welcome opinions on whether he meets WP:PROF. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ron Larson (mathematician). Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The section started by PST was archived due to inactivity, so I am starting another one.
An editor is trying to change the definition of a codomain to say a function is the same if the codomain changes. I believe it is a problem from the way logicians handle functions and then trying to go to the way it is normally done in maths. Anyway discussion at Talk:Codomain#Reverted? Dmcq ( talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Below is my adaptation of something that an anonymous reader added to the article titled complex number recently. user:Paul August deleted it from the article. He's probably right that it doesn't belong in such a prominent place, but it should be somewhere within Wikipedia. Is there a suitable article to insert it into? Then maybe a see-also link from complex number to link there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In computing the product (a + bi)(c + di), one can reduce calculations in the following way.
Let
Then the real and imaginary parts of (a + bi)(c + di) are as follows:
This method has been used by computers to reduce the number of multiplications by adding a few additions. This is most commonly used in fast Fourier transforms where one uses only three multiplications and three additions.
Added a bit to Multiplication algorithm about it thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have put a cleanup tag on binomial theorem. It's a typical page about a basic topic which has just grown up in a straggly way: it has duplication, poor structure, an "in popular culture" section, and other indicators of a lack of TLC. Needs a general taking in hand. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We currently have an article Propositional logic and a category Category:Sentential logic. I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Logarithmic differentiation seems to lack good concrete examples, and maybe it's somewhat disorganized. I'll be back.... Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For several hours now, when I save a page or preview a page, some of the lines of TeX fail to get rendered. Wikipedia usually works well in that regard, but not today. Have others had that experience? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No—I meant I just saw the TeX code.
It hasn't happened today, though. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently shocking. I'd write it myself, but do need feel comfortable in my ability to be rigorous enough. Any help would be fantastic. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the seemingly last complete version, I had to go more than a year back for that. This article gets shocking amounts of juvenile vandalism, in addition to some unscrupulous edits and edits whose motivation escapes me as well. I suspect the reasons for vandal's attention are similar to the situation at Geometry. Given its history and difficulty of maintaining an article under such circumstances, I propose to semiprotect it indefinitely. Arcfrk ( talk) 06:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
User:TedPavlic seems to be intent on changing "References" sections into "Further reading". This seems quite unwarranted. As far as I know, there is no rule that References sections must contain only footnotes. Indeed, most mathematics articles on Wikipedia seem to do just fine without an enormous proliferation of footnotes. I'm going to be undoing most of these changes, unless there are significant objections here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What shall we do with this situation? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Semigroup with one element also move to Trivial semigroup? — Dominus ( talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested a PR for Matrix. Please comment on the article so that I can improve it to FA. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn ( Talk| Contribs| Log| Userboxes) 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
References to Non-Newtonian calculus are being added to to the 'See also' section of various articles related to the exponential function. They don't seem relevant enough to warrant inclusion, but what should I put into a comment when removing them - is there a guideline please? Or do you think they are reasonable? Dmcq ( talk) 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is current and threatened editorial action on the article mentioned. The article is primarily a list, and I would like to improve its nature. I would also categorize it as a part of mathematics education, if such is possible. I have one citation to "attempted" work by a CalTech Ph.D. at zhurnaly.com/cgi-bin/wiki/CoincidentalTaxonomy that I would like to use or suggest as being used in the article. I also think the article might be re-directed to a larger article on mathematical curiosities. I have my own original results that I deem not to be research that I also would like to place in the introduction or body of the article as well. This is the subject matter you can find at User:Julzes/365.25. The results were found by happenstance, this being my explanation for not regarding them as research, and I have no interest in staking a claim to them. Julzes ( talk) 04:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How about transferring this to our sister project Wiki Books? They are using the same software and probably have a lot more tolerance for this type of thing. Of course sometimes the worst things are turned into a fine article by some genius, but I have no idea how this should work in this case. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
user:MrOllie recently deleted these two links from Circumscribed circle, calling them "linkspam" in the edit summary:
(In the course of doing this, he left fully intact the previous edit, which was vandalism.) The pages appear to be well written and relevant, unlike cases of linkspam I've seen where the page merely links injudiciously to other places on the web that superficially seem relevant to the topic, for the purpose of advertising. It looks as if they supported by advertising but not created for the purpose of that advertising, again unlike sites of the other sort I've seen. Some of MrOllie's recent edits leave the impression that he spends a lot of time removing linkspam, but may not be capable of judging the quality of the pages that he deletes the links to.
In some cases of this kind, the person deleting the links on these grounds asserts that the person who put the links there has a conflict of interests. In such cases, reinstatement of the links by someone with no such conflict is then found inoffensive, so that it is held there is no grounds for considering them "linkspam". MrOllie has recently deleted lots of links to various pages on geometry on that particular site. It appears that MrOllie may lack either the ability or the willingness to judge the difference between two sorts of sites:
If those whose primary concern is getting rid of linkspam, and any WikiProjects or the like concerned with that, lack the ability or willingness to make this sort of distinction, then people like the denizens of this present WikiProject need to intervene to help them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing people thoughts about this. Articles such as 6 (number) generally attract lots of trivia.
etc. etc. etc. What are the relevant guidelines on what should be included in such an article? Are there any good or featured articles of this kind that can be used as a model? The most recent inclusion
which at least is mathematical if a bit obscure. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Mathematics!
An editor has asked for help concerning a technical mathematical article here, and I wonder if someone who understands these things better than I could advise.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, i've been Reading this Project for many months, there are many Highly talented Folks here, i really want an answer for this, i Do believe Wikipedia is not a Forum but i really really want an answer for this, please guys don't Delete this here is the Problem:
solve for t-
60√t (sin(t/3))^2 = 150
only t is under root after 60
Please Help! 122.174.74.142 ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Lipedia (formerly User:Boolean hexadecimal) added some odd diagrams to two articles; I've removed them. Diffs: Logical NOR and Sheffer stroke. This is not the first set of odd images added by this user; File:Hasse_diagram_of_all_logical_connectives.jpg was a previous one that, in the end, was not used in any articles. Thoughts? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote: I thought we'd been through all this in
Talk:Logical connective not so long ago. What has changed between then and now? I notice the German version of the article also removed his diagram recently.
Dmcq
Please make sure, you've got the topic, before you add your opinion. Here we speak about the following two diagrams, and about nothing else. (They have never been used in any german articles.)
The same about Hans Adler: The symbols used are original research, and even apart from this his graphics only make sense with long explanations. Which symbols?! (Probably you remember these, but they do not appear in the diagrams we speak about. I've once used them as a means of explanation in the Wikipedia, to visualise the relations between logical connectives, and this was a mistake, indeed.)
Concerning Bkell: Ah ... ordering logical connectives in a Hasse diagram by implication is original research - very interesting. (Maybe you take a look at this homepage.)
Concerning CBM: Nice to meet the user, who removed the set theoretic definition of logical connectives (Added by Gregbard) with the most funny statement: It's quite unclear to me what these sets are supposed to represent. It was tagged as possible OR for some time. I mention this sentence, because here it seems to be the same.
![]() |
![]() |
The diagrams:
Prefix notations like
are usual, but nearly unreadable for human beings. At the moment in the NAND article there is a section called Simplification, where the operation is not written, because it's always the same operation, NOR in this case:
That's easier, but still hard to read, because it's very difficult to see, which left and right brackets belong together. Combining them to circles is the easiest solution. And that's what you want to call original research? (To express operations by circles surrounding the arguments is nothing special, by the way: It's also done in existential graphs.)
At the moment these two diagrams are the easiest way to show, how every logical connective can be expressed by only one Sheffer operator. Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a short note: It's no problem including the connectives names in the diagrams. It's what I first did, but it became too crowded for my taste. The hint, that printable information is desirable is true indeed. Concerning the color scheme: I may choose darker colors, to make the appearance less gaudy. It's just important, that A and B have different colors. I will upload modified versions at the weekend. Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't ignore it, but I doubt that it is justified.
Content must be verifiable, otherwise it's original research - and the content is undoubted in this case, and verifiable by any source you want. But like every encyclopedia, we should display this verified information in the way, that serves our readers best. An article is good, when the content is verifiable, and as many readers as possible (also non experts) can understand it as easy as possible. So your request aims in the wrong direction: The question is not "Does it appear somewhere in exactly this way?" but "Does it help anyone to understand Sheffer operators?".
This is disputable of couse. I think it does:
The article tells, that all sixteen logical connectives can be expressed in terms of NOR and NAND respectively, so I think we should show that - and not only mention some examples, presuming that the reader can easily deduct all others. This could be done in a sixteen row table of couse, but the most helpful way to display logical connectives is not the table (because the neighbour rows have nothing to do with each other) but the
Hasse diagram showing all implications.
The formulas should be shown in a clear and easy way, so somewhat easier to read than
(((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))), the notation used in the
Simplification section in the
present NAND article. Combining the parentheses to circles for better readability is really not a "idiosyncratic notation" (the Simplification section presumed) but a very simple step. The hint, that "the most important information" should be shown in the diagram itself was justified, so I changed it (and the color scheme as well).
This is how it could show at the end of the articles (= at the end of the Simplification section, which could be included also in the NOR article):
Greetings,
Lipedia (
talk)
12:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"it would need to accompanied by an explanation of the notation or a link to an explanation"
Please note, that I proposed to include them in the
Simplification section in the
present NAND article (and its equivalent in the NOR article not yet created). Did you read it? In this section simplified notations like
(((A,A),B),(A,(B,B))) meaning
NAND(NAND(NAND(A,A),B),NAND(A,NAND(B,B))) are used. In the context of this section the short explanation below the diagram will do. (I wouldn't be so crazy, to include these files in the
logical connectives article, and think it could help some reader there. Hope you didn't think that.)
"Truth tables, however cumbersome you think they are"
"Your comments that such truth tables are not the notation we should be using"
These lines tells me, that you missunderstood something I wrote, or something the others wrote about me. I did not even mention truth tables
nor would I say anything against them (I actually
love truth tables!). Here we speak about the linking of many equal operations in
NOR logic and
NAND logic, and what I don't like are unreadable formulas like
NOR(NOR(NOR(A,A),B),NOR(A,NOR(B,B))) or even the simplification
(((A,A),B),(A,(B,B))). I think these simplified formulas are better readable, when the outer parentheses are bigger and the inner parentheses are smaller.
(In this case the left and right parentheses touch in the middle, and become a circle. If anyone conciders my diagrams to be original research because of this, I can easily make a short break in the middle, so that every circle becomes a pair of semicircles, easily recognizable as a pair of parentheses - than it would be exactly the same like (((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))) and so on.) Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If something is correct, it doesn't need to be "maintained". Possibly your focus is more on the editor than the reader - in my eyes a fundamental mistake, but it appears to me, that this is quite usual in the Wikipedia.
The blame against the first version was to be "a riddle like the
Pioneer plaque" because I "hide the most important information in a link map". So I've got this information included, and now the blame is, that the diagrams are "cluttered". Isn't that a bit strange? Looks as if the rejection is more imporant than the reason.
I think it's sad, that all this debate is primarily harping on about principles, may they be real or imagined, and the question "Does it help someone?" does not play any role. Is "they keep being put in as an alternative to the straightforward text" really a senseful blame? For me it's too far away from "Does it help someone?" and thus secondary, borderline unimportant. For me an article is good
if and only if it helps as many and as different people as possible. Greetings,
Lipedia (
talk)
15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course I didn't mean someone when I said "someone", but rater a quantity of people worth mentioning. But sadly we have no means to check, what exactly is helpful to how many people. Concerning idiosyncracy I can only repeat what I said before: I can easily make a short break in the middle, so that every circle becomes a pair of semicircles, easily recognizable as a pair of parentheses - than it would be exactly the same like (((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))) and so on. But I'm not going to do that. We can agree that the diagrams don't match in Logical NOR, Sheffer stroke and Henry M. Sheffer and end the discussion. Lipedia ( talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Another funny diagram has been added to Hereditary set. At least it's smaller but I think it detracts from what little content there is in the article. A straightforward listing of a few sets would be better and could include some infinite ones. I think the article needs a bit of expansion. For instance a set containing itself and all subsets wouldn't have an ordinal number as far as I can work out. Dmcq ( talk) 11:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, a significant number of math terms are virtually impossible to define for the layman, usually because the relevant Wikipedia articles are simply unhelpful, even useless (cf. hypoelliptic- wikt:) to people without knowledge of fairly advanced maths (and yes I fully acknowledge the difficulty of avoiding jargon in many math articles). Another problem often comes in that some terms may be ridiculously hard to give good quotations (i.e. from books or scientific publication), such as sphenic number- wikt:, even though they are clearly in use (in this case, the problem comes with the small amount of truly useful material in google books and google scholar).
Would WPMATH members be interested in answering the occasional requests for help in such cases?
Circeus (
talk)
02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so your first mission, if you accept it (sorry, couldn't help it :p), is to help define wikt:hypoelliptic in comprehensible term, and verify whether or not that definition directly relates to the current mathematics definition we have for wikt:elliptic. Personally, I'd appreciate some backgroung for dating the term. I find a fair amount of material that discusses or mentions Lars Hörmander's solution (?) ot the things (apparently at some point in the 50s or 60s), but none about when the term started being used (of course it might not have been formally used before Hörmander). A typical example is here. Circeus ( talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So, to get back to the question of a dictionary definition of hypoelliptic:
Right? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Judging by this discussion, some preliminaries on dismbiguation by email might help. You can run things past me offline to get a general sense. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
...that a mitimorphism is a morphism from the power set of a fibre bundle into another fibre bundle?
I was hoping someone here could clarify whether this newly created article is a hoax, a neologism, or just very obscure. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone look at the geometric argument for the integration by parts? I am thinking to add a section to the article about that and have a couple questions. I used xfig to create the picture, is there a better tool to create pictures like that? I could not find this particular trick in the literature, does it constitute OR if I add this argument to the article? ( Igny ( talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
Category:Linear operators seems a rather strange category. It says that it is for linear operators defined on functions, but this seems rather overly restrictive. What should be done with it? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Statistics is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Statistics. — G716 < T· C> 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Technical_(expert)#This_template_is_for_article_namespace. User: Debresser has repeatedly tried to remove the talk page requirement, contrary to the explicit instructions in the technical guideline. I pointed out to him that since this tag is scarcely used, Coren's mistaken reformatting of the tag (which changed the template to an ambox, which is for articles) was not reverted, unlike the situation for the regular technical tag, which was reverted. Debresser insists that since Coren's reformatting of the tag as an ambox was unreverted, I must be completely mistaken about the consensus regarding the placement of the technical tag on talk pages. He has not explained why there is this distinction (one technical tag on the article, the other on talk pages) and has refused to read the guideline or its talk page to understand the consensus. Indeed, according to him, since this mistake was unreverted for 2 years or so, his position is the consensus! -- C S ( talk) 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Lo and behold: List of arithmetic topics is a red link. Should we do something about that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Under the terms of the licensing update being adopted across all Wikimedia sites, WMF projects will no longer be able to add GFDL-only text published elsewhere. Any GFDL text added to Wikipedia after Nov. 1, 2008 will have to be removed as a copyvio. PlanetMath uses the GFDL and hence this could shut down a potentially valuable source of content interaction. In order to avoid that, PlanetMath would need to also relicense to CC-BY-SA as explicitly allowed under GFDL 1.3.
If you have contacts at PlanetMath, or participate there yourself, I would encourage you to discuss this issue with them. See also: m:Licensing update/Outreach. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a somewhat minor complaint with regards to some of the algebra-related articles. In particular, I find that too many technical terms are abbreviated. For example, although it is reasonable to abbreviate terms like "unique factorization domain" to UFD, or "principal ideal domain" to PID, abbreviations such as BFD, BD, HFD, AD etc... are ambiguous to some extent (try to guess what some of them refer to; I find that this is not at all trivial, even for algebraists). As an encyclopedia, we should aim to be as clear as possible, and abbreviations should only be done if absolutely necessary. Even in this case, the word which is abbreviated should be made clear, along with its abbreviation. I tend to find abbreviations such as ACCP to mean "ascending chain condition on principal ideals" somewhat pointless because along with abbreviations like UFD or PID, it is somewhat difficult to interpret (one may guess ACCP to be some sort of "domain" if he was not familiar with it). Furthermore, such abbreviations can lead to errors. For instance, one may write "UFD domain" instead of "UFD" thus being redundant to some extent. Therefore, although abbreviations of basic terms are OK, we should start defining/linking abbreviations when using them; especially if the term to which they correspond is somewhat unknown. -- PS T 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In WP:REFNAME, starting from 14 April 2008, I read: "In subsequent uses of the named tag the use of <ref name="name" /> is encouraged rather than copying the whole footnote again, as whole footnotes tend to reduce the readability of the article's text in edit mode, which makes finding specific parts of the text when editing tedious."
On the other hand, the short version is more prone to accidents under further edits; if the editor is not careful enough, his/her local edit may have unwanted global effect. See also Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Mark-up_would_be_better_than_encouraging_people_to_remove_reference_information.
For this reason I have used the long version in unbounded operator. (Initially I did not know about that style recommendation.) I wonder, do we mathematicians agree that the short version is preferable also in our texts? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Named footnotes have one disadvantage: they discourage grouping together several references cited in the same sentence. Thus, the degree to whch they shorten footnotes is debateable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working, with help from other editors, to improve the article on first-order logic. If anyone has the time to review the relatively long article and give an outside perspective, it would be greatly appreciated. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the Dirac delta function page? The editor User:Sławomir Biały may know what he is talking about, but it is beyond my area of expertise. Assuming that he is competent, I wonder if the article is being made unaccessible to anyone below his level of knowledge? PAR ( talk) 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may or may know, but Wikipedia has switched its license to cc-by-sa. One consequence is that we are now permitted to import text from citizendium (an encyclopedia project started by a cofounder of Wikipedia). I have just imported a large chunk of text from CZ to Gamma function, which greatly improved the article (in a matter of minutes :) Anyway, I thought you might consider doing something like that. -- Taku ( talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My recent edit to this section seems to have perversely disappeared.
Taku seems to assume we know what "cc-by-sa" is, and doesn't link to it. Here's the link: cc-by-sa. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a side note — Taku said that WP has switched to cc-by-sa. According to the notice I'm looking at below this text box, that does not appear to be exactly true. Apparently new content is multi-licensed under cc-by-sa and GFDL. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that this could get complicated for reusers. Ordinarily, when you make a derivative work from multi-free-licensed content, you can choose the license under which to release the derivative work, at least as I understand it.
But in the case of WP, the content from before the change is not available to be re-licensed under cc-by-sa, unless the authors all consent to this, which as a practical matter seems impossible. For content that WP has copied from Citizendium, this content cannot be relicensed under GFDL without the copyright holders' consent. So apparently the author of a derivative work, to be safe, must also release the work under both licenses, and so on for all derivatives of that work, and this seems contrary to the natural reading of each license separately. Have the lawyers really thought this through? -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the principal motivation behind the license switch is to allow the importation of contents licensed under cc-by-sa, if you couldn't data-dump contents from citizendium, say, I don't see the point of the switch. This page [9] hopefully answers some questions raised above. But to summarize key points:
Because of (ii), we can now data-dump contents licensed under cc-by-sa. But the other unintended? consequence is that we are no longer able to data-dump contents from PlanetMath. Since we've been relying less and less on PlanetMath lately, hopefully this doesn't cause much pain. -- Taku ( talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A user inserted this into the article on the square root of 2:
I did some simple number-crunching that seems to bear out the assertion. The user has not responded to my inquiry about where to find a proof; I think this user hasn't been around lately. Can anyone tell us anything?
Probably this result should be mention in one or more of the articles related to π. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the methods of numerically approximating π attributed to Archimedes — it follows easily from considering inscribed 2m-gons and applying half-angle formulas. Arcfrk ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's a sketch. First, note that π = 2m(π/2m) and that π/2m equals sin(π/2m) with a third degree error term. Then we hit the sine with the half-angle formula:
The half-angle formula for cosine tells us:
which we now apply to the previous equation:
where there are m square root signs. Of course, cos π is −1, so the last term is zero. This leaves us with:
where there are m − 1 square root signs. Shifting the index by one gives the desired formula.
I should be cleaning out the fridge. She's going to kill me. Ozob ( talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
...is at peer review. Help get it back to FA. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just an friendly heads-up that a mathematical article, Euclidean algorithm, will be featured on the Main Page in a few hours. Since Main-Page articles are usually a magnet for vandalism, it would be great if you could add it to your watchlists for the day and fix things as you happen to notice them. Others will undoubtedly be watching as well. My own schedule is very busy, however, so I'll have only a limited time to help out. Thanks! Proteins ( talk) 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment on the French WikiProject here and the German one. Are there currently any "institutionalized" means of collaborating with the guys there? For example, the French site is also using a grading scheme similar to the one used here, but nonetheless the actual article quality is not automatically comparable. I'd like to spot articles in French or German whose English equivalent is worse (or the other way round, but that's more relevant to fr.wp and de.wp). Any ideas about that? (Obviously, the same holds true for other languages, but I think it is a start to deal with these two.) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Special relativity article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need quite a bit of referencing. I have placed the article on hold for a week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects of this review which can be found here. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I gave it a preliminary cleanup, but the article seems unfocused and unsure of what to cover. Lots of redlinks (which could be redirects or piped, but I lack knowledge here). Also seems to draws heavily from one author (R. Brown). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, a lot of good faith information has been added to the page by someone who is French I believe, and it is therefore in dire need of cleanup. More importantly for this WP, it lacks inline citations, although it does have references. I wouldn't know if did find references for some statements, so if someone with more knowledge could look into it... it also makes some fairly heavy claims, that a) aren't sourced and b) sound fairly disputable. I know little of the history of algebra, but 'He was the first mathematician to have represented the parameters of an equation by letters' sounds like a big claim. Since the contributor has added a lot of information, it could be a really good page, so I suggest anyone who can should get involved. On another point, New algebra didn't exist until the contributor created it, which seems quite odd. Considering the title may be a direct translation, or not use English terminology, could someone who fully understands the subject, and knows what pages exist check that the page doesn't already exist. Factual correctness would be great, but as I said, the edits are in good faith. - Jarry1250 ( t, c, rfa) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, that link redirects to Curvature. Which in turn directs you to Curvature of Riemannian manifolds. This article appears to be missing its first sentence dealing with expression but without, or skipping, definition? It has been unchanged for years (I know nothing about it myself) ~ R. T. G 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Proposition and Proposition (mathematics) both say "... proposition is used for a proven statement ...". As a universal proposition, this is false according to my understanding and as "proposition" is used in propositional calculus, propositional formula, proposition (philosophy), and implicational propositional calculus. JRSpriggs ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved Newton's method to Newton–Raphson method. This is contrary to our policy of using the most common name in English. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
<<above copied from Oleg's talk page>>
I have tended to take the term Newton's method to refer to the one-dimensional case and Newton–Raphson method to mean the case of a function of several variables (but still a one-dimensional range space. But I don't know how prevalent that usage is. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ...and now I see that there's nothing at all about higher-dimensional domains in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now moved the article back, since I seem inadvertently to have annoyed various editors by the move, for which I apologise. However, in my defence I should say (1) I did not "unilaterally" move the article: as can be seen from the talk page, two others had suggested the move, and it seemed that nobody had objected to the suggestion, so I thought the move was unopposed. I have now realised that there was, in fact, further discussion of the matter, but for some reason somebody started a new section on the talk page, instead of continuing the discussion where it had been started, so I did not realise it was there, and (2) As for the move being "contrary to our policy of using the most common name in English", I am not sure which name is more common: I first learnt the method as "Newton's method" back in the 1960s, but in recent years the majority of references I have seen to it refer to it as "Newton-Raphson". Anyway, it seems that the majority opinion expressed on the matter favours "Newton's method", so I am happy to accept it: I certainly had no intention of going against consensus. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
MSGJ requests (at my talk page) a comment about
I personally have never heard of k-array. Is this a neologism? Also, what about the second? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Excessive cross-posting. Spammed to 11 WikiProjects. [11] Hans Adler 14:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic. The current article is here: (current) The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored) Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean. In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)
Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article. Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:
Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article. I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law. I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible. Thanks for your time Ti-30X ( talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
I am glad to see that we actually have as a template; it's currently up for deletion, but I hope that will blow over. If others find this as intuitive (for non-mathematicians) as I do, let's use it more widely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that inevitably some people like to add an "In popular culture" section to an article whenever the webcomic
xkcd happens to make even a passing reference to it. Thus
Paul Erdős (
Talk),
Erdős number (
Talk), even
Proof that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges, etc. Since this is likely to keep coming up at mathematics articles, I was wondering if we could have a policy page or some centralised discussion to point people at?
For what it's worth, my opinion is that mere incidental mentions are not worth recording, but nontrivial uses in popular culture (even on xkcd) might be. (
XKCD comic.) No doubt there are others who think that all "in popular culture" mentions are cruft.
Shreevatsa (
talk)
17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a big stretch to call an xkcd mention as being a somehow significant "popular culture" mention. Obviously a number of people that like to edit Wikipedia have a somewhat distorted view of what constitutes "popular culture" (I've noted for a while that the article on Crucifixion seems to devote more space and importance to mentions of crucifixions in anime as compared to those in classic artwork and literature). xkcd, as great as it is, is basically a niche webcomic that is only now starting to emerge more into the mainstream. The most defensible insertion would be into Erdos or Bacon number articles...topics which are inherently about popular culture (although the former is more limited to the geek crowd). -- C S ( talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Is anyone interested in trying to salvage something from the fairly new article self-referential function ? At present, the first sentence of the article "Cantor's diagonalisation produces a function that makes reference to itself" is simply wrong; the definition "A self-referential function is a function that applies to itself" is hopelessly vague; and the references are not actually related to the contents of the article. See Talk:Self-referential function for further discussion.
We already have fine articles on self-reference, recursion and functional equation. There may be a useful article to be written on self-referential functions, but the current article is not close to it, in my opinion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I made an edit to the section of Residue (complex analysis) on calculating residues, and I'm posting here requesting a few more pairs of eyes look at it and make sure I didn't introduce any errors or anything. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful for some expert opinions on the example I propose to add to Minimal subtraction scheme. Comments at the article talk page would be welcome. A.K.Nole ( talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Family of successors to Tetration are being created....
Any assistance in keeping this in order would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on the Maths Wikiproject talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't have an article about Aise Johan de Jong (notable for resolution of singularities in characteristic p; a Cole prize winner). I'm not so much into biography articles, but if somebody is, he's certainly deserving an article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/missing mathematicians. Charvest ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Bow and arrow curve has been proposed for deletion. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the appropriate terms in Latin and German? I'd search for those in Google Books, with "Euler" as the author's name.
In German:
"Bow and arrow" has some plausibility, since the line y = x is part of the graph, and a curve crossing that line is as well. It's not implausible that Euler wrote about these curves and someone later called them by that name. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's now an AfD rather than a proposed deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bow and arrow curve. As Michael Hardy often writes, please contribute with a reason for your decision rather than a simple keep or delete vote. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A persistent anon keeps editing Kepler conjecture to add a supposed counterexample attributed to Archimedes Plutonium. I have reverted twice today already, but anon has just inserted their nonsense for a third time. Please can someone keep an eye on the article and revert and/or semi-protect as you see fit. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying for some time to add some material to Wavelength quoted below:
Spatial and temporal relationships
The mathematical form for the wave involves the argument of the cosine, say θ, given by:
Using θ, the amplitude of the wave is:
which shows a particular value of y corresponds to a particular value of θ. As time advances, the term (−vt) in θ continuously reduces θ, so the position x corresponding to a chosen value of θ must increase according to:
in order that the value of θ stay the same. In other words, the position x where the amplitude y has the value Acos(θ) moves in time with the wave speed v. Thus, the particular mathematical form x − vt expresses the traveling nature of the wave.
In the case of the cosine, the periodicity of the cosine function in θ shows that a snapshot of the wave at a given time finds the wave undulating in space, while an observation of the wave at a fixed location finds the wave undulating in time. For example, a repetition in time occurs when θ increases by 2π; that is, when time increases by an amount T such that: [2]
- or
Likewise, a repetition in space occurs when x increases an amount Δx enough to cause an increase in θ by 2π:
- or
Thus, the temporal variation in y with period T at a fixed location is related via the wave speed v to the corresponding spatial variation with wavelength λ at a fixed time.
Using the same reasoning, it may be noted that any function f(x − vt) propagates as a wave of fixed shape moving through space with velocity v. [3] However, to obtain a wavelength and a period, the function f must be a periodic function of its argument. [4] As noted, the cosine is a periodic function and that is why a wave based upon the cosine has a wavelength and a period. [5]
The sinusoidal wave solution describes a wave of a particular wavelength. This might seem to make it a specific solution, not applicable to more complicated propagating waves. In particular, the sinusoid is defined for all times and distances, whereas in physical situations we deal with waves that exist for a limited span in space and duration in time. Fortunately, an arbitrary wave shape f(x − vt) can be decomposed into a set of sinusoidal waves using Fourier analysis. As a result, solutions describing the simple case of a single sinusoidal wave can be applied to more general cases. [2]
This well-sourced material has been reverted by Srleffler on grounds found at Talk:Wavelength#Spatial_and_temporal_relationships, along with my response.
I would not take too much notice of this event were it not simply one more instance of reversion of my efforts based upon rather weak premises.
Can someone take a look at this example, and possibly look over the talk page itself to see what might be done here? Brews ohare ( talk) 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Some quick observations on the new article titled Rannow's Theorem:
As to actual content:
So I am somewhat suspicious.
I'll say more after I've read it more closely. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Talk:Matroid re citation formatting that probably applies more broadly to mathematics articles on Wikipedia in general. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have attempted to improve some algebra-related articles to a reasonable standard. I feel that there are far too many stubs in this field, as well as many articles which deserve more content. Mainly, I think that we need to improve the somewhat less well-known articles on algebra so that people who read algebra articles, other than laymen, may benefit. I understand, however, that User:Jakob.scholbach has done significant work on the well-known concepts and hence my motivation.
In particular, if you happen to come across an algebra article which I have edited, and notice something incorrect by Wikipedia standards, please comment/criticize if possible for I am not particularly experienced in WP when it comes to expanding articles. Thus far, I have improved Jacobson radical and created Quasiregular element. I am mainly focusing on related concepts at the moment, such as Nakayama's lemma, Nilradical and Simple module. Any comments would be most appreciated.
With respect to citations, I am mainly citing the book by Isaacs. Although I am aware that there are other excellent books in algebra, I think that other books can easily be cited if necessary. I have chosen Isaacs because in my view, this is one of the better books in the field. You might notice, however, that Jacobson radical and Quasiregular element have more citations than necessary. -- PS T 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that there are books out there other than the one by Isaacs. I don't have this book, but it seems to make rather a wreck of Nakayama's lemma. It is better to stick with more standard sources, like Matsumura, Atiyah-MacDonald, Zariski-Samuel, or Eisenbud. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone still working on Blahtex and mediawiki's support for blahtex? The blahtex's site doesn't work (well, actually works only main page), so doesn't blatex wiki. There is project called blatexml (the only source I know where it is now possible to download blahtex). In preferences there is option to show MathML if possible (experimental), but doesn't work anywhere. So does anyone know what with progress of the project? Or is it dead? Anyone could post any informations about it? Maybe someone informed could create article blatex on Wikipedia?
Also, if blahtex isn't "mature" enough to handle Wikipedia's math formulas, maybe should Wikipedia consider other tools like itex2mml (used, for example, with instiki)? ;) Silmethule ( talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at Talk:Dirac delta function#too many directions? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles [13]. As the site is a wiki and not as such a reliable reference per our usual standards I was going to delete these per WP:EL. However, on closer inspection I noticed that these links have been added by established user Tbsmith ( talk · contribs) who doesn't seem to be active here on a regular basis. I asked on the reliable sources noticeboard and was (wisely) told to ask for input from this project before removing them [14]. I'd like to know if these links are normally considered acceptable by this project or not. If not, I'll remove them from mainspace. I know this may sound like I'm being overly cautious but I'm trying to avoid a conflict by not ignoring some consensus I may not be aware of. Thanks, Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I do see some merit to relevant links to the site: deep links to a particular article hosted by ExampleProblems.com. However, many of these are links to the main ExampleProblems.com page. To me this crosses the line from providing a useful resource to outright promotion of the site. I would suggest replacing these main page links with more targeted links if possible. Perhaps deletion should be entertained as a last resort. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Mathematics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In spring 2007, after long discussions and painstaking consensus forming, the article Function (mathematics) reached a decent state. After a long period of relative calm, a new editor restarted a discussion about the rigorous mathematical definition of the function. This opened some of the old splits between "formalists" (those who pay most attention to the definition and syntax) and "encyclopaedists" (those who try to convey the meaning and illustrate uses). As a result, Rick Norwood wrote a new lead to the article. Several people objected to his changes, and I tried to reach a compromise by restoring part of the old lead and improving upon it. Sadly, this was followed up by a wholesale revert and chest-pumping at the talk page. I request that members of the project try to help form a consensus. This is one of the most important and frequently viewed mathematics articles here, and we cannot be too careful in making it as broadly appealing as possible. Thanks, Arcfrk ( talk) 14:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I emptied it, rather than leaving it set for a merge back to Category:Mathematical relations, because the creator of the category mangled other categories some of the articles were in, such as Category:Closure operators. I had hoped that the cfm I created would have been sufficient, but then I noticed removal of other appropriate categories. If this was improper, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In the second case above, I'd prefer "2-dimensional subspaces". But it would never have occurred to me that those could be mistaken for minus signs. But user:r.e.b. wrote on my talk page:
This discussion is complicated by the fact that the traditional use of hyphens is a slightly endangered species, still used by book publishers, magazines, and newspapers, often no longer used in package labeling and advertising. It is a splendidly efficient disambiguating or clarifying tool in some cases. "The correlation between maternal alcohol use and small for birth weight" is a phrase I had to look at several times to parse it. Why was someone concerned with correlations between "small", on the one hand, and on the other hand, maternal alcohol use, and why just for birth weight? "The correlation between maternal alcohol use and small-for-birth-weight" would not have caused any mental hesitation. "The German occupied town of Caen" and "the German-occupied town of Caen" is an example of very efficient disambiguation. "A man-eating shark" scares people away from beaches, whereas "a man eating shark" is a customer in a seafood restaurant.
Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This also (implicitly?) has something on the use of hyphens in mathematics:
(But maybe not bearing directly on the present question.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina Harizanov. Don't just vote Keep or Delete; give your arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just added the Wikiproject Mathematics template to the talk page of Equation solving. The article seems to have been pretty much ignored until now and it needs a lot of work. I have filled in the bits on ratings etc.. If someone wants to do a more official assessment then please do. Yaris678 ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Pseudo-edge needs attention. In particular, there is no definition. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well-behaved is currently all about mathematics. However, in my opinion, it is very poorly written. I am not a mathematician, and a lot of mathematical content pages link to it - but the page does not tell me what all those pages actually mean when they write that a function needs to be 'well-behaved', and instead claims the meaning of the word is up to "fashion", and gives a bunch of examples of which functions are "better behaved" than others, according to "someone" (there are no citations, and the talk page seems to indicate people disagree on these matters). I've left a comment on the article's talk page to this effect, then checked the history and noticed it seems not to really ever have gotten a lot of attention. I was wondering if there were people here who would be able to fix this. I would do it myself, but don't know enough about the subject to write anything that would actually be usable (that's why I wanted to read up on it!). Thank you! :-) Gijs Kruitbosch ( talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am conducting a Good Article review of this article. Have just scraped a pass at Maths A Level over forty years ago, I am unable to comment on matters pertaining to the accuracy of the article. I have concerns over whether the article is accessible to the general reader, whether it uses too much un-explained jargon, some unreferenced statements and I cannot determine whther the article is broad in scope, focussed and contains no original research. Please comment at Talk:Obstacle problem/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The ancient article titled List of mathematical examples is still in a somewhat neglected and stagnant condition. (I just added another item to it.) Does it deserve our attention? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
I would like to add the page on Near Sets to the "See Also" section on the page Set (mathematics) and I was told this is the place to start a discussion on the matter.
To borrow from the Wikipedia set page:
In near set theory, the elements of a near set are distinct objects that are elements of our perception. A set is considered a near set relative to a set in the case where the feature values of one or more of the objects in the set are almost the same (within some epsilon) as the feature values of one or more of objects in a set . In effect, any traditional Cantor set is called a near set whenever the nearness requirement is satisfied. I would be more than happy to send a copy (or post a link) of an article giving the underlying theory on near sets.
Thanks,
Christopher Henry NearSetAccount ( talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
To go back to the original question, it seems clear that this belongs to the same niche as fuzzy sets, rough sets, and dynamically varying sets, all of which seems closer in spirit to concept analysis than what logicians mean by set theory. Is there any way that we could have an article on this, that we could link to in place of such specific articles in see also sections? I can't think how best one would give such an article coherence, but ther is some sort of common thread. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Is James Stirling's date of birth right on
James Stirling (mathematician) ? Many sources give "may" instead of 22 april. Is it a
Old Style and New Style dates problem ? --
El Caro (
talk)
06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The section of outline of combinatorics titled Branches of combinatorics lists only the following two items:
Does combinatorial chemistry really constitute a "branch" of combinatorics? And the section omits virtually everything. Would someone with competence in that area clean this up? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Would like to invite comment on the above article ie Diophantus_II.VIII. Readership stats do not appear to justify a stand-alone item and I am wondering if it should not rather be moved to be a subsection of another article - eg Arithmetica or Diophantus. An alternative might be to put links in from these pages and any others to which it is relevant.
Neil Parker ( talk) 05:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon number was shrunk a fair bit: Before After ( diff). As I'm not too attached to the article, I don't have an opinion, but perhaps someone else, with different ideas of what's OR and what's obvious, may be interested. :-) Shreevatsa ( talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Extensive discussion at WP:OR/N#Erdős–Bacon number. Hans Adler 13:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This diff and this one identify a circle-squarer posting " original research" among us. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Their web site looks like an attempt to score high on John Baez's " crackpot index" by conforming to stereotypes of a certain flavor of crackpot. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the issues I raised at talk:Jensen's formula? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
MathWorld's page about this states two separate results. The first of them might be called a generalization of Ceva's theorem, and the second is an equivalent generalization of Menelaus' theorem. But all the other web sources I've looked at, and the WP page, only give the first equation. Does the second equation have a name? Is it due to Routh? Should we have it, either on the Routh's theorem page or elsewhere? — Blotwell 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The addendum that was added last year (!) seems questionable to me. Can anyone verify this?
Also, the article could use some work, if anyone's wiling to lend a hand.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Contiguity space is opaquely written. There's enough there that I think I can probably figure out just what it's about, but I shouldn't have to decipher the first paragraph the way I need to. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of the weirder sentences I've found in Wikipedia (as you can see, I've fixed it). (It's not a pseudonym, unless "Tom Xmith" is a pseudonym for "Thomas Xmith".)
It seems the article on Chandler Davis was initially written by people who know him as a science-fiction writer; they didn't even mention in the first sentence that he's a mathematician. I've re-written it so that it mentions that first.
One of his theorems is mentioned in eigengap. That's an orphaned article—can someone help with that?
Davis–Kahan theorem is now a redirect to eigengap. Maybe someone here can make it into an article. (If that is done, then Davis-Kahan theorem (with a hyphen instead of an endash) should then get redirected to Davis–Kahan theorem. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Content from the archive. The issue is still unresolved. Cs32en 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Turns out the vast majority of the content of W. W. Rouse Ball has been a copyright violation since Aug. 10, 2006 (see this diff). It was ripped straight out of the Mac-Tutor bio. I reverted back to the pre-Aug 10, 2006 version. If anyone has time, it would be good to rewrite the article, and readd anything newer than three years ago. RobHar ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Jamie.D.Mac ( talk · contribs) has created an article Base 69 which purports to be a description of base-69 arithmetic but in fact is a corrupted version of the article Octal, with all the 8s replaced with 69s, and some extra garbling. Mercurywoodrose ( talk · contribs) PRODed it, but this was declined without comment by the author. I have proposed it for speedy deletion under CSD G3. -- Uncia ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article Proofs involving the totient function, the single-purpose account Prmishra1 ( talk · contribs) and several IP addresses ( 59.180.44.246 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.127.247 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.127.247 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.7.238 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been engaged in the past few days in an attempt to replace one proof of for another one. I was asked for a 3rd opinion via WP:3O and sided with what had been in the article, but Prmishra1 is persisting, without any dialog. Two things:
Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
These proofs are not particularly remarkable, it has to be said. If there is anything distinctive here, it could be merged into totient function. There is nothing really encyclopedic in manipulation of Sigma-notation. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I see three possibilities to resolve this: first, revert it to the version that made the slashdot listing, second, give up on it and leave it as is, third, scrap the inductive proof. And after that, LOCK the page to keep it from constantly being reverted. It seems to me that Charles Matthews would be a good mediator. What do you think? Best regards, - Zahlentheorie ( talk) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My preference, in general, for mathematical proofs on Wikipedia, is:
So in this particular case, I agree with Charles Matthews that the content belongs in average order of an arithmetic function, if anywhere. I am not yet convinced that the proof details would be helpful or important to include there, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the Livermore loops article. There's a lot of red links there that either need articles to be created for them, or need redirecting to appropriate articles, if they exist. There may also be more terms that could use linking. Raul654 ( talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Do the SVG images at Method_of_analytic_tableaux look OK to anyone? To me the fonts are placed too low and too right, overlapping the lines. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The text-curve alignment in the images looks ok to me, but I'm seeing a different problem: the mathematical formulas in some of the image captions are wider than the images themselves are displayed, and are cut off by the box around the caption rather than being fully visible. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit of work on the Cusp (singularity) article. Could someone take a look at it and make any suggestions as to improvement. The classification of cusps comes down to Arnold's Ak-series (which wan't mentioned in the original article). I've tried to give examples and explanations. Is there anything that I haven't explained properly? ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As these discussions have tended to suffer from a lack of participation, I respectfully request advice and constructive criticism on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, here's an FYI. If you delete all content from {{ WikiProject Mathematics}}, and place the following code in it's stead...
#REDIRECT [[Template:Maths rating]]
...you will successfully redirect any use of {{ WikiProject Mathematics}} to your correct template. See for example {{ WPLISTS}}. The old pageforces use of the correct template. One could use either {{ WPLISTS}} or {{ WikiProject Lists}} on talk pages and get the correct template. If you knew all this, nevermind. But if not, give it a try if you feel it is helpful at all. Prapsnot ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
There does not appear to be an article on the important "Hopkin's theorem" due to Charles Hopkins. Although I am aware that this theorem is referred to by other names (such as in the Wikipedia article Artinian ring), none of these names seem to yield an article. Does anyone know if there is an article on the fact that a right (or left) artinian ring is right (or left) Noetherian? Thanks, -- PS T 09:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I thought what I had up was more or less in line with WP:SCICITE -- after all, the material is basically formulae pulled out of a textbook, and inline referencing would have been fairly redundant. I'm a little hesitant to remove the tags the newpage patroller put up, and I would like some feedback -- are there any glaring deficiencies in the article? Thanks, Ray Talk 06:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I know this is not the right place to ask this but I really would like to find the guidelines/policy for how to format math equations and the like on wiki. cheers. 114.30.110.26 ( talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Mathematical Association of America with your project. Cheers. APK that's not my name 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I know for the most part we've decided to ignore GA and I support that, but I don't think the unilateral action by User:Gary King is tolerable. Please take a look. -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say that if we ignore GA, this is more a problem for GA than for us. The tension around the citation issue is certainly to do mostly with a stylistic preference, but the preference is for writing surveys of mathematical topics in a style that is not neurotic about details. That is what is needed: that is what (in fact) the mathematical literature is short of. The narrower the topic, the greater density of required citation (certain facts, at the limit, are only written down in one place). This actually fits the GA/FA worldview of trying to optimise an article, which frankly for a topic like topology is just ridiculous (no way can one write that article in such a way as to get close to a comprehensive treatment). Anyway, the schism is going to be made worse if inappropriate reviews of broad mathematics articles are carried out by applying myopic templates to the situation, not better. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, what a lot of fuss over one crap review. Two line reassessments are totally against the spirit and practice of the GA process, but bad stuff happens. Instead of dealing with it like adults we have a furore that pits the "math people" against the "GA people" and demands a take over or withdrawal of maths from GA. The argument is soooo 2007. Such tribalism fails to take into account that Wikipedia is a bunch of individuals. Some mathematical editors find GA very helpful, others do not: each to their own. The GA process has good reviewers and reviews and ones which are not so good. It deals with the lack of uniformity by making it relatively easy to list or delist, and providing a reassessment process in the event of disagreement. It is akin to simulated annealing, and right now the temperature is a touch too high.
Community reassessment is needed to reach a consensus and hopefully improve the article in the process. I encourage editors to engage with the article and with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mathematics/1. In particular, something needs to be done with Mathematics#Common misconceptions: cutting it entirely is one option; leaving unsourced opinion isn't. Geometry guy 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind seeing one line of review if it's a pass, but the situation is that it was on hold with 2 sentences provided. If the reviewer doesn't have the time to identify the specific for improvement, then don't do it. It is causing more drama than it is worth. User:Gary King should not be playing a game and passes the ball off to community GAR when he couldn't find more words to defend his poor review. What I propose is to amend the GA criteria by adding WP:SCG to 1(b). It will not affect projects outside of Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry while adequately addresses any present and potential concerns raised in future WP:GAN and WP:GAR where the articles fall within the scope those projects mentioned. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
While we're on the topic, Maximum spacing estimation has been brought to GA, and is currently undergoing an A-class discussion, possibly in preparation for a FAC. -- Avi ( talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
How do I join this WikiProject? 116.14.72.74 ( talk) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Besides the fact that we don't have an article on a topic that is included in MacLane's book and in Borceaux's 1st volume, does anyone here happen to know who gave the modern definition of internal categories? There's been some discussion/confusion at cat theory timeline page.
There's a high-level description of the Ehresmann-Schein-Nambooripad theorem in the inverse semigroup article, but a prerequisite for writing that in more detail is defining an inductive groupoid, which is an ordered groupoid, which is an ordered category, which in turn is an internal category. I'm guessing the first three of these concepts aren't used often enough outside semigroup theory to justify separate articles, although according to Ehresmann's wife ordered categories appeared in some 700 papers (see link in the discussion above). Pcap ping 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the (more "modern") notion of a monotone Galois connection and (unary) residuated mapping essentially coincide, I was wondering what's the best way to deal with these two topics. I was the one that started residuated mapping a year or so ago; the latter notion suffers from much fewer vagaries in terminology and notation.
A possible approach would be to delete most of the "properties" stuff from Galois connection, which appear written in a rather rambling manner (and using non-standard notations), but keep the rest, essentially the examples, some of which naturally appear as antitone Galois connections, and also keep how the Galois connections relate with other notions from math, while the "low level" stuff could be expanded in residuated mapping, where it also benefits from a more standard notation.
One could also redirect residuated mapping to Galois connection, but then one would need to explain yet another set of synonyms for lower/upper adjoint. More troubling though, a binary operator is defined to be residuated in a manner that gives rise to left and right division, but that's not the same as the mapping (considered as a unary map being residuated). This and other notions of residuation, e.g. quasi-residuals in a semigroup, feel off-topic for someone wanting to read just what a Galois connection is.
Some suggestions how to organize/divide this material would be appreciated. Pcap ping 01:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Monus is unsourced and gives what I think is an incorrect description of a subject in ordered monoids. I know almost nothing about this subject, so I would appreciate a look from expert eyes. In summary the article defines the monus of elements a, b as max(a−b, 0), which seems problematic because we don't know there is a subtraction operation in the monoid. I only found one discussion of monus online ( here); the definition there is more plausible, namely as the smallest c such that a ≤ b + c. Thanks for any attention to this article. -- Uncia ( talk) 13:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear all, it appears that the term Heegner number was most likely made up by mathworld. I've started a section on the talk page to discuss whether or not this is so. If it is, I believe the correct course of action is to delete and merge content into other articles. Opinions welcome. RobHar ( talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(Cross-posting from Comp. Sci. wikiproject since activity is rather low there) Can someone with (at least) a graduate-level understanding of the topic take a look at the article, in particular the confusion with various typed lambda calculi; see the article's talk page for details. Pcap ping 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Exponential_function#Overview and motivation an editor has replied to my objections citing the maths manual of style with 'I wipe my arse with the Mathematics manual of style!!'. I don't mind arguing about whether some ground rules should or should not apply or what they mean or whether they should be disregarded in particular instances, but this doesn't sound like a basis for constructive discussion. Dmcq ( talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've put a prod on Pie method which is a putative method of fair division because I believe it is simply wrong. I actually found a place on the internet though where somebody quoted it though not as the 'pie method' and it probably didn't come from wikipedia! I sort of wonder if it is notably wrong and I should keep it and say it is rubbish? Perhaps I should put it under Proportional (fair division) as an attempt which is wrong and explain - but then the explanation could be counted as WP:OR. Dmcq ( talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
By a very simple verified equation we wiped out Prime numbers and Riemanns Hypothesis articles that are rendered obsolete and Wikipedia is the first place we went because you treated us with freedom and respect. The simple equation that is verifiable at face value was posted at the Math forums etc 4 hrs ago"IS 180-PRIME NUMBER(below180)= 180+PRIME NUMBER(any over 180) Till infinity ,So there is no need to be digging for these prime numbers now any more. See also the site Inverse19mathematics.com, or google inverse19 mathematics. THIS IS SIMPLE VERIFIABLE AS IT IS(ipso facto ). GO WIKPEDIA BE THE FIRST. Vinoo Cameron M.D , Theo Denotter.-- Vinoo Cameron ( talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)-- Vinoo Cameron ( talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Edge3 has started a GA review of Proof without words. Their main concern so far is that the article does not give sufficient coverage of its topic. Review status is "On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed". If anyone has the time and inclination to expand the article, please do so. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is perhaps a trivial topic but I feel that some discussion is necessary. In calculus, functions are often composed from right to left and this is therefore the convention with which most people are familiar. However, group theorists prefer to compose from left to right, and in general, many influential algebraists have selected this convention. Consequences of this convention include the consideration of only right modules (rather than left modules) and specific cases of this (for instance, right ideals rather than left ideals). However, in Wikipedia, for the most part, only left ideals, left modules and related concepts associated to "left" rather than "right" are considered. In my opinion, this is an inconsistency, and at can at times lead to incorrect assertions (in the context of rings, only, since a ring need not be isomorphic to its opposite ring). Should something be done about this? -- PS T 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
\fatsemi
does not work on Wikipedia because it doesn't include the right package. If you read the
Composition of functions article on Linux, or on anything else with decent Unicode fonts (Mac?), the Unicode fatsemi appears correctly; but not on Windows XP.
Pcap
ping
17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Failed to parse (unknown function "\fatsemi"): {\displaystyle \fatsemi}
Can someone review that article and remove, or at least frame properly, the ramblings that permeate it? I've done a little work on it, but I have the rewriting fish to fry, for which there are way fewer knowledgeable Wikipedians around (as far as I can tell given how bad the article was). Pcap ping 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a section to the article on Closure (mathematics) article describing a related notion. The name used by Baader and Nipkow is somewhat non-descriptive. Has anyone encountered it under some other name? Also, is that article the best place to discuss it? Pcap ping 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone see how terrible our article on predicate (mathematical logic) is? Pcap ping 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Am I just blind, or we don't have an article on this? Equational theory redirects to Universal algebra, which sort of touches on the idea of a model theory, but I don't see the fundamental result that equational logic is sound and complete mentioned there. I was trying to find something to link to from rewriting in order to explain what the motivation is, but no luck... Compare with [19]. Pcap ping 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone give some feedback on the discussion under Talk:Bijection#Terminology? It might not be a very deep discussion, but I think it's important nontheless. Some extra views would be more than welcome. Thanks! 145.88.209.33 ( talk) 08:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We have these "general" articles:
We also have much better articles on the important topics, recursion theory, lambda calculus, Turing machine, and random access machine; we also have a decent overview article on register machines in general.
The way I see it computability should be is a high-level intro to the often encountered equivalent models of computation: recursion theory, lambda calculus, Turing machine, and random access machine. This is along the along the outline of S. Barry Cooper's Computability Theory ( see pp. 7-8), which despite being written by mathematician was quite satisfying for me as a computer scientist (despite the many misprints, and his insistence on calling RAMs URMs, but that's another matter).
(I will cross-post to the CS wikiproject to attract participants from there too, but that project is nearly dead.)
Thoughts? Pcap ping 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change for the convention. Can we assume that a compact space is Hausdorff (and use quasi-compact for a space where an open cover has a finite subcover)? I think today this is fairly standard and helps to reduce clutters.
One problem with this change is what we do with other related notions like locally compact, or compact generated space (i.e., k-space): should we assume them also to be Hausdorff or not. I don't have a concrete idea for this problem. -- Taku ( talk) 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The "usual" definition of compact does not include Hausdorff. This is supported by the "standard" texts, Willard, General Toplogy (1970), Steen & Seebacch, Counterexamples in Topology (1970), Armstrong, Basic Topology (1997), Bredon, Topology and Geometry (1997), Munkres Topology (1999), etc., as well as references like Schecthter, Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations (1997) and Hazewinkel, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics (2002). In my experience as a practicing topologist Bourbaki is definitely in the minority. Whatever our personal definitional preferences our, we should follow the standard sources. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat inclined to the view that:
I'd rather keep the terminology as is.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In model theory, we have an invariant of complete first order theories that is called the Lascar group. Its inventor defined that a theory is called G-compact if its Lascar group is a compact Hausdorff group. Since the group is always quasicompact, this amounts to saying that it's Hausdorff. This may make sense in French, but based on observations on several occasions I would say it confuses most model theorists outside France, because they expect compact=quasicompact.
I still maintain that the best thing we can do is to use quasicompact or compact Hausdorff whenever there is a difference, and compact when there is none. Since we are writing for an international audience of people from different subfields of mathematics, this is the only way to make sure that our readers needn't guess what we mean. Even if we could agree on one of the two main conventions for the entire project, there would always be some articles that wouldn't follow the convention, e.g. because they are recent additions by a new author who doesn't know about the convention. And it still leaves the flexibility of defining compact as one of the two variants at the beginning of an article, if it's necessary to prevent awkward language. Hans Adler 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at some other Wikipedias:
Hans Adler 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I very much favour Hans's position above - "use only the terms compact Hausdorff and quasicompact in topology contexts, except where the two notions are equivalent. This is analogous to how we are already dealing with ." Where authors are inconsistent, the best way to avoid confusion is to rely solely on unambiguous terms, even if that usage isn't consistent with any particular author. Dcoetzee 07:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, "Compact space" [20] has this comment:
I'm somehow unsure about the accuracy of this. I thought "quasicompact" typically appears in algebraic geometry. -- Taku ( talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So much discussion. We have basic conventions to avoid getting sucked into such time-consuming stuff. "Quasi-compact" as used in scheme theory is a standard definition and means what you'd guess, but it is not a definition most mathematicians have to worry about. I think Bourbaki had a rather limited point in making that definition back in the day, and we lose little by ignoring the point in our conventions. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me weigh in, as someone who has spent some time re/writing the articles on general topology. I have various comments:
1) Both conventions have a great deal of support. The use of quasi-compact is more widespread in French than it is in English (indeed, the above references seem to show that compact virtually always implies Hausdorff in French), but it is certainly widespread in English as well. As a rough rule of thumb, "quasicompact" is preferred by the algebraists (including algebraic geometers, algebraic number theorists, model theorists, etc.) whereas "compact" is preferred by the analysts and geometric topologists. There is enough use of each convention that it seems absolutely mandatory to mention both alternatives as being in common use.
2) In terms of authoritative texts on General Topology, in my opinion (as someone who has spent some time perusing them) the following are the most authoritative, in historical order:
1955 Kelley's General Topology 1958 Bourbaki's Topologie Generale 1970 Willard's General Topology 1975/1977 Engelking's General Topology
I find it strange that nowadays people seem to name Munkres' book as the definitive reference on the subject. It is a very nicely written book (it was used for my first course on topology, and I had an entirely positive experience with it), but it does not have the scope of a reference. From the author's preface: "This book is intended as a text for a one- or two-semester introduction to topology, at the senior or first-year graduate level."
In terms of the authority of the above books, I would rank them in descending order as: Bourbaki, Engelking, Willard, Kelley. Note that the first two of these use the term "quasi-compact".
3) Except for the fact that it is probably not in majority use among English-speaking mathematicians, I have never heard a reasonable argument against Bourbaki's convention. There are many arguments for it, most of all the fact that it clues the student in to the fact that many of the nice properties of compactness in metric spaces hold only when the Hausdorff axiom is assumed. Moreover, the alternate terminology gets awkward when one is seriously interested in non-Hausdorff spaces. For instance the term "compactification" is used in every text I have ever seen to mean "Hausdorff compactification", but the fact that this is not built into the terminology can cause confusion.
4) I would myself prefer that wikipedia adopt the quasi-compact convention. This would be a progressive move: choosing terminology that we feel is best even if it is not in the majority use. I appreciate though that this is a big step for wikipedia to take. I think that Hans Adler's advice is ultimately best: mention both conventions in the foundational articles, and then in the applications try to phrase things so as to make sense independent of which convention has been chosen. Plclark ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
To respond to Plclark's 3), I'm no expert but I believe that the strongest argument against the inclusion of Hausdorff-ness would be that the category of Hausdorff spaces is not well behaved (I never quite understood what topologists mean by "not-well-behaved"). Hence, it is important to work with -- in algebraic topology in particular -- the category of spaces with some weaker separation axioms such as weak Hausdorff space. (See also [21]) This is not surprising since Bourbaki introduced their convention before the category theory became mainstream. -- Taku ( talk) 11:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The consensus seems clear by now, but let me indulge a bit more, because I don't understand Charles Matthews' comment at all. Yes, it is true that there is no serious problem that could be solved by adopting a new convention: there is nothing wrong with "compact Hausdorff", especially because like 99% of times spaces are Hausdorff and so this is usually simply non-issue. (Likely, I was bored before a new semester, which started the whole thing :) But, but, why reject the idea of having a discussion on conventions at all? It is important to adopt a correct convention; not just because that helps the reader but because that's the whole point of this project. Isn't it? We strive for the accurate description of (contemporary) mathematics, and the choices of conventions are therefore extremely important because they're reflection of philosophy. It is possible that, as PST pointed out, adopting the Bourbaki convention gives a wrong impression that certain materials in topology are unimportant (because they are?) I don't see why we, as the authors of this encyclopedia, can't have a long discussion then choose conventions that best reflect views that we think correct? Because we can't agree ever or why try? (Excuse me for ranting.) -- Taku ( talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
See discussion here Count Iblis ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we gotta be careful with every comma in a science article on this wiki or the world might explode! Seesh... Pcap ping 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Protonk has started a GA Review of Mathematics and art ( review page) and Jeep problem ( review page). In both cases Protonk feels that the articles are some distance away from GA quality. Mathematics and art has "many challenges", which Protonk has listed in detail; Jeep problem "requires a substantial rewrite" and so Protonk has given it a more summarised review. Both reviews have a status of "On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed". If anyone has the time and inclination to improve these articles, please do so. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote Theta function (disambiguation) as a possible expansion to the hatnote at Theta function. I think that the list of functions should be split into the true theta functions (Jacobi's, Ramanujan's, and the q-theta functions, at least) from the other functions that merely use (or are called) theta. Something like
A theta function is a special function in complex analysis.
Other theta functions include |
Other possibilities: leave all 10 functions in one large list; split by field (analysis/number theory/set theory).
Here's a list of possibly-related pages for comparison:
Any thoughts? I wanted to at least let some other people look it over before I put an {{ about}} tag on Theta function.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just created a new article titled Bonse's inequality. It's a stub. So:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Following a suggestion of Emil J., I've created a new section of the math MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Conventions. This is mostly a link to the current page on conventions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions. I feel like it would be a big improvement if the conventions page were merged into the MOS: The conventions page is short, is highly relevant to the MOS, and would be easier to find and maintain. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Ozob ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to write this (please delete if so), but there needs to be more consistency with respect to how formula are presented. For example, consider the difference between how relations are written in the definition of an asymmetric relation and an anti-symmetric relation (i.e. aRb vs. R (a, b)). Conventional consistency seems to always be preferable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.67.27 ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The definition of differential of a function that appears in that new article has appeared in calculus textbooks for more than 30 years now, and that's an unfortunate gap between mathematicians and authors of calculus textbooks. You'd hope that authors of calculus textbooks would be mathematicians, but it seems they're a different culture (I don't mean Spivak and Apostol, and I think there are a few others....). And they write books by zeroxing each other's books. It might not be politic to propose burning them at the stake as heretics, so I won't mention anything like that. But I've made some comments here.
Would other mathematicians here agree with me that this abomination is an abomination? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I for one have tried to redirect the new article to a section of the existing article, plus I have made some other comments in the new article's page. As for calculus textbook, I can't say much: I am Italian, and textbooks when I was a student had, if anything, the opposite problem, being a bit too formal for, say, first-year students. But I see that presently there is a tendency towards "American" calculus, using new books translated from English and even renaming courses from "Analisi matematica" to "Calcolo". Goochelaar ( talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the notion of an n-tuple is distinct from that of a word, but I but a quick search in google books failed to find a set theory definition for tuple; only n-tuple is defined. This is related to a debate on List (computing), but the article on tuple could use some clarification as well. Pcap ping 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the definition of tuple from that article is a Wikipedia original, and that it was caused by renaming the article some four years ago from n-tuple; according to MathWorld "tuple" means just n-tuple for some fixed n obvious from context; it does not mean word. See further discussion at Talk:Tuple#Problem_with_def_of_tuple. Pcap ping 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a distinction: perhaps it should be clarified by means of the concepts of internal operation and external operation. The "point" of words is that concatenation is an internal binary operation - we are living in the free monoid. Obviously you can concatenate tuples of any finite length, but this then appears as an external operation on two Cartesian powers ending up in a third. In other words (in other tuples?) as soon as you write * for concatenation with its type data you become conscious of an overloading of the notation. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Content from the archive. The issue is still unresolved. Cs32en 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This really should be resolved by verifying that the formulae stand as stated in the references (and noting the conventions in operation, per reference). I edited the section on the nature of the so-called "matrix derivative" - and there doesn't seem to be controversy about that. So that leaves only the formulae collected from the literature. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
With respect to article Leibniz function, can someone please verify its meaning in regards to its derivative ( f ( x ) f ' ( x ) = 1 ). Not familiar with the term in this context and the word "Leibniz" is not found anywhere inside the books listed as references.
My addition/contribution to the article is with respect to Lie groups/algebra, with cleanup under the good-faith assumption that such an identity exists and is named after Leibniz. Henry Delforn ( talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Cat Data types lists Cat Type theory as sub-category, which causes a lot of data types articles, e.g. some, but not all in Category:Composite data types, to be added (manually) to type theory as well. This appears wrong to me as a way of organizing this stuff. Pcap ping 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
← Which "people" are we talking about? See the pretty picture in theoretical computer science. Pcap ping 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone just created symbol (formal) with a redirect from symbol (logic). In my opinion such mini-articles with no potential are a maintainability nightmare and should be merged. In a note to the editor I was about to write that symbol (formal) is redundant with formal language in the same way that element (mathematics) doesn't exist because it's redundant with set (mathematics). Fortunately I checked this first: It turns out that we do have this article.
Do we really need this? Hans Adler 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
At Henry Gordon Rice, we are informed that:
No dates of birth and death. Only the word "was" implies he is deceased. But on the talk page it says the article must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
Which is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we cite this as a reference instead of external link in math logic articles? The two math articles I've looked at Type Theory, and Second-order and Higher-order Logic are written by published academics, and in the type theory case, by a well-known researcher in that area (despite the fact that he doesn't get a Wikipedia article), so the article is much better than what we have here, which describes type theory up to 1941 or so. Pcap ping 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Count me among the people who do not want to see us citing SEP. The problem is not the word "encyclopedia", although that is related. There are two sorts of refernces that we should cite predominately in our "content articles" (for lack of a better term).
We generally avoid the following for general content:
In essentially every case, the sorts of facts that we could source to these will also be covered in book-length treatments that provide much more value to the reader than these sorts of references provide. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have created an external link template for the Encyclopedia at {{ SEP}}. Skomorokh 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just written a short article titled Bhatia–Davis inequality. I could use work both on itself and on links to it from other articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just radically revised the whole article.
I deleted the "Disputed" tag I added earlier.
You'll notice the definition of total differential and partial differential. One of the various great virtues of the Leibniz notation is that it makes ideas like this so simple. Is there any easier heuristic argument for the chain rule for partial derivatives than that?
(And at this time, chain rule for partial derivatives is a red link! Should we remedy that?)
Also, I've proposed a merger with differential (calculus).
We should consider adding to the article the more advanced and otherwise different viewpoints, including 1-forms. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
....and now I see that someone else has drastically revised it after my edits. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Every so often it seems schools come up with some yet sillier way to make maths inaccessible. Lots of different words to learn about distinctions between different triangles, funny rigmaroles when adding or subtracting, points will be taken off for misspellings and suchlike. I noticed in article Negative and non-negative numbers someone put in raised minus as in −5 for instance. Seemingly they are now learning to put in +5 and −5 to show the numbers are positive or negative and should say subtract, negative or opposite of in the appropriate situations. I was wondering if an article on such ideas might be an idea or what it should be called? I probably would have too strong a POV for it :) I suppose it would be something referenced from Mathematics education as I can see it growing quite large so it wouldn't fit within that. Dmcq ( talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I read this article a while ago, and thought that it is someone's attempt at creating a page on efficient algorithms. Perhaps I am mistaken, but what in the world is a "fast algorithm"? Is this a field of research in computational mathematics? How is this different from the usual algorithm design that computer scientists do? -- Robin ( talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a page talking about automating the process of creating fast algorithms: Automatic Generation of Transform Algorithms "it is possible to automatically generate fast algorithms for discrete signal transforms". Charvest ( talk) 22:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Let's recap:
Although this has marked as a computer science topic (by changing its category), it doesn't contain any programming or the like, and it tries, but fails to define a mathematical concept. The article has good number of issues. See it's talk page. Pcap ping 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Algorithm has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for deletion. Would merging it to Weight (representation theory) be a good alternative to deletion? If so, or if there's a better merge target, could someone do the merge? My maths doesn't extend to understanding this. Fences& Windows 01:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been doing quite a bit of deletion sorting, and while many topics have associated deletion sorting lists, mathematics is a notable exception. I find this surprising given that maths is a subject that can be completely impenetrable to someone like me who has no understanding of almost everything above GCSE level. This means that there is often a need for input from someone able to understand the importance (or otherwise) of the subject being nominated.
My question therefore is whether people here feel there would be a benefit in creating such a list? Thryduulf ( talk) 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evenness of zero/archive1. (I suppose this'll be picked up on current activity soon enough, but why wait?) Cheers, Melchoir ( talk) 03:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After having a look at math article alerts, as well as Jitse's activity bot, I concluded that a lot of that stuff could be done by a simple feature in Wikimedia: "intersection categories". Basically to find out if a math article is nominated for whatever, or needs expert input (cleanup and what not) could be done almost trivially if Wikimedia natively supported intersection of categories. I see that there's actually a request for enhancement on bugzilla; somebody even wrote the code, it just needs to be tested and committed. Perhaps you could weigh in on that? Pcap ping 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for fun, a quote: "We thank the anonymous referees of the conference and journal versions of the paper for providing useful comments and references, and the anonymous writers of the article on the central limit theorem in Wikipedia for leading us on to the Berry-Esséen theorem." Page 510 of the journal Algorithmica (2009), vol. 55, the paper "Random Measurement Bases, Quantum State Distinction and Applications to the Hidden Subgroup Problem" by Jaikumar Radhakrishnan, Martin Rötteler and Pranab Sen. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of bringing the Hilbert space article up to scratch for GA. It was delisted by User:Geometry guy last year, but it has progressed substantially since that time. It's almost in a shape that I would consider nominating for relisting as GA, but I thought I should solicit input here somewhat unofficially before doing so. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a naming dispute considering the correct name for the category for the main article Markov chain and related articles, see WP:CFD. 76.66.192.144 ( talk) 03:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The article titled Point on plane closest to origin is in pretty sorry shape. I thought of correcting its many obvious failures to follow usual and useful Wikipedia conventions, but it's not clear that the article is worth keeping.
Using Lagrange multipliers for this thing that can be done by simple geometric or algebraic methods is not so different from some things I've seen actual mathematicians do, even if it is swatting a fly with a pile driver. But it's certainly needless complication. I'd think of two things: (1) inner-product-space methods; and (2) secondary-school algebra and geometry. Those two points of view seem worth mentioning if there is to be such an article. But Lagrange multipliers don't seem worth more than a terse statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 53
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 54
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 55
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 56
Template:Broken ref
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Silly Rabbit's mention of quaternions above reminded me that I want to put
Quaternion (disambiguation) up for deletion. See the discussion at
As always, give reasons for your opinions.
Ozob (
talk)
09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to shorten the vertical arrows of the diagram this (the source code is attached). Any ideas? GeometryGirl ( talk) 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
\documentclass{amsart} \usepackage[all]{xy} \begin{document} \begin{equation*} \xymatrix@C=1em{ \cdots\ar[r] & H_{n+1}(X_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(A_1 \cap B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(A_1) \oplus H_n(B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_n(X_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & H_{n-1}(A_1 \cap B_1)\ar[d]_{f_*}\ar[r] & \cdots \\ \cdots\ar[r] & H_{n+1}(X_2)\ar[r] & H_n(A_2 \cap B_2)\ar[r] & H_n(A_2) \oplus H_n(B_2)\ar[r] & H_n(X_2)\ar[r] & H_{n-1}(A_2 \cap B_2)\ar[r] & \cdots \\ } \end{equation*} \end{document}
Is it just me, or is are the mathematics articles on Wikipedia less comprehensive than most other topics of the same importance? There are relatively few mathematics featured articles, and many of the subprojects seem to be, well, dead. Leon math ( talk) 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have contributed a great deal to content review processes, and they are entirely compatible with mathematics articles, partly (in the case of GA) through my efforts. However, in my own edits to mathematics articles, I am much more interested in bringing a range of mathematics articles to B-Class, than taking any of them further. Of Wikipedia's 2.5+ million articles, less than 10000 are GAs or featured (0.4%). Improving the dross to a reasonable standard is far more important a goal than making a handful of articles exceptionally good.
The main historical failing of mathematics articles is the lack of sources. Just check out a few mathematics articles at random. Many have no sources at all. There seems to have been some idiotic belief that mathematics sources itself. I don't say this with my content review "verifiability" hat on, but as a user of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now a great resource for looking up mathematical information. However, stubby mathematics articles would be so much more useful if they provided references (preferably online) to sources which fill in the gaps. Clicking on an article and finding inadequate content with no references is a depressing experience. Geometry guy 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not focus on what part of WikiProject Math is more important. It seems that our overall conclusion is that there aren't enough editors that possess all of the following traits: (1) have the knowledge/ability to help, (2) are willing to put information on Wikipedia, and (3) are concerned with the organization, procedures, and conventions of Wikipedia. (I fail number 1.) Hmm... this problem is not easily solved. I guess it's just like Geometry guy said; we can only do as much as we can, and there's really nothing that can be done to drastically improve the situation. Leon math ( talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This complex clothoid/Euler spiral is used everyday, being used in roads and on railways to blend together curves of differing radii (or straight sections). An editor recently has introduced a large amount of new material in the form of including PDF page screen shots into the article (rather than TeX notation). I have copied this material to User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve for their improvement, but it would be useful to have some wider review of what is appropriate (the 8-page proof is perhaps more than necessary for a Wikipedia article).
Track transition curve, User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve, Talk:Track transition curve#Formulation of Euler spiral. — Sladen ( talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This category, and its two current inhabitants, Classical Hamiltonian quaternions and The vector of a quaternion, should in my opinion be transwikied to WikiBooks. I feel that these are both needless and unsanctioned content forks of quaternions. They seem to be filled with the personal opinion and original research of the author, and are rather poorly written. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Came across invariants of tensors and noticed that it currently focuses exclusively on rank 2 tensors i.e. matrices. Matrix invariants are already covered at characteristic polynomial and related articles. Is there a more general article that could be written here about how determinant, trace etc. generalise to higher rank tensors, or is this a dead end ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor had earlier comment at the page Iowa class battleship that the two mathematical formulas in the paragraph below were actually the same:
That same year (1935), an empirical formula for predicting a ship's maximum speed was developed, based on scale-model studies in flumes of various hull forms and propellers. The formula used the length-to-speed ratio originally developed for 12-meter (39 ft) yachts:
and with additional research at the David Taylor Model Basin would later be redefined as:
- .
It quickly became apparent that propeller cavitation caused a drop in efficiency at speeds over 30 knots (56 km/h). Propeller design therefore took on new importance. [1] [A 1]
Sine I have failed four separate remedial level math classes at collage, and haven't passed a math class with a grade better than C- since seventh grade, I was wondering if someone from this project could independently verify that the two formulas are in fact the same. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
...is working again. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at this:
In "displayed" TeX, I'd write the digamma function as
or in some contexts like this:
I don't want to change an "inline" thing to TeX, since that causes comical mismatches of size and alignment, but the "prime" is barely visible. Is there a better, more legible, way to write a "prime" in non-TeX notation, and if not, can one be created? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how this article ever got to GA (luckliy it was demoted). I am starting a rewrite now; any help there would be appreciated (in particular, a good lede is necessary). -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Go to modulo and click on "what links here".
In the modular arithmetic article, 63 and 53 are congruent to each other modulo 10.
In the modulo operation article, "modulo" is a binary operation and (63 modulo 10) = 3.
The modulo article is far more general than just arithmetic.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got the book a a preset a very pleased I am too with it. Of course I immediately dipped into he centre and also started looked up things I know about in the index. Very interesting. I didn't find much or anything about the things I thought of which indicates if it really was comprehensive it would be a bookcase of books - it is pretty huge as it is. I seem also to have been corrupted by Wikipedia, I kept thinking I should edit this to add wikilinks and better citations. Where it differs from WP mainly is it is much more chatty and readable with things like "Why should nonequivalence be harder to prove than equivalence? The answer is that in order to show....", or "For fun, one might ask a fussier question:". On further references it can say things like "For further details n sections 1-4 the reader is referred to standard textbooks such as ...". I can thoroughly recommend the book.
The book has a small section in its introduction on "What Does The Companion Offer That the Internet Does Not Offer?" (I feel like quoting WP:STYLE about the capitalization!) and I have to agree with what it says: that the internet is hit and miss, sometimes there's a good explanation sometimes not. The articles are drier just concerned with giving he facts in an economical way and not reflecting on those facts. And it doesn't have long essays on the fundamentals and origins, the various branches , biographies of mathematicians and the influence of mathematics. Not that I agree with all that, basically I think what it amounts to is one wouldn't make oneself comfortable, get a cup of coffee and curl up to read the articles in wikipedia. The book has a problem with that too as it is so heavy but otherwise it is a far better read overall.
Does a book like this have lessons for us? Should WP style be a bit more chatty? Or should we be dry and economical and just inhabit a different domain from books like this? Dmcq ( talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently created Category:Additive number theory and I'd like help/feedback.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I am seriously concerned about the article on manifolds. First of all, it seems (from an uninvolved user's point of view) that a group of people rejected this article from becoming featured simply because they couldn't understand this. I am glad at least that it was rejected but there should seriously be some restrictions on the people who vote (some people seem to think that if they can't understand it, no-one else can) (if anyone has the time, just have a read through the article). But here is a specific section (the article is never going to be featured at this rate):
Other curves
Manifolds need not be connected (all in "one piece"); an example is a pair of separate circles. They need not be closed; thus a line segment without its end points is a manifold.
And they are never countable; thus a parabola is a manifold.
Putting these freedoms together, two other examples of manifolds are a hyperbola (two open, infinite pieces) and the locus of points on the cubic curve y2 = x3−x (a closed loop piece and an open, infinite piece). However, we exclude examples like two touching circles that share a point to form a figure-8; at the shared point we cannot create a satisfactory chart. Even with the bending allowed by topology, the vicinity of the shared point looks like a "+", not a line (a + is not homeomorphic to a closed interval (line segment) since deleting the center point from the + gives a space with four components (i.e pieces) whereas deleting a point from a closed interval gives a space with at most two pieces; topological operations always preserve the number of pieces).
I can give (if necessary) similar criticizm of almost all other sections. Recently I re-wrote the lede: I would seriously consider re-writing the whole article and deleting some of the sections there. -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
, if not harmful. For example, removing reasonable content as per "delete nonsense section" is pretty bad.
I have reverted your recent edits. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I just did a minor edit to Cauchy principal value. After the edit, every line of TeX in the article looked like this:
I've seen this a number of times lately. It will probably go away soon, but just when is completely unpredictable. Why is this happening? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of (bolded red) parsing errors in this article, related - I think - to mathematical equations. Would someone more familiar with this area take a look? Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that these articles should be deleted: Topic outline of algebra, Topic outline of arithmetic, Topic outline of calculus, Topic outline of discrete mathematics, Topic outline of geometry, Topic outline of logic, Topic outline of mathematics, Topic outline of statistics, Topic outline of trigonometry. Charvest ( talk) 20:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that the portal is the ideal place for these pages. Martin 13:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the worst of these articles for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of algebra Charvest ( talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This question sometimes comes up and it bears answering as often as possible, since a lot of people have never heard that we should be using SVG, and of those who have, few seem to have an easy way of actually accomplishing it. This is addressed at Help:Displaying a formula#Convert to SVG, but their proposed solution relies on a somewhat arcane and arbitrary invocation of two different utilities, followed by a roundabout filtration through two major software packages, which is necessitated by one of them (pstoedit) requiring a costly proprietary plugin to work properly. And the end result is still unusable if your diagram has diagonal lines. Here's the right way:
pdflatex file.tex pdfcrop --clip file.pdf tmp.pdf pdf2svg tmp.pdf file.svg (rm tmp.pdf at the end)
Both pdfcrop and pdf2svg are small, free (if new and somewhat alpha) programs that work properly. I advocate pdflatex since with the alternative, you might be tempted to go the route of latex→dvips→pstopdf before vectorizing, and that runs into a problem with fonts that has to be corrected with one of the arcane invocations above. (There is a correct route, which is to replace that chain with dvipdfm, that I have never seen anyone suggest. Somehow, the existence of this useful one-step solution to getting PDFs from plain latex is always ignored.)
I have proposed at the talk page of that Help article that this procedure replace the existing one. It has been road-tested on, most notably (for the complexity of its images) Triangulated category and found to work quite well. Since the interested parties hang out here more than there, I'm soliciting feedback from whatever TeXperts and hackers might be lurking. Ryan Reich ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Since writing this, I have investigated Inkscape's internals and found that the following pstoedit invocation is also good:
pstoedit -f plot-svg -dt -ssp tmp.pdf tile.svg
It also makes smaller SVG files, sometimes (with the large ones) by quite a bit. This invokes the GNU libplot, and I cannot decide whether this piece of imperfect software is preferable to the one which is pdf2svg; let it be your call if you use it. Ryan Reich ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
...except that it couldn't make a nice SVG out of the pictures now at Cone (category theory), whereas pdf2svg could. I don't think I can really recommend pstoedit for this task. Ryan Reich ( talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Negative and non-negative numbers. Katzmik ( talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have an preferrably an illustration (or an idea for one) to illustrate the concept of vector space? I'd like to nominate that article for FA soon, but I feel without a good lead section image it's only half as beautiful. Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics categories which is used as worklist by mathbot to fill in the list of mathematics categories.
Question: can this list of categories be also useful to Wikipedia readers, after some formatting changes or prettifying perhaps? Then we could move it to the article namespace, at list of mathematics categories, and treat it in the same way as the other mathematics topics. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Krull–Schmidt theorem with {{ db-histmerge}}, since there was a WP:CUTPASTE move done to it. The ndash article has no new (relevant) history to it, all of the history is in the hyphen article, which is now a redirect. Can an admin fix this? JackSchmidt ( talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Grey relational analysis? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Gauss–Jacobi mechanical quadrature is vaguely written. In particular, what does the function pn(x) have to do with the statement that follows it? Could someone who knows the answer to these questions clarify by editing the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_module_category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.181.225 ( talk) 12:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As usual vandals are up to no good at geometry. Having scanned through the editing history for 2008, it appears that vandals were at the peak during mid year; their activity lowest around December. But since January they are back for more. I am worried about this article because everyone knows what geometry is and at least one tenth of people who come across this article are out to vandalize. So this article is never going to be safe against vandalizm. Instead of wasting our times reverting edits there every hour of the day (that article will probably fill up 80% of anyone's watchlist), can we take some action? -- PS T 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on vector spaces is up for featured article nomination. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in comments as to the appropriateness of the following comment by Gandalf61:
Katzmik, we all know where this is going. You want to bang your non-standard calculus drum and assert calculus could be taught without the concept of limits and so they can't be central to calculus. And you could be right - in theory. However, in practice, limits play a central role in the field of calculus as it is taught and used by most mathematicians, and most mathematicians would be happy with the first sentence of this article as it stands, and your contention that this is a misconception is a tiny minority view. Now you may say that is just my opinon. But if you are really interested in what the wider community thinks, then I suggest you go ahead and flag this discussion at WT:WPM. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(←) Hey cool, we find our way back to policy. "At each stage"? According to whom? And what interpretation of "stage"? "The only way" according to whom? "Intended model" according to whom?
No viewpoint has a right to hegemony or even undue influence on Wikipedia. There are plenty who believe that set-theoretic foundations and questions such as these are entirely the wrong approach, but there are others who dedicate their lives to resolving them. So we must try our best to keep our personal prejudices to one side, and report on what reliable sources say, with due weight. </boring> Geometry guy 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
These two articles are in an unsatisfactory state. They look as if they could probably be phrased in such a way that any mathematician could understand them. But the author seems to assume knowledge of some related topics that most mathematicians don't have, and seems to lack knowledge of some things that most mathematicians know. I doubt that the person who wrote these two article can do what needs to be done, and I could do it only with more work than I'm going to put into it today or this week. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I are an expert both in data structures and in topological graph theory, and I don't find the article very intelligible either. When I tried to read it I got the strong impression it referred to the same thing as a rotation system, one of the ways of encoding embedding graphs on two-manifolds, and I'm still pretty sure that's what the bulk of the article is about. But the author removed my {{ mergeto}} tag, assuring me it actually referred to higher dimensional things as well, as the "general definition" section claims but never clearly describes. As for "generalized map" it seems to be a copy of only that section, making the signal-to-noise ratio even worse. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new page titled List of topics named after Bernhard Riemann. It is of course incomplete. Please help expand it by doing two things:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
World Mathematics Challenge is up for deletion as a possible hoax. Ben Mac Dui 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Complex argument (continued fraction) and Talk:Complex argument (continued fraction). A "prod" tag proposes deletion. The article is very clearly and cleanly written and that's quite unusual for dubious material. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Did the continued fraction get merged into some other article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Carol number has been nominated for deletion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What should we make of Richard's principle? Someone has proposed deleting it as "original research". The topic seems similar to (maybe even the same as?) that treated in the article titled impredicativity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, so is this actually related to the stuff at impredicativity? I think that latter article could certainly be expanded, but I'm not up on that stuff. I remember that Paul Cohen found some things to say about impredicativity in his lecture-notes book called Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, but it's been a long time since I looked at that. Cohen thought impredicativity had some implications for set theory, but I seem to recall he was somewhat non-committal about its ultimate consequences. Does predicativity really mean Cantor's arguments don't work (I doubt it)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Maximum spacing estimation has been nominated for A-class. Interested parties please leave comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation.
Also, A-class review is still ongoing for Riemann hypothesis. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Riemann hypothesis. It might need to be closed as a "no pass" but I think it's still possible to improve it in a short time. -- C S ( talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This year, the Riemann hypothesis will mark its 150th birthday. I think it is one of the problems that has gained some wider (i.e., beyond maths) spread, so it would be cool to get it featured. The original paper was published in November 1859, so if we make it, we could argue that it be displayed at the main page. Who is willing to join in into that effort? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Boubaker polynomials. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard's principle. -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know many of you might question my sanity because of this, but I've been trying to explain the difference between conditional and unconditional probability to a user on the talk page for the Monty Hall problem. I don't know if it might be helpful, but could as many folks from this project as possible please make some sort of comment in the thread at talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean, Talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection. No wonder if you are tired! I admire your work and patience. I am never able to make a discussion longer than 3-4 exchanges. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
But take it easy (and avoid the carpal tunnel syndrome!). Sometimes we fail to convince an editor, and resolve the conflict otherwise. That is the life, especially in Wikipedia. I am an expert in probability, but do not think it helps to convince... Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have notice that many math related articles have little to no referencing. Therefore, I wanted to know if you had any policies or guidelines concerning referencing and citing information in math related articles, and, if not, would people be interested in developing one? kilbad ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Monty Hall Problem talk page I have been documenting what I believe is an Ownership violation by Rick Block.
Viewed by themselves, I think Rick's edits today are indicative of such a problem. Glkanter ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Glkanter has taken a look at the responses and decided they verify his accusations of ownership (he wrote "All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!") If you are interested in your response not being misused, I suggest leaving a comment on the MHP talk page. I left a comment in the most recent section created by Glkanter, "WP:Ownership Allegation Update." -- C S ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
In hopes of ending a continuing series of arguments at talk:Monty Hall problem, I am proposing adding additional text to the article, perhaps in a new section, please see Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or unconditional, once again. I know the problem is of little mathematical interest being essentially trivial. However, as this is one of only 23 Featured Articles about mathematical topics I would hope several folks from this WikiProject could take a few moments to express an opinion about this proposed addition. Thank you very much. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who have participated in the recent AfD that has been so polluted with false statements by sock puppets, can I ask that you look at the list of references on the AfD's talk page once again. I (and a few others) have tried to clean them up to the point that verifying enough of them is trivial.
Combining these two yields that the mathematical concept (not the scholar) has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and so should be presumed notable.
Obviously, each of you should make up their own mind if the concept really meets wikipedia's notability criteria, but I think many of us have been tricked into not even reading over the references. The ones with DOIs on the talk page are almost all "good". JackSchmidt ( talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
user:Jim.belk has proposed merging generalised circle into inversive geometry. I have the impression the material now there may have been taken entirely from Hans Schwerdtfeger's book. I don't know why the word "generalised" is used, so if it doesn't get merged, maybe the title should be changed, although I'm not sure what to change it to. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
....and now I find this page: User:Paul Murray/Geometry of Complex Numbers. This appears to be a draft of an expansion of the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran across this template, Template:Math2english, on Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion. If the laws didn't have English equivalents included in the article), I would understand the purpose of it, but as the article stands with the template, I'm at a loss to see how something like
is supposed to be translated into English beneficially or have a picture. Has anyone seen this template before? It is not mentioned on Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible. The addition of this template to an article also has the side-effect of adding it to category: technical and circumventing the explicit instructions at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible to leave an explanation. -- C S ( talk) 03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible/Archive 1, it looks like this template was once mentioned in WP:Make technical articles accessible but was removed because it was stupid. Algebraist 08:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you chaps and chapettes please take a look at the intro to this article and tidy it, so it at least states that it's discussing maths (as opposed to a game that is continuous, like some kind of eternal Timeless Test or marriage).
I note also that the link to discrete game points to Game Theory. Perhaps it could have its own article?
Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a few proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions, the latest one being two months old. Unless someone protests I am going to promote them by moving them downwards. I think the page is still quite incomplete, and it would be nice to have some new proposals and overall more activity on the page. Last year there were only 5 edits to the page and 3 to the talk page! -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
At power of a point I've been seeing this for the past hour or so:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait! This is a problem. Over the last 48 hours, this has been happening with unusual frequency. I've just run into several cases today, and I found another user complaining of it on a talk page within the past few hours.
Purging the server cache works, but it's suddenly needing to be done with unusual frequency. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help out with this article? I am working on wikifying articles and this one is tagged for wikification. It currently has no lead. Also I think the title has to be changed, to avoid the slash. Would Proofs of theorems relating to connected space make sense? Someone who knows a bit about topology and is used to editing maths articles could probably sort it all out quite quickly. Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think these pages are part of the "article proofs" project, with the aim of including proofs of all the claims that are made in the corresponding main article. I don't have any strong opinion about them, but I agree that they are not independent articles. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or you also see the difference between
what's about
( Igny ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
\Longrightarrow
on my own LaTeX installation it's not ugly like the above.
Ozob (
talk)
02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)user:Wikid77 has been "fixing" various TeX displays to allow articles to fit windows of certain sizes, and he has no understanding of the conventions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) for non-TeX mathematical notation, and also doesn't seem to understand the effects of what he's doing—how to get math displays to look the way he intends (e.g. he seems to do some attempts at spacing that don't work). In one case, logarithmic distribution, I entirely undid his work but then changed the display into two lines by using "align" within TeX, in the hope that that would address whatever his concern was. How shall we try to help him? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
TeX does allow line-breaking by use of the "align" environment. That's what I did with logarithmic distribution. I don't know if that addresses "Wikid77"'s concerns or not. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
<math>\displaystyle X + Y =</math> <math>\displaystyle A + 9</math>
s, that is, HTML non-breaking spaces. This produces slightly uneven spacing: Compare the first line, which has no line break, to the second, which uses Wikid77's method: (You may have to get really close to your screen to see this)
<math>\displaystyle X + Y = A +</math> <math>\displaystyle 9</math>
. I don't think Wikid77 has considered this problem. (After all, breaking along a binary operator is usually less desirable than breaking along an equals sign or inequality anyway.) I'm going to leave another reply on his talk page; but he doesn't seem to listen to objections very well.
Ozob (
talk)
13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I've just created the article titled Radius-invariance of the volume of a band around a sphere, about a bit of folklore in elementary geometry. Sometimes the proof of this is assigned as an exercise in sophomore calculus.
Concerns:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
On a related topic, don't they teach geometry in high school any more? Our article titled sphere derives the volume of the sphere only by calculating integrals. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was recently looking at Fundamental theorem of calculus, and I again was asking myself how appropriate proofs are on wikipedia. The two proofs in this page (in my opinion)
But I feel that this is an increasing trend with pages on wikipedia. Even after reading the looking at the MOS I am left with the following questions. When do we include proofs? (Some pages need them, for example 0.999...) How many proofs? (Some pages that I feel don't really need any proof have multiple proofs)? Do proofs blur the boundary between wikipedia and wikibooks? (Some pages are in fact only a proof.)
Overall, I was just curious to hear other peoples thoughts on the subject. Thenub314 ( talk) 09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted for lack of an assertion of notabilityat 18:34 on 4 November 2007 by user:Sandahl. Should we rewrite the article, making the assertion of notability clear, and then restore the edit history? Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Inertia tensor of triangle has been proposed for deletion via WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
An initiative has just been launched to try to breathe more life and kudos into A-Class and A-Class review activities. Project members are warmly invited to participate. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group. Geometry guy 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed four or five new articles today from the same contributor on the topic of fast numerical algorithms, especially classical 18th century work. The content is reasonably high quality and contributed in both English and Russian, but the wiki style and wiki integration is poor. I tried to fix some things, but probably this could use some more help, especially from people who can link to these articles from our existing relevant articles or even just merge them into topically identical existing articles:
If anyone is comfortable editing in Russian, I think some of the same issues are in the Russian versions. I suspect English is not the new contributor's native language, but the English in the articles is usually good. JackSchmidt ( talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an old A-class article, one that attained its rating before the system went into effect. The nomination is here. I went through and fixed what I thought were the biggest issues: lack of citations, some errors, and just cruft. More eyes would be helpful. -- C S ( talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a cfd for Category:Second wranglers currently going on here. Some informed views would be useful. Occuli ( talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is weird. This was an article about an Australian combinatorialist, who is not the same person as the American mathematical physicist at the University of Toledo, who was born in Connecticut. A couple of edits earlier, someone added the "University of Toledo" category, although the Australian mathematician was never affiliated with that institution. Then this edit changed the article to be about a different person. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
and Geoffrey Martin (American mathematician). Charvest ( talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But the deletion discussions should be separate. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about some possible plagiarism by
Lantonov (
talk ·
contribs) at
WP:ANI#Plagiarist caught red-handed and refusing to cooperate. Among his contributions are some math articles:
Hewitt–Savage zero-one law,
Rook polynomial,
Projective geometry,
Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace,
Hölder's inequality,
Curvilinear coordinates,
Pseudotensor and maybe others (I didn't go back through his whole edit history). It may be worthwhile for some project participants to check whether there are any problems with his additions to these articles. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article " History of quaternions" for deletion. The discussion page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of quaternions. -- A. di M. ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also appreciate more eyes on Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. It begins with a summary of Hamilton's own notation, which may well be sound, but continues into the same Quaternions Good, Vector Analysis Bad, as the article considered for deletion (it wasn't, but I redirected it - this may or may not hold). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the link "Show new selections" on the mathematics project page good for? It links to the same site, but with an "action=purge" attached. Ringspectrum ( talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
We finally have an article titled Cavalieri's principle. Happy editing! Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, it now redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The vector of a quaternion has been sitting there for months. The article has obvious issues in regard to some of the usual Wikipedia conventions. Maybe it has other issues too. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Another new article for elementary geometry buffs to work on: Lune of Hippocrates. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your collective comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Using scriptstyle to make in-line symbols "fit". Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is anybody knowledgeable in infinite matrices? In matrix (mathematics), I wrote a little section on that, but that may all well be POV, so I'm trying to find a good source for this topic. Who knows a book/book chapter on infinite matrices? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to mention — User:76.120.151.113 has been going through the polyhedron articles and changing every number-word (such as "one") to a numeral, as well as adding some strange alternate names such as "Heptagonal Deltahedron" for the triaugmented triangular prism. Can something be done? Should something be done? Am I getting over-excited about a petty matter of style? — Tamfang ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Boubaker's polynomials (again) — it appears the same sockpuppets behind the mess in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) are back, again attempting to game Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) by inserting language implying that mentions of a sequence in unreliable web sources such as OEIS and PlanetMath is relevant to judging the notability of the subject here. In this diff, the editor in question asserts that ”Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd, Popo le Chien and Asenine” are all in favor of the change (how the group in favor can include at least one bot is beyond me). The two socks in question have also made a number of edits to math articles but when I checked all were at the level of harmless punctuation changes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Some blocks and WP:Numbers has been semi-protected. I think that resolves it. -- C S ( talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking of bringing the Euclidean algorithm to Good Article level. The topic seems small enough to be feasible, but has wide applications; it might make a good "cornerstone" article from which readers might begin to understand more advanced topics, especially in algebra. I was thinking of organizing the topic stepwise, beginning with integers (which many non-mathematical readers will understand) and advancing gradually to rationals, reals, polynomials, quadratic fields and then to general Euclidean domains. We might add applications such as some factorization algorithms and Sturm chains, and some generalizations such as Gröbner bases. If anyone wants to help, I'd appreciate it; thank you! Proteins ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was careless in using the term "quadratic field"; I meant the ring of quadratic integers.
I'm glad you agree that the EA is an important article to be improved, and I hope that you'll contribute. I'm afraid you'll have to expect a few mistakes from me, since I'm not a mathematician, and I'm just beginning to think through the topic. If you can be patient with my mistakes, I'll be patient with your corrections. ;) More generally, I'll be grateful for the help of anyone at this WikiProject in bringing the article to GA. Proteins ( talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been raised in an AfD here that this article could do with an expert eye so I am asking for an editor to give it the once over thanks. BigDunc Talk 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Dyson's transform has been tagged for deletion 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, I know that the Simple English Wikipedia does not have a good standing with many EnWP editors; I just tried to make the article on the Riemann hypothesis (on Simple) better, but I am not from hard-line, pure mathematics (but applied maths). Anyway, we would like to welcome any editors wanting to help us with mathematics-related topics. -- Eptalon ( talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Mathematics}} is broken after a recent bot update. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could have a look at this cfd. There is some abuse of notation involved in the category structure – putting a category C at the bottom of an article X means 'X is a member of C'; putting a category C at the bottom of a category D usually means 'D is a subcategory of C'. However when we put A = Category:Categories named after criminals at the bottom of B = Category:Al Capone the meaning can only be 'B is a member of A' (not 'B is a subcat of A'). Of course I may be wrong about this and if so perhaps someone could explain my error to me. Occuli ( talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Knot theory has been nominated for Featured Article. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Knot_theory. -- C S ( talk) 10:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me with this Talk:Wedderburn's little theorem, please? Ringspectrum ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The unmistakable behavioural patterns of Katsushi in Riemann hypothesis, as well as the choice of the topic, makes me believe that the user is a sockpuppet of our friend User:WAREL. Shall we do something about it? — Emil J. 12:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Some editors are under the impression that Warel is a banned user. This doesn't seem to be the case (although I had thought so too). -- C S ( talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but this blog post (from the maintainer of the polymath wiki) concerning an automated tool for converting LaTeX-formatted documents to wiki-formatting looks like it could be of interest to editors here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"if the perfect image (image under a perfect map) of a certain space X is connected, then X must be connected." A counterexample is given in Examples and properties, 6.
Does anyone know if the statement becomes true if we add "the preimage of every point of Y is connected" (or something like that) as a hypothesis? Ringspectrum ( talk) 06:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for Constructivism (mathematics) I wrote:
This little enterprise might be of interest to folks not orbiting the constructive maths-think bubble. All help appreciated. It's probably best to reply on Talk:Constructivism (mathematics) — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an attempt to introduce mathematical jargon into the first line of our A-class article Manifold. Please, comment at Talk:Manifold. Arcfrk ( talk) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the question I raised at talk:Donsker's theorem? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at the way this article appeared BEFORE this edit. Someone intended a period at the end of the "displayed" TeX, which consisted of several lines in the "align" environment. The period was OUTSIDE of the <math> tags, and was slightly above one of the lines in the MIDDLE! Moral: TeX on Wikipedia doesn't work like TeX in NORMAL use. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember an attempt -- quite successful, IMO -- to bring an article with more involved mathematics, namely homotopy groups of spheres, to a decent (GA) standard. I'd like to propose another such collaboration, and would be glad if many people join in. The topic I propose is duality (this is waiting as a COTM, too), so something (m)any of you will have encountered, but it looks like a subject where having contributors from many mathematical backgrounds is highly beneficial (more so than as usual). Who is willing to join in? I think a reasonable aim would be Good Article level. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why Jitse's bot hasn't been picking this one up for the current activity page, but: Panos Papasoglu, an article on a Greek geometric group theorist, has been up for deletion for a few days now already. There's still time to comment before it closes, but probably not for much longer. Discussion is here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Logarithmically-spaced Dirac comb has been prodded for deletion . 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 06:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the end of 2008 I have found the List of probability topics in a somewhat neglected state; see Talk:List_of_probability_topics#A:_Articles_missing_from_the_List_of_probability_topics and Talk:List_of_probability_topics#Organize_the_list. I tried taking care of it, but was still unhappy. Thus, in December 2008 I have created a new version named Catalog of articles in probability theory. Just look on both and see the difference. It was suggested once (in December 2008) to merge the new list into the old one, but this did not happen, still.
It seems clear to me that this new experimental format has some advantages (at least in this case); however, it has an important drawback: it is computer-assisted, thus, it should not be edited manually. Instead, one should edit its source (for now, see User:Tsirel/Catalog source; ultimately it should be "Talk:Catalog_of_articles_in_probability_theory/Source") and call a bot that formats the source and rewrites the "Catalog". Such a program is written (see the source User:Tsirel/Bot code and parameters User:Tsirel/Bot parameters); for now, I run it myself. Ultimately it should be callable by anyone, similarly to the "mathbot" by Oleg Alexandrov, instrumental to both lists of probability articles, "traditional" and experimental (and to many other mathematical lists, of course). See also my exchange with Oleg Alexandrov User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov#Another_bot_needed?
Thus, I am asking approval of my new bot, CataBotTsirel, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CataBotTsirel. Naturally, the Bot Approvals Group is wondering whether WikiProject Mathematics finds my experiment interesting, or not. Your comments are welcome! Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 08:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is already approved for trial (7 days); I use it, see User talk:CataBotTsirel. You are welcome to edit the "Catalog", but indirectly, as explained in its lead. It may happen that you want edit some headings etc; in this case, edit User:Tsirel/Bot parameters (respecting the syntax). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is on trial for 7 more days. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please help with Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I am trying to use Wikipedia's strengths to make this a really useful article for the non-professional.-- Lagelspeil ( talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this issue could more readily be settled if an arithmetic geometer were available to comment on the article (rather than on the overall state of Wikipedia). Maybe User:RobHar? The article in question is worthy, and could use improvement on both the "high" and "low" ends. Acannas ( talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated Elegant Exponents for deletion. A couple of people on te discussion in WP:Articles for deletion/Elegant Exponents have talked about merging the useful content into exponentiaion. I don't think there is any useful content and wonder why a person expended effort on it in it first place, but I'm raising it here as stranger things than my being wrong have happened before now. Dmcq ( talk) 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Calculus on manifolds was until moments ago a redirect to differential geometry. I"ve changed it to a disambiguation page listing that and also differentiable manifold and Calculus on Manifolds (book). Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on supernatural numbers confuses two very separate notions (formal products of infinitely many primes, versus elements of nonstandard models of arithmetic). Not sure what is the best course of action. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Frequently_viewed/List is quite interesting, I think, but outdated by roughly a year. Could somebody update that list? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The article titled Frank Grosshans is
If you offer an opinion in the deletion discussion, don't just say Keep or Delete; also give your arguments. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Grosshans. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article titled Mollweide's formula, I wrote:
I wanted to link to solution of triangles or whatever the suitable title is, but we had no such article.
Why should there be such an article when we already have law of sines and law of cosines, and those two cover it all, and in addition we have law of tangents?
A new article just to link to all of those seems a bit like a disambiguation page, since the articles it links to are where the substantial material is.
But it seems to me there could be a dozen or so articles that refer to the concept of solution of triangles, where it would be appropriate to link to an article explaining what that is, so the new not-quite-disambiguation page should be there. And now it is. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute in the Curl (mathematics) article over the proper definition of the curl (see Talk:Curl (mathematics)#Definition of Curl). I imagine that an outside opinion would be helpful. Jim ( talk) 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The 2nd wranglers cfd has been closed as delete and the closer has declined an invitation to re-open. Perhaps someone would like to start a DRV on both the wranglers categories. The first was deleted on the argument '1. This is a valedictorian category. 2. We have deleted a valedictorian category (risible cfd). 3. So we must delete this one.' Occuli ( talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(break)
Ok, here are links to the various CfD and DRV discussions that I could find:
I also uncovered this discussion:
I can't help but wonder if the Tripos Wranglers category should have gone to DRV as well?
If no one here objects, I'll be WP:BOLD and point the soft redirects the other way so the bots will recategorize articles under Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Second Wranglers.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we really need to go through another round of discussion for a simple renaming. Is there any controversy about the capitalisation change? If not then an application of WP:IAR could be appropriate. Total number of articles is within the scope of WP:AWB so don't need to get bots involved. -- Salix ( talk): 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Now we just have to wait for the bots to recategorize the articles. Usually it only takes a day or two but sometimes it takes a little longer.
Tothwolf (
talk)
00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still hoping to interest the talented mathematicians here in improving the Euclidean algorithm article. I've had a few nibbles, but basically I've been alone in transforming this into this. Does anyone want to help significantly before I submit it to GAN, and thence to FAC? I've more that I want to add, of course, but a fellow editor or two would make it more fun. It's an important article, don't you agree?
It's wonderful to see that Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is getting attention, but please let me call your collective attention to Fermat's Last Theorem itself? It seems as though it could be improved significantly with relatively little effort from the people here. It's a rewarding article, since the problem is one of the most engrossing of the last four centuries, one that has inspired much of algebraic number theory (the current WPM collaboration) and captured the public's imagination. I'll be glad to work on it myself, in a few weeks, but as a biochemist, I feel poorly qualified, especially relative to the many mathematicians here. Proteins ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be delighted to help you as best I can with the knot theory article. By lucky coincidence, I have a little collection of knot-theory articles on proteins and nucleic acids. (I'm not sure whether anything has been published on polysaccharides.) Give me a few days to dig them up. And thank you for taking my unhappily critical comments about the FLT in the best possible way; I'll be happy to help in making FLT a good article, hopefully with your and others' help. Proteins ( talk) 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Misc. comment: Lagelspeil has been blocked as a returning banned user, so don't expect any further work from him/her on Wiles' proof of the FLT. -- C S ( talk) 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a view on the two new articles List of indefinite sums and List of indefinite products ? I have found some (minimal) sources that use the term "indefinite sum" to mean the inverse of the forward difference operator - enough for me to give this article the benefit of the doubt - and added them to the article. But I can't find any useful sources for the term "indefinite product", and I am beginning to wonder whether this is a neologism/OR. I have left a note on the author's talk page. Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "indefinite sum" seems self-explanatory, in view of the way the term "indefinite integral" is used. Just do for sums what "indefinite integral" does for integrals and that's it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I find maths very interesting, I am trying to understand many more complex aspects of maths and in my mind this is the best website to use. However, sometimes I feel you need a Masters degree in Calculus to understand many of the pages. Somehow even the most simple articles are turned into mind blowing formulae and all sorts of complicated explanations. On many articles, there are no examples that actually involve numbers to demonstrate somethings use. For example, I find functions hard to understand, I thought I had the grasp of it after reading a book so I came onto here and after reading I am now more confused. It's easy to forget this is an encylopaedia and sometimes behind all of the info there still needs to be a simple, easy to understand description. 95jb14 ( talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In general, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that a reader with no idea whatsoever about a topic can pick up an article in an encyclopedia and understand exactly what is going on. This has never been true in other encyclopedias, like Brittanica, and those have a much more elementary presentation than we do. it is not our role to provide numerous worked-out examples; even proofs should only be included when there is really encyclopedic interest in them.
Of course articles, like function (mathematics) should be written to be as accessible as possible – but not any more accessible than that. Readers should not expect wikipedia to replace a good textbook, because the role of any encyclopedia is to provide an overview for people who have a vague idea what is going on, and provide a reference for people who know a topic but need to check a particular fact. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The article Steven Roman has been tagged for speedy deletion if anyone wants to comment. Charvest ( talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
On a related subject, Yousef Alavi has been proposed for deletion. I'm not certain he passes WP:PROF, so I haven't unprodded his article myself, but others may want to take a look. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article and noticed it is missing a math ratings template. Thanks! momoricks (make my day) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been engaged with a bit of a dispute with Milo Gardner on Aliquot regarding whether his additions concerning Egyptian fractions are sufficiently relevant to include in the article. More eyes would be welcome. If there's discussion of the issue it should probably be on the talk page there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is he notable enough? He claimed that he invented shattering, which is not true. At best, he and his advisor were the first who used the term shattering in his PhD dissertation in 1975 in relation to the process defined by V&C 6 years earlier. Are there any other accomplishments which necessitate presence of the article about this mathematician? ( Igny ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm currently trying to write a good article on matrices. One of the still weak points is the history section. Does anybody know a good reference for this topic? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Try Matrices and determinants and Thomas Muir: History of determinants r.e.b. ( talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 11:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive my complete lack of familiarity with mathematics on Wikipedia, but the article Internal_-_Proof:_Orthogonality_of_Solutions_to_the_General_Sturm-Liouville_Equation looks like it could be deleted, even though it (looks to me like) it contains some salvageable information. Could someone more familiar with the area take a look? Cheers, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 16:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Polynomial recurrence has been prodded for deletion 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 06:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I spent 2 weeks searching the web, trying to find a proof of the orthogonality of Associated Legendre Functions for fixed m without success. So, working together with a theoretical physicst (retired) we developed one. Some of the proof relies on logic I found on the web and some we developed on our own. We would like to contribute this proof to the Associated Legendre Function wiki page (using a link to a separate page for the proof). It was suggested to me by RHaworth (who seems to be a Wikipedia administrator) that I work with an established editor on this. I am happy to do so. Please contact me if you are interested in working on this. Dnessett ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not proposing an original proof. The proof is an amalgamation of steps I found on the web, these fragments being hard to follow. The proof contains a reference to a book that is partially available on Google:books. The reason I am making this proposal is I am learning Quantum Mechanics (with the help of a Theoretical Physicist) and could not find anywhere on the web a proof that the Associated Legendre Functions for fixed m are orthogonal. This is stated on the Associated Legendre Function Wikipedia page, but it is not easy to demonstrate (there are a few calculus tricks that are non-obvious). So, providing a proof would help others who find themselves in the same position understand why these functions are orthogonal. A draft of the proposed proof is at: User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthogonality for fixed m. Dnessett ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about PlanetMath, but when I went to its web site and searched for "Associated Legendre Function" I found nothing (there was some material on Legendre Polynomials, but they are a limited subset of Associated Legendre Functions). There is a Wikipedia article on Associated Legendre Functions and it would seem to me appropriate to provide a subpage of that article that proves the orthogonality of those functions (right now it is just stated). These functions are components of Spherical Harmonics, which are used extensively in the solutions of differential equations expressed in spherical coordinates. Speaking from personal experience, I found it hard to accept by fiat that the Associated Legendre Functions are orthogonal. So, I would argue that others who are investigating subjects that use these functions would find a proof of orthogonality beneficial. Dnessett ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For those who may be interested, a first draft of the proposed proof page is found at User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthogonality for fixed m Dnessett ( talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) [Sorry, I already stated this above. I'm not sure what is the proper etiquette here. Should I remove this redundant comment or leave it, since it is part of the historical record?] Dnessett ( talk) 19:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that the proposed proof not only shows orthogonality of the Associated Legendre Functions, but also provides the normalization constant. Consequently, I have created a new page User:Dnessett/Legendre/Associated Legendre Functions Orthonormality for fixed m that is properly labeled. The old page will remain, but all my future work on the proposal will occur on the new page. Dnessett ( talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat connected to the previous section. There are many honorable titles in academics of various degrees. I wonder which are worthy of inclusion here. In my personal opinion, many of these titles should not be notable enough. In fact, from the experience of people who I know, earning the title is akin to becoming a member of an elite club, not quite notable enough on its own merit. In many cases it says more about the person as a politician rather than as an academician. I am talking about various named professorships, distinguished professors, etc. How about professors who gained other types of recognition/ achievements, like publishing 100+ papers, or 10+ books, or getting a million dollar grant? Where should we draw the line? What do you think? ( Igny ( talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I personally haven't met any titled math professors that seem to have achieved their distinction from politics. Rather, I see a number of such people who generally avoid politics and have hefty mathematical reputations. I'd like to know if Igny's assertions are based on either plentiful experience, academic studies, or perhaps s/he has experience in other subjects and certain countries. -- C S ( talk) 23:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Igny's comment. I strongly believe that developing a set of meaningful criteria for inclusion of living mathematicians into Wikipedia is a serious issue that we need to discuss at length. Refering to WP:PROF is a non sequitur. We need to come up with guidelines, or better yet, clear criteria that are suitable specifically for mathematicians, that are consistent with Wikipedia's mission, and that make sense from the practical point of view. So far I mostly see a knee-jerk reaction on a part of a few people ("who are you to question professional merit of my peers"?), which is off the mark, with some overtones of inclusionism, and only occasional rational arguments. I personally prefer to err on the side of caution and not create articles unless there is a good reason to do so (it's not a secret that removing material from WP is harder than adding it, and that many reasonable AfDs fail in the face of entrenched resistance of only a few persons or due to general apathy). Further, it would be nice if we can reach consensus on the kinds of information that should and should not be included into the math biographies.
I will list some things to consider in developing the criteria, and I hope that more than the usual two or three people will contribute their perspectives. Arcfrk ( talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Artinian ideal has been proposed for deletion via a "prod" tag. It gets 30 hits in google books and 78 hits in google scholar. I have qualms about its deletion because Wikipedia's coverage tends to be broad. But algebra is not my field.
I added the identification of the eponym as Emil Artin. Is it possible that it's actually Michael Artin? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Should this article exist? Is this a common name for this theorem? Jim ( talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. Does anyone think having an infobox in a math article is a good idea? What I have in mind is something like this (see right):
Technical level | Undergraduate |
---|---|
Commutative? | Yes |
noetherian? | Yes |
Domain? | Yes. (Dedekind) |
Dimension | ≤ 1 |
Examples | Field, Polynomial ring in one variable, Set of integers |
Generalizes | Euclidean domain |
Special case of | UFD, Bézout domain |
R[X] | UFD |
If localized | Discrete valuation ring |
Applications | Finitely generated modules over a PID |
(This is something I prepared for the purpose of the discussion, so the details are not my concern right now.) If there was a similar proposal before, I'm not aware of it.
Part of the reason I'm proposing this is that I think infoboxs are inherently more accurate than those chains of rings we have in some articles; e.g., one in principal ideal domain article. I understand the motivation behind those chains: to put a topic in a large context. I believe infoboxs can do a better job. -- Taku ( talk) 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify a few things first. I never meant to suggest we replace text by infoboxes. (I though that was obvious...) I never said the lede of the PID article has a problem, and my infobox idea is going to solve it. All I meant was that an infobox is probably a better idea than a chain of rings currently we have. I never meant to claim infoboxes are "inherently" superior forms of describing math. I agree that an infobox cannot convey some important subtlety, which text can provide better. But that's basically the point of an infobox. While the article can discuss a topic in depth, infobox can provide a summary of the article; they work complementary to each other. I also don't believe math is best communicated via prose. Why do you, for example, put examples in bullet points on a white board when you teach a class? Because, apparently, sometimes leaving some technical details out help students remember essential points. infoboxes duplicate information, but that's exactly the point: putting the same information in different forms help readers digest information. I think this is why infoboxes are popular throughout Wikipedia. We are in bussiness of conveying information after all and we seek to maximize the effectiveness.
As to "technical level" section in my muck-up, I thought that's important because, often, math articles are often accused of not clearly specifying the background necessary to understand them. It is inevitable that some math articles are simply unreadable without proper prior-training. Also, it is important that an article clearly states if the topic that the article discusses is of interest only to researchers or something every math major learns in college. Of course, "technical level" isn't a good way to do. A possible alternative would be "prerequisite". Does anyone have suggestion? -- Taku ( talk) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. I didn't propose to put an infobox that exactly looks like one I put above to every math article. No. Obviously, not every math article needs an infobox, and each article needs a different kind of infobox. The one above should be called "Template:Infobox ring" or something and should be put to articles on rings or rings-like structures. I was interested how people feel about infoboxes in math articles in general, not specific one above. If "prerequisites" is not a good idea, then that's ok. As I said above, I only made that mock-up to generate discussion about infobox. The details could be worked out later if people are for infoboxes. -- Taku ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My general feeling is that infoboxes are a very bulky way of conveying very little information, and that they discourage editors from putting the same information in a more readable form into the prose of the article. Also, when placed prominently in an article they get in the way of illustrations. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have anything in particular against Taku's infobox over other infoboxes...but to echo Paul's comment: I have never seen an infobox in an article improve the article. Articles on chemical elements is an interesting example and one I may be easily persuaded are useful. However, looking at the cluttered infobox in carbon, I wonder how useful it really is. -- C S ( talk) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Shreevatsa made a good point; I was completely unaware of infoboxes in probability articles (probably because I don't edit them.) This led me to believe that I didn't start the thread with a right question. Let me ask a slightly different question. Does anyone can think of any math articles that can be benefited from having infoboxes? In particular, do you think ring articles (e.g., PID, UFD, Bezout domain, GCD domain, ...) can use infoboxes to improve the convenience of readers? -- Taku ( talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The page Talk:Method of lines says it is a copyio. Charvest ( talk) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Topics in Calculus | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fundamental theorem
|
For practice with templates, I rewrote a calculus template that was collapsible and that you can have open to the correct category. I did add some articles as well to help from a physics perspective. (Being collapsible, the space issue is diminished quite a bit.) I stole the autocollapse mechanism from Template:PhysicsNavigation but I tried to keep the calculus style.
If there is no objections, I am likely to replace this current calculus template with the one I rewrote soon. I don't know enough about the math projects style to push the button without some warning, though. TStein ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Motomuku, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WAREL, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WAREL, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_47#WAREL/DYLAN LENNON. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Valya algebra and Commutant-associative algebra — both created by a single purpose account (no other substantive edits), appeared to be hoaxes at the first glance, since I'd never heard these terms before. After investigating a bit, I found out the following.
I strongly suspect that the other books quoted (e.g. Malcev) contain nothing on the subject and have only been put in in order to lend an air of legitimacy to the topic. The terms appear to have been used by a single author (and possibly, only on a single occasion); as such, I would think that they are not notable, in spite of having appeared in an established (non-mathematical) journal. It is entirely possible that these articles were created with a purpose of promoting a fringe topic. Whether or not that is the case, what would be an appropriate course of action? What are the specific policies that these articles violate that can be quoted in filing AfD? Arcfrk ( talk) 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose to add a subpage to the Sturm-Liouville namespace that proves solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation corresponding to distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal. I am asking for help from an editor who works on this namespace to work with me on this. The proposed proof is found at Orthogonality proof. To avoid unnecessary suggestions, let me state that this proof is not original research and there does not seem to be consensus whether proofs belong on Wikipedia or not. On the latter issue, I have contacted established editors asking for their views, but have not yet received a response. If I do not hear from anyone by next week, I will just add the subpage and see what happens. Dnessett ( talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and so am being somewhat cautious in adding pages to the main Wikipedia namespace. It was earlier suggested (when I made a mistake that placed an unwelcomed page in the main namespace, see [ Internal?]) that I work with an established editor of the Sturm-Liouville namespace. I have attempted to do this, but no one has stepped forward. Dnessett ( talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
After rereading your question, I now realize I didn't understand it on first reading. I am proposing a subpage so that readers uninterested in a detailed proof need not wade through significant text in order to get to the next point. Dnessett ( talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Value: I and another collaborator were motivated to add this proof when I spent two weeks searching the web looking for a proof that Associated Legendre Functions are orthonormal. I failed to find anything except a Google Books excerpt that made significant jumps in logic. When I contacted my collaborator (a Theoretical Physicist helping me to learn Quantum mechanics), he showed me how the orthogonality of these functions follows from the fact that they are solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation. He then explained why solutions with distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal and noted that this information was also missing on the web. So, we decided to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Effectiveness of sketch: The sketch might be effective for someone experienced with Sturm-Liouville equations, but for me it was not. I expect other students also would have trouble following the sketch. Better explanation: I am open to doing this, although the sketch in the main article serves that purpose. Why would you repeat that in the subpage? Dnessett ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The situation is this. I (and others, for example, see physics forum discussion, although that discussion is about the sub problem of Legendre polynomials) have found it difficult to understand why the Associated Legendre Functions are orthonormal. This can be shown directly or by noting they are solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation, which solutions are orthogonal if they have distinct eigenvalues (which then only demonstrates orthogonality, not orthonormality). The proof of the orthogonality of solutions to the Sturm-Liouville equation is non-obvious, even when sketched as it is in the main article. Is it the role of Wikipedia to help people understand the fundamentals of a theory? I don't know. I only know that when I searched for some help on the web, nothing useful showed up. So, if it is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that this doesn't belong here, fine. I will try to find somewhere else to put it. However, I am not sure how an understanding of consensus is developed. So far, only a couple of editors have responded to this proposal. Would someone give me some guidance on the criteria I should use to simply give up on Wikipedia and go elsewhere? Dnessett ( talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New Thought: After some thought, I wonder if the following would satisfy your objection. As I understand it, you are uncomfortable with articles that are not self-contained. How about creating a section at the bottom of the Sturm–Liouville theory page that contains the proof. This keeps the proof with the material with which it is associated (so there is no problem with self-containment), but it also doesn't disturb the flow of the reader who isn't interested in the detailed proof. A link to the bottom of the page where the proof resides could be put into the main article. Would this answer your objection? Dnessett ( talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You make a legitimate point, but your general argument applies to all Mathematical articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Mathematical articles are not supposed to contain original research. They are summaries of knowledge already existing in textbooks, papers and other written sources. So, by your criterion all Wikipedia Mathematical (perhaps all Wikipedia) articles would be unnecessary. Also, let me point out that the proof is a summary of that given in the reference at the bottom of the proposal page. That source provides the explicit proof and does not simply state that orthogonality follows from the two properties you note. Dnessett ( talk) 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think your argument that: "Each one is separately available in many textbooks..." applies to just about everything on Wikipedia, but leave that aside for the moment. The reason for not dividing the proof into two parts, as you suggest, is it moves the reader away from the main concern. It requires the reader to suspend his/her interest in why solutions are orthogonal and take up the higher level issue of symmetric operators and their properties. Of course, in the final analysis the form of a proof is a matter of taste. But, presenting the proof in the form as it stands in the proposal has precedent (in the referenced book), which argues for keeping it in its current form. Dnessett ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested to Boris Tsirelson, the value in presenting the proof as an integrated whole is pedagogical. Factoring it into two parts requires the reader to suspend his/her interest in the orthogonality question and move the focus of attention to the theory of symmetric operators. If, as I was, the reader is interested in why solutions to the S-L equation are orthogonal, but not particularly interested (at least at this point) in delving into the theory of symmetric operators, then the separation frustrates his/her interest. If the reader is a graduate student in Physics or Mathematics, then perhaps forcing him/her to consider the general issue would be healthy. But, not every reader of the article will be in this position (e.g., I am not). My interest is convincing myself that the solutions are orthogonal and then returning to my real interest, which is studying Quantum Mechanics. Let me once again admit that the form of a proof is a matter of taste. Some may find the bifurcation of a proof into two parts a cleaner and clearer way of presenting the proof. But, again as I stated previously, the form of the proof in the proposal is similar to that in the reference, which provides some evidence that this approach has merit. Dnessett ( talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am using Shankar in my studies. The place where the orthonormality of Spherical Harmonics (and therefore the subsidiary issue of the orthonormality of the Associated Legendre Functions) is introduced is in Chapter 12, which covers rotational invariance and angular momentum. The Hydrogen atom is covered in the next chapter. Spherical harmonics are introduced before we get to the section that covers the solution to rotationally invariant problems (which is section 12.6). So, while your point is valid, I (as an example of a student) am in the process of learning the facts you mention. However, since I prefer to understand things as I go along, I dived into the orthonormality question as soon as Shankar stated it (without proof). That may be more detail about my situation than you desired, but it does provide an example of why people reading Wikipedia might desire the proof provided in the proposal. Dnessett ( talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Another reason to use the existing proof, rather than breaking it up into two parts: The proof in the proposal elaborates the sketch given in the article. To provide a different proof approach would confuse the reader. Dnessett ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a larger issue at hand in this discussion that directly affects the proposal. That is, should Wikipedia include proofs? Subsidiary to this question (if it is decided that proofs are legitimate material in a Wikipedia article) is: when is the inclusion of a proof allowable? This is something the Wikipedia community must decide and perhaps there should be a discussion of this issue at some "higher level" before proceeding with discussions about this particular proposal. However, given that such a "higher level" discussion does not yet exist, I would like to contribute the following thoughts. Wikipedia is used by a large number of people for different reasons. At least three categories of Wikipedia users are relevant to the proof question: 1) those who understand the subject intimately, 2) those who basically understand the subject, but need a place to find details in order to refresh their memory, and 3) those who are learning the subject. Users in the first category tend to be those who write articles. Those in the second and third categories tend to be those who read articles. Discussions about what to include and what not to include in Wikipedia articles are dominated by those in the first category, since they are the Wikipedia editors who do the work. Those who intimately understand a subject many times are interested in eloquence and elegance, rather than in transparency. Since they understand the subject, many details seem to them obvious and therefore unacceptable as material in Wikipedia articles. Readers (those in the second and more importantly the third category) are underrepresented in discussions about Wikipedia content. Many if not most don't even know such discussions exist. So, I think it is prudent for those writing the articles to attempt to take the perspective of users in the other categories. What is obvious to Wikipedia article writers in many cases is not obvious to Wikipedia readers. Dnessett ( talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "monolithic" sketch (a term I don't recall using), if you look at the proof sketch and then at the detailed proof in the proposal, you will see that the latter elaborates the former. So, if you think the sketch is in two parts, then it seems to me you would judge the detailed proof to be in two parts. Dnessett ( talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion, off and on, as to whether, when, where, and how to include proofs, some of which is archived on these two pages:
I believe that the consensus has been though, that in most cases, proofs are not appropriate. There are exceptions, notable proofs for example (with references) can be appropriate.
Paul August ☎ 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I googled "Wikiversity Sturm-Liouville". One of the hits is a page on ordinary differential equations Wikiversity ODEs. This page is in a chaotic state, which means adding a proof of S-L orthogonality to it would be premature. So, there seems to be three choices: 1) wait for the page to become coherent enough to contribute the proof, 2) work on the page myself and get it into sufficient shape to add the proof, and 3) continue pursuing the proposal for adding it to Wikipedia. Choosing the first option would mean there would be a significant amount of time before the proof is available to readers. Choosing the second option isn't practical, since I am not an expert in differential equations, nor do I want to put in the significant amount of time it would take to become one. Choosing the third option has the advantage that the proof would be available relatively soon (if the proposal leads to the proof's inclusion), but has the disadvantage that it is not clear that inclusion is either certain or likely. So, I would appreciate some feedback on these options or suggestions of other options. Dnessett ( talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a page on PlanetMath that mentions S-L problems (see Eigenvalue problem). However, they are given as examples. There is no page that I could find that addresses the S-L problem directly. Of course, I could work on creating such a page, but I don't feel I have sufficient depth of expertise to do so. Consequently, this option is very much like option 2 in the entry above. Dnessett ( talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Dnessett ( talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if those who hold that a proof must provide significant improvement to an article might suggest some criteria by which this is judged? It's pretty hard to come up with arguments for inclusion when no objective standards for those arguments exist. Dnessett ( talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to avoid the immediate temptation to defend my proposal in light of the opposition expressed by C S, because as David Eppstein correctly writes, the objective of this discussion is to determine whether the inclusion of the proof in that proposal "would be an improvement to our S-L article", "not to solve (my) internet hosting issues." Unless I am mistaken, C S thinks there are no objective criteria that indicate when a proof will improve an article. It's a matter of taste. Is that what others think? Dnessett ( talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The comments by Trovatore suggest he advocates the "Bring Me A Rock" approach to developing articles. For those not familiar with this approach it conforms to the secular parable named (not surprisingly) "Bring Me A Rock," which goes something like this. A King tells one of his servants, "bring me a rock." The servant leaves the castle, goes to the river and selects a rock from its bank. The servant thinks it is a nice rock, it is smooth, pleasantly colored and not too big. He brings the rock back to the King. The King looks at the rock, frowns and says, "not that rock, bring me a different rock." Even if the standards for judging what should and what should not go into Wikipedia articles are subjective, it is only fair to articulate them. This allows those who "aren't in the know" to have some way to judge what they should attempt to insert into an article and what they should not. Dnessett ( talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We had lots of stubby articles on generalisations of metrics: pseudometric space, quasimetric space, semimetric space, hemimetric space, premetric space, inframetric. Except for the first I have boldly merged them all into the pre-existing section Metric (mathematics)#Generalized metrics. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have definite information about the intended meaning of the MSC category 54E23: Semimetric spaces? As it is under 54 (General Topology), I expect that it is for semimetric spaces, but last time I looked the annotated MSC didn't make this clear, and many publications on pseudometric spaces (which are also often called "semimetric spaces") were in this category. I asked the MSC2010 team, but never got a response. If we can be sure about the intended meaning it should go into a footnote, to discourage incorrect categorisation. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You are kindly invited to see and expand my new stub Unbounded operator (which was redirected to Closed operator, Operator norm, Bounded operator and what not). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When we post on talk pages of mathematics articles, we are usually unlikely to get a response within a fixed period of time, unless of course the article is frequently viewed. Sometimes however, we may make important comments at talk pages of articles, which might play a role in improving its quality. In this case, I feel it reasonable to create a certain page that is linked to from WikiProject mathematics (page X, for example). When we post an important comment on the talk page of an article, we write the name of the article, along with out signature on page X. And those who watch page X, will be notified of the article at which a comment has been placed, and will be able to reply. This will allow much more progress for even the more specialized articles, and will give us some place to notify people without piling up comments on this page. Of course, if the comment is highly important, it would be best to post here, but any comment which may improve an article is important, and it is best therefore to have a page which notifies people of such comments. Any thoughts? -- PS T 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about the suggestion above, but I think one thing that could work is to have a bot check talk pages of math articles and see which ones have recent comments. Then a page, like the current activity page, could be updated. It could have info like how often during a recent span some talk page is updated. I think this is simple and sufficient for the problem being discussed. -- C S ( talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I should add that just because I made a suggestion here doesn't mean I think this is a problem that should be addressed, given our limited resources. Consider things like tags that are already added to articles and listed on the current activity page. I don't really see more than a handful of people going through and fixing the problems indicated by the tags. A lot of these tags are added by non-math people which strongly indicates that those are important articles to fix so that non-math people can read them. Rather than creating more mechanisms so that people interested in the intricacies of some advanced topic (of which only a couple people know enough and are motivated to edit) can be notified of it, I'd suggest it's more important to just do the plentiful work that is already available, namely the tagged articles. -- C S ( talk) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We are having the same trouble, like everyone I suspect, at physics. I will be keeping a close eye to see if this works. Should we not also try to find ways to make the existing mechanisms work as well such as RfC or the cleanup tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TStein ( talk • contribs)
Thanks User:C S for your comments. I am not sure how to operate a bot (although I have not really looked at them in detail). On the other hand, the procedure below seems to be going well ( User:Hans Adler is contributing as well as some other editors). We'll see what other people think and how this goes but if you have an idea using a bot, feel free to get it started. -- PS T 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the recent article additive map should be deleted. Before taking formal action, let me explain myself and see whether others agree.
1) What is called here an additive map of rings would be referred to by most mathematicians as a homomorphism . Since the multiplicative structure of the ring is not being used, it is somewhat strange that the article requires the objects to be rings: why not groups, or semigroups?
2) There is almost no actual content in the article. It is mostly an unmotivated definition.
3) The section on additive maps on a division ring is so incoherently written that I cannot understand it. Moreover, it is easy to show that an additive map from a division ring of characteristic zero to itself is simply a linear map of the underlying -vector space. (Similarly, an additive map on a division ring of characteristic p is a linear map of the underlying -vector space.)
4) There are two "references" given to justify that the article is not orginal research. However, the references do not cite anything in the sources but simply list two entire texts, the first of which is 1400 pages long. This is not acceptable bibliographic practice.
Plclark ( talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Links (provide a link to the talk page in question, a comment on the discussion in question if the discussion is long, and your username if possible - otherwise just the link will do):
For the red links that start with the character "0", why are there so many numbers? Math Champion ( talk) 03:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The new page titled Alan Turing Year is moderately orphaned: probably more pages should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done
Matrix (mathematics) is now a Good Article Nominee. Please consider reviewing the article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Mathematical eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trisk to confirm (or refute) my view that this article is codswallop. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with the requisite knowledge ascertain whether this is a suitable topic for an article, if it is a "translation" might be in order.
Guest9999 (
talk)
23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The article goes through the proof that
BEFORE mentioning that that is what is to be proved. Moreover, it phrases the beginning of the argument as if that is already known. As I said: badly written. Whoever wrote it seems to have some idea what the proofs are, but doesn't know how to write them and explain them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made significant improvements to the article as well as included some context of this concept in mathematics. The mistake that I have made was to correct the previous version rather than erasing it and re-writing it completely. As a result, there are still possibly some incorrect logical implications within the proof of which I do not know. Therefore, I would probably leave the article as it is now, and let others polish it to perfection. -- PS T 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This concept is also know as " epsilontics" and also includes the epsilon-N definition of a limit. However, reliable sources are thin on the ground and I agree with merging or replacing by a redirect until sufficient sources are found to support an article on the math culture associated with this. Geometry guy 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think this should be merged into (ε, δ)-definition of limit, since they are on the same topic. The more general topic, of course, is the use of approximation and estimation techniques; that topic is mathematical analysis. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ideal ring bundle is an orphaned article. It it's a valid topic, then it needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a base-27 numeral system septemvigesimal or heptovigesimal ? Both articles are unsourced. Clearly a merge is required - but under which title ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across the orphaned article Generating set of a topological algebra. In addition to being linked from somewhere it needs a proper introduction at the very least. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series has been nominated for deletion. I wondered if this should be considered another case of a badly written article being mistaken for a bad article. I've done some cleanup and organizing, but more can be done.
So help improve the article if you can, and opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probabilistic interpretation of Taylor series. As usual, don't just say Keep or Delete; give arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Recently, Nbarth ( talk · contribs) has moved some articles to new names which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In particular, I noticed that he moved Lambert quadrilateral to Ibn al-Haytham–Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral to Khayyam–Saccheri quadrilateral, saying "full term, credit original discoverer". JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think these are the wrong names for those articles and they should be moved back. This is English Wikipedia. Nbarth has argued that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming is in conflict with naming convention guidelines but actually, that section of the NPOV policy explicitly states:
Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.
It couldn't be any clearer. Even Nbarth has stated the common English names are Lambert quadrilateral and Saccheri quadrilateral resp. -- C S ( talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone is once again adding circular links from recursion to itself. Could someone else deal with it this time? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Euclidean algorithm at FAC. Please consider reviewing the article. Thank you to the several mathematicians here who helped to improve the article over the past few weeks. It was much appreciated and the favor will be returned. Proteins ( talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Sexy prime#neologism.3F. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Equipossible and Equiprobable could really need some help:
Equiprobability "allows" one to assign probabilities? Etc. etc.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article titled Loyer's paradox for deletion. I hesitated for a few weeks before doing this because the article's author had said he would replace the content. Some time has gone by with no progress on this. I'll withdraw the nomination if he can do that. But for now, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyer's paradox. Don't just say Keep or Delete; give your arguments for your position. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there are nearly half a dozen articles treating tensors:
and maybe even more.
Besides the awful naming of these articles (what is 'classical' about the component treatment of tensors), is it in anyway useful? It seems to me that there must be a better way of organizing these articles. Any thoughts? ( TimothyRias ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
You know, this is a pretty old mess. I seem to recollect that there should be a simple, concrete article explaining basic tensor stuff like sum convention, raising/lowering indices, etc., without using abstract algebra. I don't know what happened to it (if it ever existed), but the "classical treatment" version is clearly inadequate. The problem seems to be that tensors are a subject that a wide variety of people are interested in reading about, undergrad engineers, people studying relativity, etc. Due to frequent complaining about articles being unreadable (understandable and justified in my view), some kind of compromise was arranged with different level articles. Unfortunately, the above organization doesn't seem to be how I remember things (some of "intermediate treatment" seems to have been at "classical treatment" before...). It might be worthwhile asking User:Kevin_Baas what happened; he's one of the few people, I think, that has been there through the entire history of these articles. -- C S ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment that Hamilton's ideas, and the quaternionists point of view, have somewhat of a claim on the right to share the tensor name space with those of the matrix algebra point of view. Tensor of a quaternion being an example of a defunked article on the subject. 130.86.76.31 ( talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The new article titled Algorithmic Lovász local lemma has no introductory section. This raises two questions:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Rubik's Cube is tagged as being a part of this WikiProject, so I am letting the members know that I have started a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. You can find a list of my concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks and good luck! Nikki♥ 311 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, looks like the PlanetMath undergoes an extensive editing. If so, the more eyes the better... ptrf ( talk) 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The sizes of the left and right curly braces above do not match, and in fact, the one on the left isn't big enough for the last set of fractions on the first line. Can something be done about this while retaining the format the breaks the whole display into two lines? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an edit war brewing at convolution over the placement of the {{ SpecialChars}} template. There seems to be no precedent for placing this at the top of maths articles, and there is no editing guideline as far as I can tell either — certainly nothing at WP:MOSMATH. My chief objection is that the template is ugly and pushes the meaningful content further down the page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
János Komlós is, as of a few minutes ago, a disambiguation page. Before that, it said this:
Several years ago, we used to frequently see pages putting unrelated topics on the same page like this because they were known by the same term (see the edit history of tar, which was about computer software and viscous gooey stuff), but I don't recall seeing this odd way of using the word "he" (or "she", or maybe even "it") before. I'd use that word only if referring to the same person.
The page on the mathematician needs something added about notability. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not Wolfram Alpha can be used for reference on WIkipedia has been raised several other places on WIkipedia. It seems to me that the place is it most likely to be desirable for reference is within WikiProject Mathematics. WIkiProject Mathematics already makes extensive use of Wolfram's other web resources and is familiar with the computational abilities of Mathematica.
So, what guidelines should apply? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm involved with a dispute with an anonymous editor over how to write the fractional part of a number and whether it is permissable or desirable to make some minor rearrangements to an equation rather than copying it directly from a source, and I'd welcome additional opinions on this dispute. See Talk:Calkin–Wilf tree#Newman's formula, and please leave responses there rather than here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A top-priority, frequently-viewed article, Euclidean algorithm, has just been promoted to Featured Article — thanks very much to everyone who helped in that effort!
No article is perfect, so of course I'll continue to (try to) improve this one. I appreciate your keen criticisms and I'll do my best to incorporate them.
I've begun a rudimentary sketch of an article at Fermat's Last Theorem, and I'd be grateful for your suggestions and ideas. If anyone is interested in helping out there, I'd appreciate that as well. The article is still quite primitive, however. Proteins ( talk) 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments#Error in Morgan et al? there's a claim that the primary academic source about the Monty Hall problem computes the conditional probability of winning by switching using the wrong Bayesian prior. The source is Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., & Doviak, M. J. (1991). "Let's make a deal: The player's dilemma," American Statistician 45: 284-287. Are there any Bayesians here who could comment on this? The specific issue is whether the probability of winning by switching (which is 1/(1+q) where q is the host's preference for the door that has been opened, i.e. door 3 in the usual problem setup) given the noninformative prior should be computed using:
1) a uniform distribution of q in the conditional case, i.e. q is uniformly distributed in the conditional case where the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3. This makes the probability of interest
or
2) a uniform distribution of q in the unconditional case, so the distribution in the conditional case must be computed as a conditional distribution
where f(q) is the conditional distribution of q given the host has opened door 3.
The paper uses #1. Several users are claiming #2 is correct. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We've had a well-written submission at WP:AfC on this person, and would welcome opinions on whether he meets WP:PROF. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ron Larson (mathematician). Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The section started by PST was archived due to inactivity, so I am starting another one.
An editor is trying to change the definition of a codomain to say a function is the same if the codomain changes. I believe it is a problem from the way logicians handle functions and then trying to go to the way it is normally done in maths. Anyway discussion at Talk:Codomain#Reverted? Dmcq ( talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Below is my adaptation of something that an anonymous reader added to the article titled complex number recently. user:Paul August deleted it from the article. He's probably right that it doesn't belong in such a prominent place, but it should be somewhere within Wikipedia. Is there a suitable article to insert it into? Then maybe a see-also link from complex number to link there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In computing the product (a + bi)(c + di), one can reduce calculations in the following way.
Let
Then the real and imaginary parts of (a + bi)(c + di) are as follows:
This method has been used by computers to reduce the number of multiplications by adding a few additions. This is most commonly used in fast Fourier transforms where one uses only three multiplications and three additions.
Added a bit to Multiplication algorithm about it thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have put a cleanup tag on binomial theorem. It's a typical page about a basic topic which has just grown up in a straggly way: it has duplication, poor structure, an "in popular culture" section, and other indicators of a lack of TLC. Needs a general taking in hand. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We currently have an article Propositional logic and a category Category:Sentential logic. I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Logarithmic differentiation seems to lack good concrete examples, and maybe it's somewhat disorganized. I'll be back.... Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For several hours now, when I save a page or preview a page, some of the lines of TeX fail to get rendered. Wikipedia usually works well in that regard, but not today. Have others had that experience? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No—I meant I just saw the TeX code.
It hasn't happened today, though. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently shocking. I'd write it myself, but do need feel comfortable in my ability to be rigorous enough. Any help would be fantastic. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the seemingly last complete version, I had to go more than a year back for that. This article gets shocking amounts of juvenile vandalism, in addition to some unscrupulous edits and edits whose motivation escapes me as well. I suspect the reasons for vandal's attention are similar to the situation at Geometry. Given its history and difficulty of maintaining an article under such circumstances, I propose to semiprotect it indefinitely. Arcfrk ( talk) 06:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
User:TedPavlic seems to be intent on changing "References" sections into "Further reading". This seems quite unwarranted. As far as I know, there is no rule that References sections must contain only footnotes. Indeed, most mathematics articles on Wikipedia seem to do just fine without an enormous proliferation of footnotes. I'm going to be undoing most of these changes, unless there are significant objections here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What shall we do with this situation? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Semigroup with one element also move to Trivial semigroup? — Dominus ( talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested a PR for Matrix. Please comment on the article so that I can improve it to FA. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn ( Talk| Contribs| Log| Userboxes) 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
References to Non-Newtonian calculus are being added to to the 'See also' section of various articles related to the exponential function. They don't seem relevant enough to warrant inclusion, but what should I put into a comment when removing them - is there a guideline please? Or do you think they are reasonable? Dmcq ( talk) 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is current and threatened editorial action on the article mentioned. The article is primarily a list, and I would like to improve its nature. I would also categorize it as a part of mathematics education, if such is possible. I have one citation to "attempted" work by a CalTech Ph.D. at zhurnaly.com/cgi-bin/wiki/CoincidentalTaxonomy that I would like to use or suggest as being used in the article. I also think the article might be re-directed to a larger article on mathematical curiosities. I have my own original results that I deem not to be research that I also would like to place in the introduction or body of the article as well. This is the subject matter you can find at User:Julzes/365.25. The results were found by happenstance, this being my explanation for not regarding them as research, and I have no interest in staking a claim to them. Julzes ( talk) 04:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How about transferring this to our sister project Wiki Books? They are using the same software and probably have a lot more tolerance for this type of thing. Of course sometimes the worst things are turned into a fine article by some genius, but I have no idea how this should work in this case. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
user:MrOllie recently deleted these two links from Circumscribed circle, calling them "linkspam" in the edit summary:
(In the course of doing this, he left fully intact the previous edit, which was vandalism.) The pages appear to be well written and relevant, unlike cases of linkspam I've seen where the page merely links injudiciously to other places on the web that superficially seem relevant to the topic, for the purpose of advertising. It looks as if they supported by advertising but not created for the purpose of that advertising, again unlike sites of the other sort I've seen. Some of MrOllie's recent edits leave the impression that he spends a lot of time removing linkspam, but may not be capable of judging the quality of the pages that he deletes the links to.
In some cases of this kind, the person deleting the links on these grounds asserts that the person who put the links there has a conflict of interests. In such cases, reinstatement of the links by someone with no such conflict is then found inoffensive, so that it is held there is no grounds for considering them "linkspam". MrOllie has recently deleted lots of links to various pages on geometry on that particular site. It appears that MrOllie may lack either the ability or the willingness to judge the difference between two sorts of sites:
If those whose primary concern is getting rid of linkspam, and any WikiProjects or the like concerned with that, lack the ability or willingness to make this sort of distinction, then people like the denizens of this present WikiProject need to intervene to help them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing people thoughts about this. Articles such as 6 (number) generally attract lots of trivia.
etc. etc. etc. What are the relevant guidelines on what should be included in such an article? Are there any good or featured articles of this kind that can be used as a model? The most recent inclusion
which at least is mathematical if a bit obscure. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Mathematics!
An editor has asked for help concerning a technical mathematical article here, and I wonder if someone who understands these things better than I could advise.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, i've been Reading this Project for many months, there are many Highly talented Folks here, i really want an answer for this, i Do believe Wikipedia is not a Forum but i really really want an answer for this, please guys don't Delete this here is the Problem:
solve for t-
60√t (sin(t/3))^2 = 150
only t is under root after 60
Please Help! 122.174.74.142 ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Lipedia (formerly User:Boolean hexadecimal) added some odd diagrams to two articles; I've removed them. Diffs: Logical NOR and Sheffer stroke. This is not the first set of odd images added by this user; File:Hasse_diagram_of_all_logical_connectives.jpg was a previous one that, in the end, was not used in any articles. Thoughts? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote: I thought we'd been through all this in
Talk:Logical connective not so long ago. What has changed between then and now? I notice the German version of the article also removed his diagram recently.
Dmcq
Please make sure, you've got the topic, before you add your opinion. Here we speak about the following two diagrams, and about nothing else. (They have never been used in any german articles.)
The same about Hans Adler: The symbols used are original research, and even apart from this his graphics only make sense with long explanations. Which symbols?! (Probably you remember these, but they do not appear in the diagrams we speak about. I've once used them as a means of explanation in the Wikipedia, to visualise the relations between logical connectives, and this was a mistake, indeed.)
Concerning Bkell: Ah ... ordering logical connectives in a Hasse diagram by implication is original research - very interesting. (Maybe you take a look at this homepage.)
Concerning CBM: Nice to meet the user, who removed the set theoretic definition of logical connectives (Added by Gregbard) with the most funny statement: It's quite unclear to me what these sets are supposed to represent. It was tagged as possible OR for some time. I mention this sentence, because here it seems to be the same.
![]() |
![]() |
The diagrams:
Prefix notations like
are usual, but nearly unreadable for human beings. At the moment in the NAND article there is a section called Simplification, where the operation is not written, because it's always the same operation, NOR in this case:
That's easier, but still hard to read, because it's very difficult to see, which left and right brackets belong together. Combining them to circles is the easiest solution. And that's what you want to call original research? (To express operations by circles surrounding the arguments is nothing special, by the way: It's also done in existential graphs.)
At the moment these two diagrams are the easiest way to show, how every logical connective can be expressed by only one Sheffer operator. Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a short note: It's no problem including the connectives names in the diagrams. It's what I first did, but it became too crowded for my taste. The hint, that printable information is desirable is true indeed. Concerning the color scheme: I may choose darker colors, to make the appearance less gaudy. It's just important, that A and B have different colors. I will upload modified versions at the weekend. Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't ignore it, but I doubt that it is justified.
Content must be verifiable, otherwise it's original research - and the content is undoubted in this case, and verifiable by any source you want. But like every encyclopedia, we should display this verified information in the way, that serves our readers best. An article is good, when the content is verifiable, and as many readers as possible (also non experts) can understand it as easy as possible. So your request aims in the wrong direction: The question is not "Does it appear somewhere in exactly this way?" but "Does it help anyone to understand Sheffer operators?".
This is disputable of couse. I think it does:
The article tells, that all sixteen logical connectives can be expressed in terms of NOR and NAND respectively, so I think we should show that - and not only mention some examples, presuming that the reader can easily deduct all others. This could be done in a sixteen row table of couse, but the most helpful way to display logical connectives is not the table (because the neighbour rows have nothing to do with each other) but the
Hasse diagram showing all implications.
The formulas should be shown in a clear and easy way, so somewhat easier to read than
(((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))), the notation used in the
Simplification section in the
present NAND article. Combining the parentheses to circles for better readability is really not a "idiosyncratic notation" (the Simplification section presumed) but a very simple step. The hint, that "the most important information" should be shown in the diagram itself was justified, so I changed it (and the color scheme as well).
This is how it could show at the end of the articles (= at the end of the Simplification section, which could be included also in the NOR article):
Greetings,
Lipedia (
talk)
12:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"it would need to accompanied by an explanation of the notation or a link to an explanation"
Please note, that I proposed to include them in the
Simplification section in the
present NAND article (and its equivalent in the NOR article not yet created). Did you read it? In this section simplified notations like
(((A,A),B),(A,(B,B))) meaning
NAND(NAND(NAND(A,A),B),NAND(A,NAND(B,B))) are used. In the context of this section the short explanation below the diagram will do. (I wouldn't be so crazy, to include these files in the
logical connectives article, and think it could help some reader there. Hope you didn't think that.)
"Truth tables, however cumbersome you think they are"
"Your comments that such truth tables are not the notation we should be using"
These lines tells me, that you missunderstood something I wrote, or something the others wrote about me. I did not even mention truth tables
nor would I say anything against them (I actually
love truth tables!). Here we speak about the linking of many equal operations in
NOR logic and
NAND logic, and what I don't like are unreadable formulas like
NOR(NOR(NOR(A,A),B),NOR(A,NOR(B,B))) or even the simplification
(((A,A),B),(A,(B,B))). I think these simplified formulas are better readable, when the outer parentheses are bigger and the inner parentheses are smaller.
(In this case the left and right parentheses touch in the middle, and become a circle. If anyone conciders my diagrams to be original research because of this, I can easily make a short break in the middle, so that every circle becomes a pair of semicircles, easily recognizable as a pair of parentheses - than it would be exactly the same like (((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))) and so on.) Greetings, Lipedia ( talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If something is correct, it doesn't need to be "maintained". Possibly your focus is more on the editor than the reader - in my eyes a fundamental mistake, but it appears to me, that this is quite usual in the Wikipedia.
The blame against the first version was to be "a riddle like the
Pioneer plaque" because I "hide the most important information in a link map". So I've got this information included, and now the blame is, that the diagrams are "cluttered". Isn't that a bit strange? Looks as if the rejection is more imporant than the reason.
I think it's sad, that all this debate is primarily harping on about principles, may they be real or imagined, and the question "Does it help someone?" does not play any role. Is "they keep being put in as an alternative to the straightforward text" really a senseful blame? For me it's too far away from "Does it help someone?" and thus secondary, borderline unimportant. For me an article is good
if and only if it helps as many and as different people as possible. Greetings,
Lipedia (
talk)
15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course I didn't mean someone when I said "someone", but rater a quantity of people worth mentioning. But sadly we have no means to check, what exactly is helpful to how many people. Concerning idiosyncracy I can only repeat what I said before: I can easily make a short break in the middle, so that every circle becomes a pair of semicircles, easily recognizable as a pair of parentheses - than it would be exactly the same like (((A,A),(B,B)),((A,A),(B,B))) and so on. But I'm not going to do that. We can agree that the diagrams don't match in Logical NOR, Sheffer stroke and Henry M. Sheffer and end the discussion. Lipedia ( talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Another funny diagram has been added to Hereditary set. At least it's smaller but I think it detracts from what little content there is in the article. A straightforward listing of a few sets would be better and could include some infinite ones. I think the article needs a bit of expansion. For instance a set containing itself and all subsets wouldn't have an ordinal number as far as I can work out. Dmcq ( talk) 11:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, a significant number of math terms are virtually impossible to define for the layman, usually because the relevant Wikipedia articles are simply unhelpful, even useless (cf. hypoelliptic- wikt:) to people without knowledge of fairly advanced maths (and yes I fully acknowledge the difficulty of avoiding jargon in many math articles). Another problem often comes in that some terms may be ridiculously hard to give good quotations (i.e. from books or scientific publication), such as sphenic number- wikt:, even though they are clearly in use (in this case, the problem comes with the small amount of truly useful material in google books and google scholar).
Would WPMATH members be interested in answering the occasional requests for help in such cases?
Circeus (
talk)
02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so your first mission, if you accept it (sorry, couldn't help it :p), is to help define wikt:hypoelliptic in comprehensible term, and verify whether or not that definition directly relates to the current mathematics definition we have for wikt:elliptic. Personally, I'd appreciate some backgroung for dating the term. I find a fair amount of material that discusses or mentions Lars Hörmander's solution (?) ot the things (apparently at some point in the 50s or 60s), but none about when the term started being used (of course it might not have been formally used before Hörmander). A typical example is here. Circeus ( talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So, to get back to the question of a dictionary definition of hypoelliptic:
Right? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Judging by this discussion, some preliminaries on dismbiguation by email might help. You can run things past me offline to get a general sense. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
...that a mitimorphism is a morphism from the power set of a fibre bundle into another fibre bundle?
I was hoping someone here could clarify whether this newly created article is a hoax, a neologism, or just very obscure. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone look at the geometric argument for the integration by parts? I am thinking to add a section to the article about that and have a couple questions. I used xfig to create the picture, is there a better tool to create pictures like that? I could not find this particular trick in the literature, does it constitute OR if I add this argument to the article? ( Igny ( talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
Category:Linear operators seems a rather strange category. It says that it is for linear operators defined on functions, but this seems rather overly restrictive. What should be done with it? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Statistics is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Statistics. — G716 < T· C> 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Technical_(expert)#This_template_is_for_article_namespace. User: Debresser has repeatedly tried to remove the talk page requirement, contrary to the explicit instructions in the technical guideline. I pointed out to him that since this tag is scarcely used, Coren's mistaken reformatting of the tag (which changed the template to an ambox, which is for articles) was not reverted, unlike the situation for the regular technical tag, which was reverted. Debresser insists that since Coren's reformatting of the tag as an ambox was unreverted, I must be completely mistaken about the consensus regarding the placement of the technical tag on talk pages. He has not explained why there is this distinction (one technical tag on the article, the other on talk pages) and has refused to read the guideline or its talk page to understand the consensus. Indeed, according to him, since this mistake was unreverted for 2 years or so, his position is the consensus! -- C S ( talk) 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Lo and behold: List of arithmetic topics is a red link. Should we do something about that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Under the terms of the licensing update being adopted across all Wikimedia sites, WMF projects will no longer be able to add GFDL-only text published elsewhere. Any GFDL text added to Wikipedia after Nov. 1, 2008 will have to be removed as a copyvio. PlanetMath uses the GFDL and hence this could shut down a potentially valuable source of content interaction. In order to avoid that, PlanetMath would need to also relicense to CC-BY-SA as explicitly allowed under GFDL 1.3.
If you have contacts at PlanetMath, or participate there yourself, I would encourage you to discuss this issue with them. See also: m:Licensing update/Outreach. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a somewhat minor complaint with regards to some of the algebra-related articles. In particular, I find that too many technical terms are abbreviated. For example, although it is reasonable to abbreviate terms like "unique factorization domain" to UFD, or "principal ideal domain" to PID, abbreviations such as BFD, BD, HFD, AD etc... are ambiguous to some extent (try to guess what some of them refer to; I find that this is not at all trivial, even for algebraists). As an encyclopedia, we should aim to be as clear as possible, and abbreviations should only be done if absolutely necessary. Even in this case, the word which is abbreviated should be made clear, along with its abbreviation. I tend to find abbreviations such as ACCP to mean "ascending chain condition on principal ideals" somewhat pointless because along with abbreviations like UFD or PID, it is somewhat difficult to interpret (one may guess ACCP to be some sort of "domain" if he was not familiar with it). Furthermore, such abbreviations can lead to errors. For instance, one may write "UFD domain" instead of "UFD" thus being redundant to some extent. Therefore, although abbreviations of basic terms are OK, we should start defining/linking abbreviations when using them; especially if the term to which they correspond is somewhat unknown. -- PS T 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In WP:REFNAME, starting from 14 April 2008, I read: "In subsequent uses of the named tag the use of <ref name="name" /> is encouraged rather than copying the whole footnote again, as whole footnotes tend to reduce the readability of the article's text in edit mode, which makes finding specific parts of the text when editing tedious."
On the other hand, the short version is more prone to accidents under further edits; if the editor is not careful enough, his/her local edit may have unwanted global effect. See also Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Mark-up_would_be_better_than_encouraging_people_to_remove_reference_information.
For this reason I have used the long version in unbounded operator. (Initially I did not know about that style recommendation.) I wonder, do we mathematicians agree that the short version is preferable also in our texts? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Named footnotes have one disadvantage: they discourage grouping together several references cited in the same sentence. Thus, the degree to whch they shorten footnotes is debateable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working, with help from other editors, to improve the article on first-order logic. If anyone has the time to review the relatively long article and give an outside perspective, it would be greatly appreciated. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the Dirac delta function page? The editor User:Sławomir Biały may know what he is talking about, but it is beyond my area of expertise. Assuming that he is competent, I wonder if the article is being made unaccessible to anyone below his level of knowledge? PAR ( talk) 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may or may know, but Wikipedia has switched its license to cc-by-sa. One consequence is that we are now permitted to import text from citizendium (an encyclopedia project started by a cofounder of Wikipedia). I have just imported a large chunk of text from CZ to Gamma function, which greatly improved the article (in a matter of minutes :) Anyway, I thought you might consider doing something like that. -- Taku ( talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My recent edit to this section seems to have perversely disappeared.
Taku seems to assume we know what "cc-by-sa" is, and doesn't link to it. Here's the link: cc-by-sa. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a side note — Taku said that WP has switched to cc-by-sa. According to the notice I'm looking at below this text box, that does not appear to be exactly true. Apparently new content is multi-licensed under cc-by-sa and GFDL. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that this could get complicated for reusers. Ordinarily, when you make a derivative work from multi-free-licensed content, you can choose the license under which to release the derivative work, at least as I understand it.
But in the case of WP, the content from before the change is not available to be re-licensed under cc-by-sa, unless the authors all consent to this, which as a practical matter seems impossible. For content that WP has copied from Citizendium, this content cannot be relicensed under GFDL without the copyright holders' consent. So apparently the author of a derivative work, to be safe, must also release the work under both licenses, and so on for all derivatives of that work, and this seems contrary to the natural reading of each license separately. Have the lawyers really thought this through? -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the principal motivation behind the license switch is to allow the importation of contents licensed under cc-by-sa, if you couldn't data-dump contents from citizendium, say, I don't see the point of the switch. This page [9] hopefully answers some questions raised above. But to summarize key points:
Because of (ii), we can now data-dump contents licensed under cc-by-sa. But the other unintended? consequence is that we are no longer able to data-dump contents from PlanetMath. Since we've been relying less and less on PlanetMath lately, hopefully this doesn't cause much pain. -- Taku ( talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A user inserted this into the article on the square root of 2:
I did some simple number-crunching that seems to bear out the assertion. The user has not responded to my inquiry about where to find a proof; I think this user hasn't been around lately. Can anyone tell us anything?
Probably this result should be mention in one or more of the articles related to π. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the methods of numerically approximating π attributed to Archimedes — it follows easily from considering inscribed 2m-gons and applying half-angle formulas. Arcfrk ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's a sketch. First, note that π = 2m(π/2m) and that π/2m equals sin(π/2m) with a third degree error term. Then we hit the sine with the half-angle formula:
The half-angle formula for cosine tells us:
which we now apply to the previous equation:
where there are m square root signs. Of course, cos π is −1, so the last term is zero. This leaves us with:
where there are m − 1 square root signs. Shifting the index by one gives the desired formula.
I should be cleaning out the fridge. She's going to kill me. Ozob ( talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
...is at peer review. Help get it back to FA. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just an friendly heads-up that a mathematical article, Euclidean algorithm, will be featured on the Main Page in a few hours. Since Main-Page articles are usually a magnet for vandalism, it would be great if you could add it to your watchlists for the day and fix things as you happen to notice them. Others will undoubtedly be watching as well. My own schedule is very busy, however, so I'll have only a limited time to help out. Thanks! Proteins ( talk) 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment on the French WikiProject here and the German one. Are there currently any "institutionalized" means of collaborating with the guys there? For example, the French site is also using a grading scheme similar to the one used here, but nonetheless the actual article quality is not automatically comparable. I'd like to spot articles in French or German whose English equivalent is worse (or the other way round, but that's more relevant to fr.wp and de.wp). Any ideas about that? (Obviously, the same holds true for other languages, but I think it is a start to deal with these two.) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Special relativity article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need quite a bit of referencing. I have placed the article on hold for a week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects of this review which can be found here. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I gave it a preliminary cleanup, but the article seems unfocused and unsure of what to cover. Lots of redlinks (which could be redirects or piped, but I lack knowledge here). Also seems to draws heavily from one author (R. Brown). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, a lot of good faith information has been added to the page by someone who is French I believe, and it is therefore in dire need of cleanup. More importantly for this WP, it lacks inline citations, although it does have references. I wouldn't know if did find references for some statements, so if someone with more knowledge could look into it... it also makes some fairly heavy claims, that a) aren't sourced and b) sound fairly disputable. I know little of the history of algebra, but 'He was the first mathematician to have represented the parameters of an equation by letters' sounds like a big claim. Since the contributor has added a lot of information, it could be a really good page, so I suggest anyone who can should get involved. On another point, New algebra didn't exist until the contributor created it, which seems quite odd. Considering the title may be a direct translation, or not use English terminology, could someone who fully understands the subject, and knows what pages exist check that the page doesn't already exist. Factual correctness would be great, but as I said, the edits are in good faith. - Jarry1250 ( t, c, rfa) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, that link redirects to Curvature. Which in turn directs you to Curvature of Riemannian manifolds. This article appears to be missing its first sentence dealing with expression but without, or skipping, definition? It has been unchanged for years (I know nothing about it myself) ~ R. T. G 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Proposition and Proposition (mathematics) both say "... proposition is used for a proven statement ...". As a universal proposition, this is false according to my understanding and as "proposition" is used in propositional calculus, propositional formula, proposition (philosophy), and implicational propositional calculus. JRSpriggs ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved Newton's method to Newton–Raphson method. This is contrary to our policy of using the most common name in English. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
<<above copied from Oleg's talk page>>
I have tended to take the term Newton's method to refer to the one-dimensional case and Newton–Raphson method to mean the case of a function of several variables (but still a one-dimensional range space. But I don't know how prevalent that usage is. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ...and now I see that there's nothing at all about higher-dimensional domains in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now moved the article back, since I seem inadvertently to have annoyed various editors by the move, for which I apologise. However, in my defence I should say (1) I did not "unilaterally" move the article: as can be seen from the talk page, two others had suggested the move, and it seemed that nobody had objected to the suggestion, so I thought the move was unopposed. I have now realised that there was, in fact, further discussion of the matter, but for some reason somebody started a new section on the talk page, instead of continuing the discussion where it had been started, so I did not realise it was there, and (2) As for the move being "contrary to our policy of using the most common name in English", I am not sure which name is more common: I first learnt the method as "Newton's method" back in the 1960s, but in recent years the majority of references I have seen to it refer to it as "Newton-Raphson". Anyway, it seems that the majority opinion expressed on the matter favours "Newton's method", so I am happy to accept it: I certainly had no intention of going against consensus. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
MSGJ requests (at my talk page) a comment about
I personally have never heard of k-array. Is this a neologism? Also, what about the second? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Excessive cross-posting. Spammed to 11 WikiProjects. [11] Hans Adler 14:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic. The current article is here: (current) The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored) Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean. In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)
Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article. Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:
Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article. I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law. I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible. Thanks for your time Ti-30X ( talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
I am glad to see that we actually have as a template; it's currently up for deletion, but I hope that will blow over. If others find this as intuitive (for non-mathematicians) as I do, let's use it more widely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that inevitably some people like to add an "In popular culture" section to an article whenever the webcomic
xkcd happens to make even a passing reference to it. Thus
Paul Erdős (
Talk),
Erdős number (
Talk), even
Proof that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges, etc. Since this is likely to keep coming up at mathematics articles, I was wondering if we could have a policy page or some centralised discussion to point people at?
For what it's worth, my opinion is that mere incidental mentions are not worth recording, but nontrivial uses in popular culture (even on xkcd) might be. (
XKCD comic.) No doubt there are others who think that all "in popular culture" mentions are cruft.
Shreevatsa (
talk)
17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a big stretch to call an xkcd mention as being a somehow significant "popular culture" mention. Obviously a number of people that like to edit Wikipedia have a somewhat distorted view of what constitutes "popular culture" (I've noted for a while that the article on Crucifixion seems to devote more space and importance to mentions of crucifixions in anime as compared to those in classic artwork and literature). xkcd, as great as it is, is basically a niche webcomic that is only now starting to emerge more into the mainstream. The most defensible insertion would be into Erdos or Bacon number articles...topics which are inherently about popular culture (although the former is more limited to the geek crowd). -- C S ( talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Is anyone interested in trying to salvage something from the fairly new article self-referential function ? At present, the first sentence of the article "Cantor's diagonalisation produces a function that makes reference to itself" is simply wrong; the definition "A self-referential function is a function that applies to itself" is hopelessly vague; and the references are not actually related to the contents of the article. See Talk:Self-referential function for further discussion.
We already have fine articles on self-reference, recursion and functional equation. There may be a useful article to be written on self-referential functions, but the current article is not close to it, in my opinion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I made an edit to the section of Residue (complex analysis) on calculating residues, and I'm posting here requesting a few more pairs of eyes look at it and make sure I didn't introduce any errors or anything. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful for some expert opinions on the example I propose to add to Minimal subtraction scheme. Comments at the article talk page would be welcome. A.K.Nole ( talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Family of successors to Tetration are being created....
Any assistance in keeping this in order would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on the Maths Wikiproject talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't have an article about Aise Johan de Jong (notable for resolution of singularities in characteristic p; a Cole prize winner). I'm not so much into biography articles, but if somebody is, he's certainly deserving an article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/missing mathematicians. Charvest ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Bow and arrow curve has been proposed for deletion. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the appropriate terms in Latin and German? I'd search for those in Google Books, with "Euler" as the author's name.
In German:
"Bow and arrow" has some plausibility, since the line y = x is part of the graph, and a curve crossing that line is as well. It's not implausible that Euler wrote about these curves and someone later called them by that name. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's now an AfD rather than a proposed deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bow and arrow curve. As Michael Hardy often writes, please contribute with a reason for your decision rather than a simple keep or delete vote. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A persistent anon keeps editing Kepler conjecture to add a supposed counterexample attributed to Archimedes Plutonium. I have reverted twice today already, but anon has just inserted their nonsense for a third time. Please can someone keep an eye on the article and revert and/or semi-protect as you see fit. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying for some time to add some material to Wavelength quoted below:
Spatial and temporal relationships
The mathematical form for the wave involves the argument of the cosine, say θ, given by:
Using θ, the amplitude of the wave is:
which shows a particular value of y corresponds to a particular value of θ. As time advances, the term (−vt) in θ continuously reduces θ, so the position x corresponding to a chosen value of θ must increase according to:
in order that the value of θ stay the same. In other words, the position x where the amplitude y has the value Acos(θ) moves in time with the wave speed v. Thus, the particular mathematical form x − vt expresses the traveling nature of the wave.
In the case of the cosine, the periodicity of the cosine function in θ shows that a snapshot of the wave at a given time finds the wave undulating in space, while an observation of the wave at a fixed location finds the wave undulating in time. For example, a repetition in time occurs when θ increases by 2π; that is, when time increases by an amount T such that: [2]
- or
Likewise, a repetition in space occurs when x increases an amount Δx enough to cause an increase in θ by 2π:
- or
Thus, the temporal variation in y with period T at a fixed location is related via the wave speed v to the corresponding spatial variation with wavelength λ at a fixed time.
Using the same reasoning, it may be noted that any function f(x − vt) propagates as a wave of fixed shape moving through space with velocity v. [3] However, to obtain a wavelength and a period, the function f must be a periodic function of its argument. [4] As noted, the cosine is a periodic function and that is why a wave based upon the cosine has a wavelength and a period. [5]
The sinusoidal wave solution describes a wave of a particular wavelength. This might seem to make it a specific solution, not applicable to more complicated propagating waves. In particular, the sinusoid is defined for all times and distances, whereas in physical situations we deal with waves that exist for a limited span in space and duration in time. Fortunately, an arbitrary wave shape f(x − vt) can be decomposed into a set of sinusoidal waves using Fourier analysis. As a result, solutions describing the simple case of a single sinusoidal wave can be applied to more general cases. [2]
This well-sourced material has been reverted by Srleffler on grounds found at Talk:Wavelength#Spatial_and_temporal_relationships, along with my response.
I would not take too much notice of this event were it not simply one more instance of reversion of my efforts based upon rather weak premises.
Can someone take a look at this example, and possibly look over the talk page itself to see what might be done here? Brews ohare ( talk) 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Some quick observations on the new article titled Rannow's Theorem:
As to actual content:
So I am somewhat suspicious.
I'll say more after I've read it more closely. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Talk:Matroid re citation formatting that probably applies more broadly to mathematics articles on Wikipedia in general. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I have attempted to improve some algebra-related articles to a reasonable standard. I feel that there are far too many stubs in this field, as well as many articles which deserve more content. Mainly, I think that we need to improve the somewhat less well-known articles on algebra so that people who read algebra articles, other than laymen, may benefit. I understand, however, that User:Jakob.scholbach has done significant work on the well-known concepts and hence my motivation.
In particular, if you happen to come across an algebra article which I have edited, and notice something incorrect by Wikipedia standards, please comment/criticize if possible for I am not particularly experienced in WP when it comes to expanding articles. Thus far, I have improved Jacobson radical and created Quasiregular element. I am mainly focusing on related concepts at the moment, such as Nakayama's lemma, Nilradical and Simple module. Any comments would be most appreciated.
With respect to citations, I am mainly citing the book by Isaacs. Although I am aware that there are other excellent books in algebra, I think that other books can easily be cited if necessary. I have chosen Isaacs because in my view, this is one of the better books in the field. You might notice, however, that Jacobson radical and Quasiregular element have more citations than necessary. -- PS T 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that there are books out there other than the one by Isaacs. I don't have this book, but it seems to make rather a wreck of Nakayama's lemma. It is better to stick with more standard sources, like Matsumura, Atiyah-MacDonald, Zariski-Samuel, or Eisenbud. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone still working on Blahtex and mediawiki's support for blahtex? The blahtex's site doesn't work (well, actually works only main page), so doesn't blatex wiki. There is project called blatexml (the only source I know where it is now possible to download blahtex). In preferences there is option to show MathML if possible (experimental), but doesn't work anywhere. So does anyone know what with progress of the project? Or is it dead? Anyone could post any informations about it? Maybe someone informed could create article blatex on Wikipedia?
Also, if blahtex isn't "mature" enough to handle Wikipedia's math formulas, maybe should Wikipedia consider other tools like itex2mml (used, for example, with instiki)? ;) Silmethule ( talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at Talk:Dirac delta function#too many directions? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles [13]. As the site is a wiki and not as such a reliable reference per our usual standards I was going to delete these per WP:EL. However, on closer inspection I noticed that these links have been added by established user Tbsmith ( talk · contribs) who doesn't seem to be active here on a regular basis. I asked on the reliable sources noticeboard and was (wisely) told to ask for input from this project before removing them [14]. I'd like to know if these links are normally considered acceptable by this project or not. If not, I'll remove them from mainspace. I know this may sound like I'm being overly cautious but I'm trying to avoid a conflict by not ignoring some consensus I may not be aware of. Thanks, Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I do see some merit to relevant links to the site: deep links to a particular article hosted by ExampleProblems.com. However, many of these are links to the main ExampleProblems.com page. To me this crosses the line from providing a useful resource to outright promotion of the site. I would suggest replacing these main page links with more targeted links if possible. Perhaps deletion should be entertained as a last resort. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Mathematics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In spring 2007, after long discussions and painstaking consensus forming, the article Function (mathematics) reached a decent state. After a long period of relative calm, a new editor restarted a discussion about the rigorous mathematical definition of the function. This opened some of the old splits between "formalists" (those who pay most attention to the definition and syntax) and "encyclopaedists" (those who try to convey the meaning and illustrate uses). As a result, Rick Norwood wrote a new lead to the article. Several people objected to his changes, and I tried to reach a compromise by restoring part of the old lead and improving upon it. Sadly, this was followed up by a wholesale revert and chest-pumping at the talk page. I request that members of the project try to help form a consensus. This is one of the most important and frequently viewed mathematics articles here, and we cannot be too careful in making it as broadly appealing as possible. Thanks, Arcfrk ( talk) 14:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I emptied it, rather than leaving it set for a merge back to Category:Mathematical relations, because the creator of the category mangled other categories some of the articles were in, such as Category:Closure operators. I had hoped that the cfm I created would have been sufficient, but then I noticed removal of other appropriate categories. If this was improper, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In the second case above, I'd prefer "2-dimensional subspaces". But it would never have occurred to me that those could be mistaken for minus signs. But user:r.e.b. wrote on my talk page:
This discussion is complicated by the fact that the traditional use of hyphens is a slightly endangered species, still used by book publishers, magazines, and newspapers, often no longer used in package labeling and advertising. It is a splendidly efficient disambiguating or clarifying tool in some cases. "The correlation between maternal alcohol use and small for birth weight" is a phrase I had to look at several times to parse it. Why was someone concerned with correlations between "small", on the one hand, and on the other hand, maternal alcohol use, and why just for birth weight? "The correlation between maternal alcohol use and small-for-birth-weight" would not have caused any mental hesitation. "The German occupied town of Caen" and "the German-occupied town of Caen" is an example of very efficient disambiguation. "A man-eating shark" scares people away from beaches, whereas "a man eating shark" is a customer in a seafood restaurant.
Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This also (implicitly?) has something on the use of hyphens in mathematics:
(But maybe not bearing directly on the present question.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina Harizanov. Don't just vote Keep or Delete; give your arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just added the Wikiproject Mathematics template to the talk page of Equation solving. The article seems to have been pretty much ignored until now and it needs a lot of work. I have filled in the bits on ratings etc.. If someone wants to do a more official assessment then please do. Yaris678 ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Pseudo-edge needs attention. In particular, there is no definition. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well-behaved is currently all about mathematics. However, in my opinion, it is very poorly written. I am not a mathematician, and a lot of mathematical content pages link to it - but the page does not tell me what all those pages actually mean when they write that a function needs to be 'well-behaved', and instead claims the meaning of the word is up to "fashion", and gives a bunch of examples of which functions are "better behaved" than others, according to "someone" (there are no citations, and the talk page seems to indicate people disagree on these matters). I've left a comment on the article's talk page to this effect, then checked the history and noticed it seems not to really ever have gotten a lot of attention. I was wondering if there were people here who would be able to fix this. I would do it myself, but don't know enough about the subject to write anything that would actually be usable (that's why I wanted to read up on it!). Thank you! :-) Gijs Kruitbosch ( talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am conducting a Good Article review of this article. Have just scraped a pass at Maths A Level over forty years ago, I am unable to comment on matters pertaining to the accuracy of the article. I have concerns over whether the article is accessible to the general reader, whether it uses too much un-explained jargon, some unreferenced statements and I cannot determine whther the article is broad in scope, focussed and contains no original research. Please comment at Talk:Obstacle problem/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The ancient article titled List of mathematical examples is still in a somewhat neglected and stagnant condition. (I just added another item to it.) Does it deserve our attention? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
I would like to add the page on Near Sets to the "See Also" section on the page Set (mathematics) and I was told this is the place to start a discussion on the matter.
To borrow from the Wikipedia set page:
In near set theory, the elements of a near set are distinct objects that are elements of our perception. A set is considered a near set relative to a set in the case where the feature values of one or more of the objects in the set are almost the same (within some epsilon) as the feature values of one or more of objects in a set . In effect, any traditional Cantor set is called a near set whenever the nearness requirement is satisfied. I would be more than happy to send a copy (or post a link) of an article giving the underlying theory on near sets.
Thanks,
Christopher Henry NearSetAccount ( talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
To go back to the original question, it seems clear that this belongs to the same niche as fuzzy sets, rough sets, and dynamically varying sets, all of which seems closer in spirit to concept analysis than what logicians mean by set theory. Is there any way that we could have an article on this, that we could link to in place of such specific articles in see also sections? I can't think how best one would give such an article coherence, but ther is some sort of common thread. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Is James Stirling's date of birth right on
James Stirling (mathematician) ? Many sources give "may" instead of 22 april. Is it a
Old Style and New Style dates problem ? --
El Caro (
talk)
06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The section of outline of combinatorics titled Branches of combinatorics lists only the following two items:
Does combinatorial chemistry really constitute a "branch" of combinatorics? And the section omits virtually everything. Would someone with competence in that area clean this up? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Would like to invite comment on the above article ie Diophantus_II.VIII. Readership stats do not appear to justify a stand-alone item and I am wondering if it should not rather be moved to be a subsection of another article - eg Arithmetica or Diophantus. An alternative might be to put links in from these pages and any others to which it is relevant.
Neil Parker ( talk) 05:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon number was shrunk a fair bit: Before After ( diff). As I'm not too attached to the article, I don't have an opinion, but perhaps someone else, with different ideas of what's OR and what's obvious, may be interested. :-) Shreevatsa ( talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Extensive discussion at WP:OR/N#Erdős–Bacon number. Hans Adler 13:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This diff and this one identify a circle-squarer posting " original research" among us. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Their web site looks like an attempt to score high on John Baez's " crackpot index" by conforming to stereotypes of a certain flavor of crackpot. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone address the issues I raised at talk:Jensen's formula? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
MathWorld's page about this states two separate results. The first of them might be called a generalization of Ceva's theorem, and the second is an equivalent generalization of Menelaus' theorem. But all the other web sources I've looked at, and the WP page, only give the first equation. Does the second equation have a name? Is it due to Routh? Should we have it, either on the Routh's theorem page or elsewhere? — Blotwell 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The addendum that was added last year (!) seems questionable to me. Can anyone verify this?
Also, the article could use some work, if anyone's wiling to lend a hand.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Contiguity space is opaquely written. There's enough there that I think I can probably figure out just what it's about, but I shouldn't have to decipher the first paragraph the way I need to. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of the weirder sentences I've found in Wikipedia (as you can see, I've fixed it). (It's not a pseudonym, unless "Tom Xmith" is a pseudonym for "Thomas Xmith".)
It seems the article on Chandler Davis was initially written by people who know him as a science-fiction writer; they didn't even mention in the first sentence that he's a mathematician. I've re-written it so that it mentions that first.
One of his theorems is mentioned in eigengap. That's an orphaned article—can someone help with that?
Davis–Kahan theorem is now a redirect to eigengap. Maybe someone here can make it into an article. (If that is done, then Davis-Kahan theorem (with a hyphen instead of an endash) should then get redirected to Davis–Kahan theorem. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Content from the archive. The issue is still unresolved. Cs32en 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Turns out the vast majority of the content of W. W. Rouse Ball has been a copyright violation since Aug. 10, 2006 (see this diff). It was ripped straight out of the Mac-Tutor bio. I reverted back to the pre-Aug 10, 2006 version. If anyone has time, it would be good to rewrite the article, and readd anything newer than three years ago. RobHar ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Jamie.D.Mac ( talk · contribs) has created an article Base 69 which purports to be a description of base-69 arithmetic but in fact is a corrupted version of the article Octal, with all the 8s replaced with 69s, and some extra garbling. Mercurywoodrose ( talk · contribs) PRODed it, but this was declined without comment by the author. I have proposed it for speedy deletion under CSD G3. -- Uncia ( talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article Proofs involving the totient function, the single-purpose account Prmishra1 ( talk · contribs) and several IP addresses ( 59.180.44.246 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.127.247 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.127.247 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 59.180.7.238 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been engaged in the past few days in an attempt to replace one proof of for another one. I was asked for a 3rd opinion via WP:3O and sided with what had been in the article, but Prmishra1 is persisting, without any dialog. Two things:
Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
These proofs are not particularly remarkable, it has to be said. If there is anything distinctive here, it could be merged into totient function. There is nothing really encyclopedic in manipulation of Sigma-notation. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I see three possibilities to resolve this: first, revert it to the version that made the slashdot listing, second, give up on it and leave it as is, third, scrap the inductive proof. And after that, LOCK the page to keep it from constantly being reverted. It seems to me that Charles Matthews would be a good mediator. What do you think? Best regards, - Zahlentheorie ( talk) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My preference, in general, for mathematical proofs on Wikipedia, is:
So in this particular case, I agree with Charles Matthews that the content belongs in average order of an arithmetic function, if anywhere. I am not yet convinced that the proof details would be helpful or important to include there, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the Livermore loops article. There's a lot of red links there that either need articles to be created for them, or need redirecting to appropriate articles, if they exist. There may also be more terms that could use linking. Raul654 ( talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Do the SVG images at Method_of_analytic_tableaux look OK to anyone? To me the fonts are placed too low and too right, overlapping the lines. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The text-curve alignment in the images looks ok to me, but I'm seeing a different problem: the mathematical formulas in some of the image captions are wider than the images themselves are displayed, and are cut off by the box around the caption rather than being fully visible. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit of work on the Cusp (singularity) article. Could someone take a look at it and make any suggestions as to improvement. The classification of cusps comes down to Arnold's Ak-series (which wan't mentioned in the original article). I've tried to give examples and explanations. Is there anything that I haven't explained properly? ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As these discussions have tended to suffer from a lack of participation, I respectfully request advice and constructive criticism on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, here's an FYI. If you delete all content from {{ WikiProject Mathematics}}, and place the following code in it's stead...
#REDIRECT [[Template:Maths rating]]
...you will successfully redirect any use of {{ WikiProject Mathematics}} to your correct template. See for example {{ WPLISTS}}. The old pageforces use of the correct template. One could use either {{ WPLISTS}} or {{ WikiProject Lists}} on talk pages and get the correct template. If you knew all this, nevermind. But if not, give it a try if you feel it is helpful at all. Prapsnot ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Earlier years
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
There does not appear to be an article on the important "Hopkin's theorem" due to Charles Hopkins. Although I am aware that this theorem is referred to by other names (such as in the Wikipedia article Artinian ring), none of these names seem to yield an article. Does anyone know if there is an article on the fact that a right (or left) artinian ring is right (or left) Noetherian? Thanks, -- PS T 09:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I thought what I had up was more or less in line with WP:SCICITE -- after all, the material is basically formulae pulled out of a textbook, and inline referencing would have been fairly redundant. I'm a little hesitant to remove the tags the newpage patroller put up, and I would like some feedback -- are there any glaring deficiencies in the article? Thanks, Ray Talk 06:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I know this is not the right place to ask this but I really would like to find the guidelines/policy for how to format math equations and the like on wiki. cheers. 114.30.110.26 ( talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Mathematical Association of America with your project. Cheers. APK that's not my name 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I know for the most part we've decided to ignore GA and I support that, but I don't think the unilateral action by User:Gary King is tolerable. Please take a look. -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say that if we ignore GA, this is more a problem for GA than for us. The tension around the citation issue is certainly to do mostly with a stylistic preference, but the preference is for writing surveys of mathematical topics in a style that is not neurotic about details. That is what is needed: that is what (in fact) the mathematical literature is short of. The narrower the topic, the greater density of required citation (certain facts, at the limit, are only written down in one place). This actually fits the GA/FA worldview of trying to optimise an article, which frankly for a topic like topology is just ridiculous (no way can one write that article in such a way as to get close to a comprehensive treatment). Anyway, the schism is going to be made worse if inappropriate reviews of broad mathematics articles are carried out by applying myopic templates to the situation, not better. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, what a lot of fuss over one crap review. Two line reassessments are totally against the spirit and practice of the GA process, but bad stuff happens. Instead of dealing with it like adults we have a furore that pits the "math people" against the "GA people" and demands a take over or withdrawal of maths from GA. The argument is soooo 2007. Such tribalism fails to take into account that Wikipedia is a bunch of individuals. Some mathematical editors find GA very helpful, others do not: each to their own. The GA process has good reviewers and reviews and ones which are not so good. It deals with the lack of uniformity by making it relatively easy to list or delist, and providing a reassessment process in the event of disagreement. It is akin to simulated annealing, and right now the temperature is a touch too high.
Community reassessment is needed to reach a consensus and hopefully improve the article in the process. I encourage editors to engage with the article and with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mathematics/1. In particular, something needs to be done with Mathematics#Common misconceptions: cutting it entirely is one option; leaving unsourced opinion isn't. Geometry guy 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind seeing one line of review if it's a pass, but the situation is that it was on hold with 2 sentences provided. If the reviewer doesn't have the time to identify the specific for improvement, then don't do it. It is causing more drama than it is worth. User:Gary King should not be playing a game and passes the ball off to community GAR when he couldn't find more words to defend his poor review. What I propose is to amend the GA criteria by adding WP:SCG to 1(b). It will not affect projects outside of Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry while adequately addresses any present and potential concerns raised in future WP:GAN and WP:GAR where the articles fall within the scope those projects mentioned. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
While we're on the topic, Maximum spacing estimation has been brought to GA, and is currently undergoing an A-class discussion, possibly in preparation for a FAC. -- Avi ( talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
How do I join this WikiProject? 116.14.72.74 ( talk) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Besides the fact that we don't have an article on a topic that is included in MacLane's book and in Borceaux's 1st volume, does anyone here happen to know who gave the modern definition of internal categories? There's been some discussion/confusion at cat theory timeline page.
There's a high-level description of the Ehresmann-Schein-Nambooripad theorem in the inverse semigroup article, but a prerequisite for writing that in more detail is defining an inductive groupoid, which is an ordered groupoid, which is an ordered category, which in turn is an internal category. I'm guessing the first three of these concepts aren't used often enough outside semigroup theory to justify separate articles, although according to Ehresmann's wife ordered categories appeared in some 700 papers (see link in the discussion above). Pcap ping 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the (more "modern") notion of a monotone Galois connection and (unary) residuated mapping essentially coincide, I was wondering what's the best way to deal with these two topics. I was the one that started residuated mapping a year or so ago; the latter notion suffers from much fewer vagaries in terminology and notation.
A possible approach would be to delete most of the "properties" stuff from Galois connection, which appear written in a rather rambling manner (and using non-standard notations), but keep the rest, essentially the examples, some of which naturally appear as antitone Galois connections, and also keep how the Galois connections relate with other notions from math, while the "low level" stuff could be expanded in residuated mapping, where it also benefits from a more standard notation.
One could also redirect residuated mapping to Galois connection, but then one would need to explain yet another set of synonyms for lower/upper adjoint. More troubling though, a binary operator is defined to be residuated in a manner that gives rise to left and right division, but that's not the same as the mapping (considered as a unary map being residuated). This and other notions of residuation, e.g. quasi-residuals in a semigroup, feel off-topic for someone wanting to read just what a Galois connection is.
Some suggestions how to organize/divide this material would be appreciated. Pcap ping 01:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Monus is unsourced and gives what I think is an incorrect description of a subject in ordered monoids. I know almost nothing about this subject, so I would appreciate a look from expert eyes. In summary the article defines the monus of elements a, b as max(a−b, 0), which seems problematic because we don't know there is a subtraction operation in the monoid. I only found one discussion of monus online ( here); the definition there is more plausible, namely as the smallest c such that a ≤ b + c. Thanks for any attention to this article. -- Uncia ( talk) 13:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear all, it appears that the term Heegner number was most likely made up by mathworld. I've started a section on the talk page to discuss whether or not this is so. If it is, I believe the correct course of action is to delete and merge content into other articles. Opinions welcome. RobHar ( talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(Cross-posting from Comp. Sci. wikiproject since activity is rather low there) Can someone with (at least) a graduate-level understanding of the topic take a look at the article, in particular the confusion with various typed lambda calculi; see the article's talk page for details. Pcap ping 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Exponential_function#Overview and motivation an editor has replied to my objections citing the maths manual of style with 'I wipe my arse with the Mathematics manual of style!!'. I don't mind arguing about whether some ground rules should or should not apply or what they mean or whether they should be disregarded in particular instances, but this doesn't sound like a basis for constructive discussion. Dmcq ( talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've put a prod on Pie method which is a putative method of fair division because I believe it is simply wrong. I actually found a place on the internet though where somebody quoted it though not as the 'pie method' and it probably didn't come from wikipedia! I sort of wonder if it is notably wrong and I should keep it and say it is rubbish? Perhaps I should put it under Proportional (fair division) as an attempt which is wrong and explain - but then the explanation could be counted as WP:OR. Dmcq ( talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
By a very simple verified equation we wiped out Prime numbers and Riemanns Hypothesis articles that are rendered obsolete and Wikipedia is the first place we went because you treated us with freedom and respect. The simple equation that is verifiable at face value was posted at the Math forums etc 4 hrs ago"IS 180-PRIME NUMBER(below180)= 180+PRIME NUMBER(any over 180) Till infinity ,So there is no need to be digging for these prime numbers now any more. See also the site Inverse19mathematics.com, or google inverse19 mathematics. THIS IS SIMPLE VERIFIABLE AS IT IS(ipso facto ). GO WIKPEDIA BE THE FIRST. Vinoo Cameron M.D , Theo Denotter.-- Vinoo Cameron ( talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)-- Vinoo Cameron ( talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Edge3 has started a GA review of Proof without words. Their main concern so far is that the article does not give sufficient coverage of its topic. Review status is "On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed". If anyone has the time and inclination to expand the article, please do so. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is perhaps a trivial topic but I feel that some discussion is necessary. In calculus, functions are often composed from right to left and this is therefore the convention with which most people are familiar. However, group theorists prefer to compose from left to right, and in general, many influential algebraists have selected this convention. Consequences of this convention include the consideration of only right modules (rather than left modules) and specific cases of this (for instance, right ideals rather than left ideals). However, in Wikipedia, for the most part, only left ideals, left modules and related concepts associated to "left" rather than "right" are considered. In my opinion, this is an inconsistency, and at can at times lead to incorrect assertions (in the context of rings, only, since a ring need not be isomorphic to its opposite ring). Should something be done about this? -- PS T 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
\fatsemi
does not work on Wikipedia because it doesn't include the right package. If you read the
Composition of functions article on Linux, or on anything else with decent Unicode fonts (Mac?), the Unicode fatsemi appears correctly; but not on Windows XP.
Pcap
ping
17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Failed to parse (unknown function "\fatsemi"): {\displaystyle \fatsemi}
Can someone review that article and remove, or at least frame properly, the ramblings that permeate it? I've done a little work on it, but I have the rewriting fish to fry, for which there are way fewer knowledgeable Wikipedians around (as far as I can tell given how bad the article was). Pcap ping 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a section to the article on Closure (mathematics) article describing a related notion. The name used by Baader and Nipkow is somewhat non-descriptive. Has anyone encountered it under some other name? Also, is that article the best place to discuss it? Pcap ping 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone see how terrible our article on predicate (mathematical logic) is? Pcap ping 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Am I just blind, or we don't have an article on this? Equational theory redirects to Universal algebra, which sort of touches on the idea of a model theory, but I don't see the fundamental result that equational logic is sound and complete mentioned there. I was trying to find something to link to from rewriting in order to explain what the motivation is, but no luck... Compare with [19]. Pcap ping 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone give some feedback on the discussion under Talk:Bijection#Terminology? It might not be a very deep discussion, but I think it's important nontheless. Some extra views would be more than welcome. Thanks! 145.88.209.33 ( talk) 08:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We have these "general" articles:
We also have much better articles on the important topics, recursion theory, lambda calculus, Turing machine, and random access machine; we also have a decent overview article on register machines in general.
The way I see it computability should be is a high-level intro to the often encountered equivalent models of computation: recursion theory, lambda calculus, Turing machine, and random access machine. This is along the along the outline of S. Barry Cooper's Computability Theory ( see pp. 7-8), which despite being written by mathematician was quite satisfying for me as a computer scientist (despite the many misprints, and his insistence on calling RAMs URMs, but that's another matter).
(I will cross-post to the CS wikiproject to attract participants from there too, but that project is nearly dead.)
Thoughts? Pcap ping 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change for the convention. Can we assume that a compact space is Hausdorff (and use quasi-compact for a space where an open cover has a finite subcover)? I think today this is fairly standard and helps to reduce clutters.
One problem with this change is what we do with other related notions like locally compact, or compact generated space (i.e., k-space): should we assume them also to be Hausdorff or not. I don't have a concrete idea for this problem. -- Taku ( talk) 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The "usual" definition of compact does not include Hausdorff. This is supported by the "standard" texts, Willard, General Toplogy (1970), Steen & Seebacch, Counterexamples in Topology (1970), Armstrong, Basic Topology (1997), Bredon, Topology and Geometry (1997), Munkres Topology (1999), etc., as well as references like Schecthter, Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations (1997) and Hazewinkel, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics (2002). In my experience as a practicing topologist Bourbaki is definitely in the minority. Whatever our personal definitional preferences our, we should follow the standard sources. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat inclined to the view that:
I'd rather keep the terminology as is.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In model theory, we have an invariant of complete first order theories that is called the Lascar group. Its inventor defined that a theory is called G-compact if its Lascar group is a compact Hausdorff group. Since the group is always quasicompact, this amounts to saying that it's Hausdorff. This may make sense in French, but based on observations on several occasions I would say it confuses most model theorists outside France, because they expect compact=quasicompact.
I still maintain that the best thing we can do is to use quasicompact or compact Hausdorff whenever there is a difference, and compact when there is none. Since we are writing for an international audience of people from different subfields of mathematics, this is the only way to make sure that our readers needn't guess what we mean. Even if we could agree on one of the two main conventions for the entire project, there would always be some articles that wouldn't follow the convention, e.g. because they are recent additions by a new author who doesn't know about the convention. And it still leaves the flexibility of defining compact as one of the two variants at the beginning of an article, if it's necessary to prevent awkward language. Hans Adler 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at some other Wikipedias:
Hans Adler 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I very much favour Hans's position above - "use only the terms compact Hausdorff and quasicompact in topology contexts, except where the two notions are equivalent. This is analogous to how we are already dealing with ." Where authors are inconsistent, the best way to avoid confusion is to rely solely on unambiguous terms, even if that usage isn't consistent with any particular author. Dcoetzee 07:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, "Compact space" [20] has this comment:
I'm somehow unsure about the accuracy of this. I thought "quasicompact" typically appears in algebraic geometry. -- Taku ( talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So much discussion. We have basic conventions to avoid getting sucked into such time-consuming stuff. "Quasi-compact" as used in scheme theory is a standard definition and means what you'd guess, but it is not a definition most mathematicians have to worry about. I think Bourbaki had a rather limited point in making that definition back in the day, and we lose little by ignoring the point in our conventions. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me weigh in, as someone who has spent some time re/writing the articles on general topology. I have various comments:
1) Both conventions have a great deal of support. The use of quasi-compact is more widespread in French than it is in English (indeed, the above references seem to show that compact virtually always implies Hausdorff in French), but it is certainly widespread in English as well. As a rough rule of thumb, "quasicompact" is preferred by the algebraists (including algebraic geometers, algebraic number theorists, model theorists, etc.) whereas "compact" is preferred by the analysts and geometric topologists. There is enough use of each convention that it seems absolutely mandatory to mention both alternatives as being in common use.
2) In terms of authoritative texts on General Topology, in my opinion (as someone who has spent some time perusing them) the following are the most authoritative, in historical order:
1955 Kelley's General Topology 1958 Bourbaki's Topologie Generale 1970 Willard's General Topology 1975/1977 Engelking's General Topology
I find it strange that nowadays people seem to name Munkres' book as the definitive reference on the subject. It is a very nicely written book (it was used for my first course on topology, and I had an entirely positive experience with it), but it does not have the scope of a reference. From the author's preface: "This book is intended as a text for a one- or two-semester introduction to topology, at the senior or first-year graduate level."
In terms of the authority of the above books, I would rank them in descending order as: Bourbaki, Engelking, Willard, Kelley. Note that the first two of these use the term "quasi-compact".
3) Except for the fact that it is probably not in majority use among English-speaking mathematicians, I have never heard a reasonable argument against Bourbaki's convention. There are many arguments for it, most of all the fact that it clues the student in to the fact that many of the nice properties of compactness in metric spaces hold only when the Hausdorff axiom is assumed. Moreover, the alternate terminology gets awkward when one is seriously interested in non-Hausdorff spaces. For instance the term "compactification" is used in every text I have ever seen to mean "Hausdorff compactification", but the fact that this is not built into the terminology can cause confusion.
4) I would myself prefer that wikipedia adopt the quasi-compact convention. This would be a progressive move: choosing terminology that we feel is best even if it is not in the majority use. I appreciate though that this is a big step for wikipedia to take. I think that Hans Adler's advice is ultimately best: mention both conventions in the foundational articles, and then in the applications try to phrase things so as to make sense independent of which convention has been chosen. Plclark ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
To respond to Plclark's 3), I'm no expert but I believe that the strongest argument against the inclusion of Hausdorff-ness would be that the category of Hausdorff spaces is not well behaved (I never quite understood what topologists mean by "not-well-behaved"). Hence, it is important to work with -- in algebraic topology in particular -- the category of spaces with some weaker separation axioms such as weak Hausdorff space. (See also [21]) This is not surprising since Bourbaki introduced their convention before the category theory became mainstream. -- Taku ( talk) 11:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The consensus seems clear by now, but let me indulge a bit more, because I don't understand Charles Matthews' comment at all. Yes, it is true that there is no serious problem that could be solved by adopting a new convention: there is nothing wrong with "compact Hausdorff", especially because like 99% of times spaces are Hausdorff and so this is usually simply non-issue. (Likely, I was bored before a new semester, which started the whole thing :) But, but, why reject the idea of having a discussion on conventions at all? It is important to adopt a correct convention; not just because that helps the reader but because that's the whole point of this project. Isn't it? We strive for the accurate description of (contemporary) mathematics, and the choices of conventions are therefore extremely important because they're reflection of philosophy. It is possible that, as PST pointed out, adopting the Bourbaki convention gives a wrong impression that certain materials in topology are unimportant (because they are?) I don't see why we, as the authors of this encyclopedia, can't have a long discussion then choose conventions that best reflect views that we think correct? Because we can't agree ever or why try? (Excuse me for ranting.) -- Taku ( talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
See discussion here Count Iblis ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we gotta be careful with every comma in a science article on this wiki or the world might explode! Seesh... Pcap ping 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Protonk has started a GA Review of Mathematics and art ( review page) and Jeep problem ( review page). In both cases Protonk feels that the articles are some distance away from GA quality. Mathematics and art has "many challenges", which Protonk has listed in detail; Jeep problem "requires a substantial rewrite" and so Protonk has given it a more summarised review. Both reviews have a status of "On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed". If anyone has the time and inclination to improve these articles, please do so. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote Theta function (disambiguation) as a possible expansion to the hatnote at Theta function. I think that the list of functions should be split into the true theta functions (Jacobi's, Ramanujan's, and the q-theta functions, at least) from the other functions that merely use (or are called) theta. Something like
A theta function is a special function in complex analysis.
Other theta functions include |
Other possibilities: leave all 10 functions in one large list; split by field (analysis/number theory/set theory).
Here's a list of possibly-related pages for comparison:
Any thoughts? I wanted to at least let some other people look it over before I put an {{ about}} tag on Theta function.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just created a new article titled Bonse's inequality. It's a stub. So:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Following a suggestion of Emil J., I've created a new section of the math MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Conventions. This is mostly a link to the current page on conventions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions. I feel like it would be a big improvement if the conventions page were merged into the MOS: The conventions page is short, is highly relevant to the MOS, and would be easier to find and maintain. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Ozob ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to write this (please delete if so), but there needs to be more consistency with respect to how formula are presented. For example, consider the difference between how relations are written in the definition of an asymmetric relation and an anti-symmetric relation (i.e. aRb vs. R (a, b)). Conventional consistency seems to always be preferable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.67.27 ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The definition of differential of a function that appears in that new article has appeared in calculus textbooks for more than 30 years now, and that's an unfortunate gap between mathematicians and authors of calculus textbooks. You'd hope that authors of calculus textbooks would be mathematicians, but it seems they're a different culture (I don't mean Spivak and Apostol, and I think there are a few others....). And they write books by zeroxing each other's books. It might not be politic to propose burning them at the stake as heretics, so I won't mention anything like that. But I've made some comments here.
Would other mathematicians here agree with me that this abomination is an abomination? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I for one have tried to redirect the new article to a section of the existing article, plus I have made some other comments in the new article's page. As for calculus textbook, I can't say much: I am Italian, and textbooks when I was a student had, if anything, the opposite problem, being a bit too formal for, say, first-year students. But I see that presently there is a tendency towards "American" calculus, using new books translated from English and even renaming courses from "Analisi matematica" to "Calcolo". Goochelaar ( talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the notion of an n-tuple is distinct from that of a word, but I but a quick search in google books failed to find a set theory definition for tuple; only n-tuple is defined. This is related to a debate on List (computing), but the article on tuple could use some clarification as well. Pcap ping 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the definition of tuple from that article is a Wikipedia original, and that it was caused by renaming the article some four years ago from n-tuple; according to MathWorld "tuple" means just n-tuple for some fixed n obvious from context; it does not mean word. See further discussion at Talk:Tuple#Problem_with_def_of_tuple. Pcap ping 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a distinction: perhaps it should be clarified by means of the concepts of internal operation and external operation. The "point" of words is that concatenation is an internal binary operation - we are living in the free monoid. Obviously you can concatenate tuples of any finite length, but this then appears as an external operation on two Cartesian powers ending up in a third. In other words (in other tuples?) as soon as you write * for concatenation with its type data you become conscious of an overloading of the notation. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Content from the archive. The issue is still unresolved. Cs32en 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We could use some help to resolve a controversy about the correct formulae for the matrix differential and the matrix derivative at the article Matrix calculus. See the talk page, especially the section Disputed information: Matrix derivative. Cs32en 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This really should be resolved by verifying that the formulae stand as stated in the references (and noting the conventions in operation, per reference). I edited the section on the nature of the so-called "matrix derivative" - and there doesn't seem to be controversy about that. So that leaves only the formulae collected from the literature. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
With respect to article Leibniz function, can someone please verify its meaning in regards to its derivative ( f ( x ) f ' ( x ) = 1 ). Not familiar with the term in this context and the word "Leibniz" is not found anywhere inside the books listed as references.
My addition/contribution to the article is with respect to Lie groups/algebra, with cleanup under the good-faith assumption that such an identity exists and is named after Leibniz. Henry Delforn ( talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Cat Data types lists Cat Type theory as sub-category, which causes a lot of data types articles, e.g. some, but not all in Category:Composite data types, to be added (manually) to type theory as well. This appears wrong to me as a way of organizing this stuff. Pcap ping 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
← Which "people" are we talking about? See the pretty picture in theoretical computer science. Pcap ping 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone just created symbol (formal) with a redirect from symbol (logic). In my opinion such mini-articles with no potential are a maintainability nightmare and should be merged. In a note to the editor I was about to write that symbol (formal) is redundant with formal language in the same way that element (mathematics) doesn't exist because it's redundant with set (mathematics). Fortunately I checked this first: It turns out that we do have this article.
Do we really need this? Hans Adler 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
At Henry Gordon Rice, we are informed that:
No dates of birth and death. Only the word "was" implies he is deceased. But on the talk page it says the article must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
Which is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we cite this as a reference instead of external link in math logic articles? The two math articles I've looked at Type Theory, and Second-order and Higher-order Logic are written by published academics, and in the type theory case, by a well-known researcher in that area (despite the fact that he doesn't get a Wikipedia article), so the article is much better than what we have here, which describes type theory up to 1941 or so. Pcap ping 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Count me among the people who do not want to see us citing SEP. The problem is not the word "encyclopedia", although that is related. There are two sorts of refernces that we should cite predominately in our "content articles" (for lack of a better term).
We generally avoid the following for general content:
In essentially every case, the sorts of facts that we could source to these will also be covered in book-length treatments that provide much more value to the reader than these sorts of references provide. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have created an external link template for the Encyclopedia at {{ SEP}}. Skomorokh 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just written a short article titled Bhatia–Davis inequality. I could use work both on itself and on links to it from other articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just radically revised the whole article.
I deleted the "Disputed" tag I added earlier.
You'll notice the definition of total differential and partial differential. One of the various great virtues of the Leibniz notation is that it makes ideas like this so simple. Is there any easier heuristic argument for the chain rule for partial derivatives than that?
(And at this time, chain rule for partial derivatives is a red link! Should we remedy that?)
Also, I've proposed a merger with differential (calculus).
We should consider adding to the article the more advanced and otherwise different viewpoints, including 1-forms. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
....and now I see that someone else has drastically revised it after my edits. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Every so often it seems schools come up with some yet sillier way to make maths inaccessible. Lots of different words to learn about distinctions between different triangles, funny rigmaroles when adding or subtracting, points will be taken off for misspellings and suchlike. I noticed in article Negative and non-negative numbers someone put in raised minus as in −5 for instance. Seemingly they are now learning to put in +5 and −5 to show the numbers are positive or negative and should say subtract, negative or opposite of in the appropriate situations. I was wondering if an article on such ideas might be an idea or what it should be called? I probably would have too strong a POV for it :) I suppose it would be something referenced from Mathematics education as I can see it growing quite large so it wouldn't fit within that. Dmcq ( talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I read this article a while ago, and thought that it is someone's attempt at creating a page on efficient algorithms. Perhaps I am mistaken, but what in the world is a "fast algorithm"? Is this a field of research in computational mathematics? How is this different from the usual algorithm design that computer scientists do? -- Robin ( talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a page talking about automating the process of creating fast algorithms: Automatic Generation of Transform Algorithms "it is possible to automatically generate fast algorithms for discrete signal transforms". Charvest ( talk) 22:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Let's recap:
Although this has marked as a computer science topic (by changing its category), it doesn't contain any programming or the like, and it tries, but fails to define a mathematical concept. The article has good number of issues. See it's talk page. Pcap ping 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Algorithm has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for deletion. Would merging it to Weight (representation theory) be a good alternative to deletion? If so, or if there's a better merge target, could someone do the merge? My maths doesn't extend to understanding this. Fences& Windows 01:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been doing quite a bit of deletion sorting, and while many topics have associated deletion sorting lists, mathematics is a notable exception. I find this surprising given that maths is a subject that can be completely impenetrable to someone like me who has no understanding of almost everything above GCSE level. This means that there is often a need for input from someone able to understand the importance (or otherwise) of the subject being nominated.
My question therefore is whether people here feel there would be a benefit in creating such a list? Thryduulf ( talk) 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evenness of zero/archive1. (I suppose this'll be picked up on current activity soon enough, but why wait?) Cheers, Melchoir ( talk) 03:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After having a look at math article alerts, as well as Jitse's activity bot, I concluded that a lot of that stuff could be done by a simple feature in Wikimedia: "intersection categories". Basically to find out if a math article is nominated for whatever, or needs expert input (cleanup and what not) could be done almost trivially if Wikimedia natively supported intersection of categories. I see that there's actually a request for enhancement on bugzilla; somebody even wrote the code, it just needs to be tested and committed. Perhaps you could weigh in on that? Pcap ping 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for fun, a quote: "We thank the anonymous referees of the conference and journal versions of the paper for providing useful comments and references, and the anonymous writers of the article on the central limit theorem in Wikipedia for leading us on to the Berry-Esséen theorem." Page 510 of the journal Algorithmica (2009), vol. 55, the paper "Random Measurement Bases, Quantum State Distinction and Applications to the Hidden Subgroup Problem" by Jaikumar Radhakrishnan, Martin Rötteler and Pranab Sen. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of bringing the Hilbert space article up to scratch for GA. It was delisted by User:Geometry guy last year, but it has progressed substantially since that time. It's almost in a shape that I would consider nominating for relisting as GA, but I thought I should solicit input here somewhat unofficially before doing so. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a naming dispute considering the correct name for the category for the main article Markov chain and related articles, see WP:CFD. 76.66.192.144 ( talk) 03:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The article titled Point on plane closest to origin is in pretty sorry shape. I thought of correcting its many obvious failures to follow usual and useful Wikipedia conventions, but it's not clear that the article is worth keeping.
Using Lagrange multipliers for this thing that can be done by simple geometric or algebraic methods is not so different from some things I've seen actual mathematicians do, even if it is swatting a fly with a pile driver. But it's certainly needless complication. I'd think of two things: (1) inner-product-space methods; and (2) secondary-school algebra and geometry. Those two points of view seem worth mentioning if there is to be such an article. But Lagrange multipliers don't seem worth more than a terse statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 53
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 54
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 55
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 56
Template:Broken ref