The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Current_activity has not been updated for several days. I contacted Jitse Niesen about it, and I haven't heard anything. Does no one except me ever notice when that page doesn't work? Or are there people who notice and assume someone else will do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that it has updated again. Thanks, Jitse and whoever else helped fix this glitch. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion for deletion of the article on quaternionic matrix. The general feeling is that there are sources covering the subject in depth enough, but the article as it stands has several shortcomings. Unfortunately I'm no mathematician, so I doubt to be able to improve the article as I would like to. Can someone have a look? Thanks!-- Cyclopia talk 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Matrix multiplication is one of 500 most viewed mathematics articles. Has no lead, consists of loosely related sections of uneven quality, contains potential violations of WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (although I am convinced that a large proportion of visitors to the page wants it to be a manual or a textbook on matrix multiplication). May need to be split into several articles. I've performed some clean-up and summarized my concerns at the talk page. Please, help with the overhaul process. Arcfrk ( talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The article titled Plancherel theorem refered to quadratically integrable functions without linking to that concept. So I added the link. I was surprised to find that it was a red link. So I redirected it for now to L2 space, which itself redirects to Lp space. Should it point somewhere else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a proper article on square-integrable functions. Actually, at one time there was a rather pathetic section of the article integrable function dealing with these. Maybe it's worth spinning that out. Also square-integrable function now redirects to integral, which is just wrong. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For now I've redirected square-integrable function to Lp space. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
....and now I've made quadratically integrable function into a (still a bit stubby) article. And I've pointed a number of redirects to that page, and there were lots of articles that already linked to some of those redirects, so it's a very-far-from-orphaned article!
Happy editing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I heard "quadratically integrable" before I heard "square-integrable". Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've moved it, and fixed the double redirects. I also found a couple of additional pages that redirected to integral that should redirect to square-integrable function, and changed those. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Dirac delta function GA seems to be indefinitely on hold. I and another editor have both been editing the article somewhat heavily (and our visions for parts of the article don't seem to entirely coincide). I think a third pair of friendly eyes may be helpful there both in editing and in discussing the content. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/N-sphere. It appears this may be withdrawn soon but but just in case you're interested in the discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly math, but if anyone is interested in the subject, it's pretty dire. Dougweller ( talk) 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Eyes needed on the "Functional representation" section at modular arithmetic. User:Toolnut is confusing mathematical functions with programming functions, and is attempting to replace a straightforward mathematical section with a poorly written description of the modulo function in programming/computer science. Gandalf61 ( talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The new article List of logic systems could benefit from the help of one of our logicians, I think. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In order to fix the most obvious issues, I've converted the axioms to infix notation, cut some of the most thoroughly misguided descriptions of the systems, and corrected various errors (there's bound to be more, as this sort of axiom listing is error-prone, and converting from infix to prefix notation and back again even more so, which is not helped by the fact that the original uploader in many cases did not quite know what they were doing).— Emil J. 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten into a little argument with an anonymous editor about whether some new additions to Plimpton 322 are helpful. My position is that, to the extent they make sense at all, they are original research by synthesis, but the anon argues that as they consist only of routine calculations they don't need a source. Third opinions welcome; for details see the history of the article and my talk. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Multifactor design of experiments software is on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multifactor design of experiments software. The deficiency of the article in its present form seems to be that it doesn't say much about the software. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Leftover hash lemma is currently a mess........ No proper intro or initial context-setting material. And other problems. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this article? I've been asked to do something about it as it has been heavily edited by an editor (using an account and an IP) who has worked in this field but whose edits are based on their own work, blogs, etc. I know mathematics is an area within Wikipedia which is a bit different from, say, history, and everything here may be appropriate, even if it creates an article which to at least two of us (see my talk page) is almost unreadable if you aren't a mathematician. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
For a long time (from 2006 to the end of 2008) I struggled with the same editor on the Egyptian fraction article, which used to have all the same problems. He can be very persistent. Since then I've been hoping that if I leave him alone on unimportant articles like Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table then his work on those articles will occupy his energy to the point where he leaves the more important articles alone. But maybe that's the wrong attitude to take. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I just removed a large piece of text from Lahun Mathematical Papyri. I moved it to the talk page for discussion. Has anyone considered blocking him to get the message across? I don't know if this is the right place to ask the question but there are repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:COI and there are the consistent deliberate edits that do not conform in any way shape or form to Wikipedia standards. Either no references, ones of dubious quality, or the latest: a list of references listed in the middle of the article. Part of the text duplicated material already there, so there was no attempt even to create a coherent article. It's not as though these issues have not been brought to his attention either. And if people have been trying to work with someone since 2006, one would expect a bit more cooperation and more appropriate editing by now (I would think). -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, he's at it again at Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. The changes he made are based on original research, and in this case really silly math mistakes. The changes made a complete mess of the tables, but the biggest problem is that he's just completely wrong. Sorry to keep bothering people, but I cannot do a whole lot by myself. I do not have banning powers (nor do I want them). But that does mean one of you who has Admin powers needs to keep an eye on him. -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have apologized to Anneka Bart for repeating a major error by mis-reading Clagett, et al. The error was repeated for one week, making my belligerence unbelievable. My misplaced intent was to exactly report scholarly information, placing my views aside. I failed. Promising to do better, RMP 43 and the Kahun Papyrus used a common formula that Robins-Shute "The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus", 1987 reported (on page 46) a RMP 42 volume formula "([8/9)]^2[d^2](h) cubit-cubit = (3/2)[d^2](h)khar = (32/27)[d^2](h)= (2/3) x ([4/3)^2][d^2](h)khar". Quotations are always better than paraphrasing. Best Regards, Milogardner ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Vector quadruple product is currently on AfD but, as a article title in MathWorld, it was formerly in Wikipedia:Missing science topics. It seems a bit inconsistent to request that an article be created by putting on a list of missing articles only to discover that the subject has questionable notability once it has been created. So I thought it might be a good time to look at the list and see if some changes are needed.-- RDBury ( talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What do "we" think of Clackson scroll formula, an article whose deletion has been proposed and is being discussed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody take a look at this article? He seems to be a serious mathematician, but the bio's claim that he solved P=NP problem suggests that something was lost in translation from the author's original language, perhaps. Ray Talk 02:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
A reader has commented on the Help Desk to thank all those who contributed to the mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Well done you guys! Gonzonoir ( talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hoax? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove some redundant (imo) material from tangent. What I'd like to do ultimately is add more advanced material and generally bring the article up to C quality. I've started a Talk:Tangent#Derivative motivation sections thread to discuss the changes and would appreciate additional opinions on the issue.-- RDBury ( talk) 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Mathematics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An IP has been modifying Gottfried Leibniz in a dazzling direction. I signaled it at the talkpage but he seems to be moving faster than other editors. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The article on multivariate kernel density estimation is very new but very good. Could someone who is more familiar than me with the rating of mathematics articles take a look at it and give it a rating? I have a feeling it may be a B-class article, but I could be wrong. Yaris678 ( talk) 09:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this term in the physics/engineering literature, quadruple product. There are two of them, a scalar and a vector quadruple product. The definitions are trivial combinations of other vector operations, and yet the engineers have still named them. We had an older page on the vector quadruple product that had the wrong definition and got deleted, so someone made a new page, which was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple product.
Right now the bulk of the votes is to delete, and I can't understand why. I gave a couple of examples of usage, including the calculus class at MIT, and a robotics class at Oxford. I don't know how that's not a slam-dunk proof of notability. This isn't one of those pages where somebody was noodling on a piece of paper and decided to stick it on Wikipedia. This is real terminology. (I don't disagree it's "stupid" terminology, but I never would have coined the term triple product either, and that's a real term too.) -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like some third party input if possible on Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. I think the main argument comes down to WP:OR. The results that the other editor wants to add contradict what is in the regular literature. The discussion is at the bottom of the page. Other issues are with the type of editing. Check out [4] and look at the editing comments if you will. And see the table for weights etc on this edit [5]. There may be useful comments in there somewhere, but separating the wheat from the chaff is rather difficult here. -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is simple. In RMP 41 Clagett mentioned 4800 hekat was computed from 960 khar obtained from 640 CC + 320 CC. Anneka wishes not to divide 4800 hekat by 960 khar taht revealed Ahmes' 5 hekat per khar. Anneka wishes Clagett's raw data reported 20 hekat per khar (off by a factor of 4). Proof: In RMP 42 Clagett mentioned 5925 hekat computed from (290 1/18 1/27 1/54 1/81) CC + (395 1/36 + 1/54 + 1/81) CC = (1185 1/2 1/54 1/81) khar. Again, dividing 5925 hekat by 1185 1/2 1/53 1/81, revealed 5 hekat per khar. The same is true for RMP 43. I'll spare everyone the grief of dividing total hekats by the khar value repsorted in the problem. Let me assure everyone, 5 hekat per khar again was found ... hence a double proof is provided by Clagetts' raw data. Case closed! Milogardner ( talk) 23:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What is a RFCU? Controversy related to the contents of Egyptian mathemati9cs has filled scholarly journals for over 100 years. Schools of thought have developed related to these controversies. Anneka and I belong to two different schools of thought. Anneka can best cite the school to which she subscribes. My understanding is that Anneka prefers algorithmic approaches. That approach is fine. When a controversy arises, be it related to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus containing a formula that calculated the largest term in an arithmetic progression (a topic that I subscribe, and cite scholars like John Legon), or geometry formulas that calculated cubit^3, khar and hekat values, cited by Clagett and Peet, an algorithmic approach cited by scholars seems required. I too would be saddened if Anneka Bart decides to leave Wikipedia. Spotlights on Egyptian math controversies are healthly. Wikipedia is well placed to document the controversies, a small number of which may have been resolved over the last 10 years, depending upon your school of thought. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that David Eppstein would comment. A RFCU must be a serious step. I am very appreciative of Eppstein's insistence that I read the Liber Abaci in 2006. I bought the book at read it with great pleasure. After reading Fibonacci's seven rules, summarized on pages 123-124 that converted rational numbers n/p to unit fraction series following one of three notations David and I seem to disagree on a host of issues. We have not shared much over the last four years. That action is fine with me. I learned that two of the seven rules (distinction per Sigler's 2002 translation) namely: (1) (n/p - 1/m) = (mn -mp) = 1, and (7) when (mn -mp) could not be set to one, ie. 4/13, Fibonacci selected LCM 4 and 18 per, 4/13 - 1/4 = (16 - 13)/52, with 3/52 - 1/18 = (54 - 42)/52 = 1/468, meant 4/13 = 1/4 1/18 1/468, written right to left following Arab, Greek and Egyptian conventions. Silencing a few Wikipedia words in the short term may be involved in a RFCU, but Fibonacci's and Ahmes' words will speak for themselves reported by a host of scholars in the long term, maybe posted to Wikipedia, and maybe not. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Time for an apology to Anneka Bart concerning the scaling of a cubit-cubit to a khar unit. Dr. Bart was correct, and I have been wrong for seven days. I would be pleased to post this apology, or a related apology, any where on Wikipedia that Dr. Bart requests. Proper scribal scalings of CC, khar and hekat units appear in a Bruce Friedman email that has forwarded to Dr. Bart for her review. These scribal scaling facts do not resolve an on-going CC and khar scsling to a hekat debate that currently separates Dr. Bart and myself, and our respective schools of thought. Time will close these controversial issues. I feel very bad for offering a false scaling of a CC to a khar unit as if reported by scholars when there were none. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Doug, please go ahead and do what you must. But, at some point, you may see that I am ONLY documenting un-resolved Egyptian math controversies within a well established school of thought (scribal arithmetic, arithmetic progression, algebraic and geometry formulas) that Wikipedia acknowledges from time to time, but not all of the scribal math controversies. Interdisciplinary groups populated by more than more Egyptian math school of thought must, at point, resolve all the controversies. Subtle controversies fill the scholarly literature. Need I list them for you? As you know, being a member of Anneka Bart's group, any person or group of persons on Wikipedia can 'cherry pick' scholarly references to make a preliminary school of thought point without actually resolving the deeper controversy, or set of controversies related to it. This is the issue at hand. Anneka Bart is a well-motivated and trained modern mathematician that has been working with Annette Imhausen to report one school of thought's findings. I have no problem with the algorithmic school of thought being energized about their preliminary findings. Publish them in journals as if the deeper controversies have been resolved. But please do not destroy valid formulas on Wikipedia that have been documented by many scholars, as took place recently with respect to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Until a balanced interdisciplinary team formally agrees and publishes findings, such the 2009 interdisciplinary team that began an important process (but, to my understanding did not publish findings) Wikipedia posters can not close off controversial debates. When finding of interdisciplinary teams are published PLEASE cite them as a reference on Wikipedia. Seeing no references of this type mentioned by your group, why should I not conclude that your group is pretending that the arithmetic progression formula did not exist? Ahmes' problems 40 and 64 and the Kahun Papyrus scribal shorthand notes do exist. John Legon in 1992 wrote a wonderful paper that attempted to document the same arithmetic progression formula calculated the largest term in RMP 40, 64 and the Kahun Papyrus. I propose that Legon achieved his goal despite a minor flaw in the paper (which was informally resolved around 2006). Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Doug,
My work is not original. When 2/3 is n ot misread as 3/2, I faithfully follow scholarly information. For example, researching Robins-Shute's 1987 "RMP" book, the following may be of interest with respect to showing a quadruple hekat was curious to a well known scholar. On page 40, "Other conversion tables are provided in RMP 47, 80 and 81 gives one-tenth graduations of 100 quadruple hekat expressed in Horus-Eye fractions of a quadruple hekat and quadruple ro ...
A curious feature of the table is that 1/70 times 100 hekat ... reached
(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64(hekat) + (2 + 1/7)ro"
an arithmetically correct answer.
As Wikipedia readers know, I have been using Hana Vymazalova's (64/64) hekat unity to convert Ahmes' hekat rational numbers into binary quotients and ro scaled answers (properly cited by Robins-Shute). Concerning RMP 47, the following the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (64/64) scaling of rational number is proposed to be equivalent to Ahmes' arithmetic steps per:
(6400/64)/70 = 91/64 + 30/4480 = (64 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 1)/64 + (150/70)ro =
(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64) hekat + (2 + 1/7)ro
Yes, there is a curious aspect of the problem, mentioning 100 quadruple hekat in the introduction when 100 hekat and hekat were mentioned in the calculations. But is a curious point to Robins-Shute in RMP 47 a serious point in RMP 41, 42, and 43? The numerical calculations identified in RMP 47 suggest (to me) that a 100-quadruple hekat was likely scaled to 100-hekat, a proposed scaling found in RMP 41, 42 and 43. Robins-Shute is only the first of a long list of scholarly documents that will be researched. None of my own valuations of a 'quadruple hekat' will be offered, hence refuting Doug's straw man.
Was Ahmes' use of a 100-hekat and quadruple hekat symbols used identically elsewhere? How many 'curious' uses must be pointed out before a major controversy has been identified? More later, Milogardner ( talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Paul, you are correct on one level, and incorrect on another. We are dealing with an intellectual issue that Wikipedia rules, when fairly applied, will resolve in my favor. Concerning the Lahun mathematical Papyrus Anneka Bart and her group replaced Robin-Shute's view of "RMP nos. 40 and 64 are of interest because they show that Egyptians had an understanding of arithmetic progressions. In no. 40, 100 loaves of bread are to be divided among 5 men so that the sum of the two smallest shares is one-seventh of the sum of the the greatest. It is evident from the working, although not stated, that the shares are to be in arithmetic progression. It is required to find the common difference of the shares", with a lesser statement that under reported the facts. Annette Imhausen's view was inserted in a manner that made no attempt to fill-in any obvious unstated aspects of Ahmes' problems or the Kahun Papyrus problem.
Restating my position: the vivid and valid formula aspects of the RMP issue is the same one reported in the Kahun Papyrus. John Legon's formula disappeared from Anneka Bart and Annette Imhausen's version of the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Where is the spirit of Wikipedia rules that discourage narrow citations of academic references that 'cherry pick' thereby distorting the academic literature? My view is that Anneka Bart consciously places one school of thought's position (her personal views of algorithms that under report scribal formulas) over equally valid schools of thought, one being my group that has reported a range of abstract formulas for over 80 years. This is the central conflict, intellectual in scope, nothing more or nothing less, once my personal discussions begin and end with scholarly citations. I promise to do better. The RMP 41, 42 and 43 cases define a second example where well established formulas have been downgraded on Wikipedia Egyptian weights and measures entries, and replaced by lesser transliterations that improperly under report scribal unit measures. Let's work together by fairly reporting all of the academic literature. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Most of Anneka Bart's Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussions include a link to modern number theory defintions. For example arithmetic progression was mentioned related RMP 40, 64 and a Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussion. I saw no attempt by Dr.Bart to offer scribal formula(s) on the topic. Dr. Bart actually removed one formula on scribal arithmetic progressions that had resided on Wikipedia for several years. In replacement a fuzzy introduction of modern algorithmic number theory definitions were linked by Dr. Bart to scribal thinking. Modern number theory links need to be justified by Dr. Bart, or anyone else that links them to scribal data. My view is that most of Ahmes and Kahun Papyrus formulas were algebraic, and not algorithmic, a subtle issue for non-mathematicians. I'll mention Robins-Shute's proof that formulas in RMP 42 that used
V =3/2 (H)](8/9)(D)]khar became V = (2/3((H)[(4/3](D)]^2 khar
in RMP 43, with both formulas removed by Dr. Bart with a fuzzy 'grammar' justification. Let the scribal math be reported by scholars, and may Wikipedia editors clean up anyone's grammar without throwing out the baby (scribal formulas) with the bath water. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner
There is an ongoing cleanup effort, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup, which affects a number of articles related to this project. I count at least 60 math related articles involved in the cleanup and several in related areas such as logic and physics.-- RDBury ( talk) 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dirichlet form is currently proposed for deletion as its just too short to even qualify as a stub. There seem to be plenty of references on google to justify notability so some expansion and removal of the prod tag would seem in order. -- Salix ( talk): 06:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There are a few nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics that could benefit from review, if anyone is interested. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently all the old International Congress of Mathematicians proceedings have now become available online. See this blog post for more details. This seems likely to be very helpful for sourcing articles here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Current_activity has not been updated for several days. I contacted Jitse Niesen about it, and I haven't heard anything. Does no one except me ever notice when that page doesn't work? Or are there people who notice and assume someone else will do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that it has updated again. Thanks, Jitse and whoever else helped fix this glitch. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion for deletion of the article on quaternionic matrix. The general feeling is that there are sources covering the subject in depth enough, but the article as it stands has several shortcomings. Unfortunately I'm no mathematician, so I doubt to be able to improve the article as I would like to. Can someone have a look? Thanks!-- Cyclopia talk 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Matrix multiplication is one of 500 most viewed mathematics articles. Has no lead, consists of loosely related sections of uneven quality, contains potential violations of WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (although I am convinced that a large proportion of visitors to the page wants it to be a manual or a textbook on matrix multiplication). May need to be split into several articles. I've performed some clean-up and summarized my concerns at the talk page. Please, help with the overhaul process. Arcfrk ( talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The article titled Plancherel theorem refered to quadratically integrable functions without linking to that concept. So I added the link. I was surprised to find that it was a red link. So I redirected it for now to L2 space, which itself redirects to Lp space. Should it point somewhere else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a proper article on square-integrable functions. Actually, at one time there was a rather pathetic section of the article integrable function dealing with these. Maybe it's worth spinning that out. Also square-integrable function now redirects to integral, which is just wrong. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For now I've redirected square-integrable function to Lp space. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
....and now I've made quadratically integrable function into a (still a bit stubby) article. And I've pointed a number of redirects to that page, and there were lots of articles that already linked to some of those redirects, so it's a very-far-from-orphaned article!
Happy editing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I heard "quadratically integrable" before I heard "square-integrable". Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've moved it, and fixed the double redirects. I also found a couple of additional pages that redirected to integral that should redirect to square-integrable function, and changed those. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Dirac delta function GA seems to be indefinitely on hold. I and another editor have both been editing the article somewhat heavily (and our visions for parts of the article don't seem to entirely coincide). I think a third pair of friendly eyes may be helpful there both in editing and in discussing the content. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/N-sphere. It appears this may be withdrawn soon but but just in case you're interested in the discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly math, but if anyone is interested in the subject, it's pretty dire. Dougweller ( talk) 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Eyes needed on the "Functional representation" section at modular arithmetic. User:Toolnut is confusing mathematical functions with programming functions, and is attempting to replace a straightforward mathematical section with a poorly written description of the modulo function in programming/computer science. Gandalf61 ( talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The new article List of logic systems could benefit from the help of one of our logicians, I think. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In order to fix the most obvious issues, I've converted the axioms to infix notation, cut some of the most thoroughly misguided descriptions of the systems, and corrected various errors (there's bound to be more, as this sort of axiom listing is error-prone, and converting from infix to prefix notation and back again even more so, which is not helped by the fact that the original uploader in many cases did not quite know what they were doing).— Emil J. 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten into a little argument with an anonymous editor about whether some new additions to Plimpton 322 are helpful. My position is that, to the extent they make sense at all, they are original research by synthesis, but the anon argues that as they consist only of routine calculations they don't need a source. Third opinions welcome; for details see the history of the article and my talk. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Multifactor design of experiments software is on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multifactor design of experiments software. The deficiency of the article in its present form seems to be that it doesn't say much about the software. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Leftover hash lemma is currently a mess........ No proper intro or initial context-setting material. And other problems. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this article? I've been asked to do something about it as it has been heavily edited by an editor (using an account and an IP) who has worked in this field but whose edits are based on their own work, blogs, etc. I know mathematics is an area within Wikipedia which is a bit different from, say, history, and everything here may be appropriate, even if it creates an article which to at least two of us (see my talk page) is almost unreadable if you aren't a mathematician. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
For a long time (from 2006 to the end of 2008) I struggled with the same editor on the Egyptian fraction article, which used to have all the same problems. He can be very persistent. Since then I've been hoping that if I leave him alone on unimportant articles like Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table then his work on those articles will occupy his energy to the point where he leaves the more important articles alone. But maybe that's the wrong attitude to take. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I just removed a large piece of text from Lahun Mathematical Papyri. I moved it to the talk page for discussion. Has anyone considered blocking him to get the message across? I don't know if this is the right place to ask the question but there are repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:COI and there are the consistent deliberate edits that do not conform in any way shape or form to Wikipedia standards. Either no references, ones of dubious quality, or the latest: a list of references listed in the middle of the article. Part of the text duplicated material already there, so there was no attempt even to create a coherent article. It's not as though these issues have not been brought to his attention either. And if people have been trying to work with someone since 2006, one would expect a bit more cooperation and more appropriate editing by now (I would think). -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, he's at it again at Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. The changes he made are based on original research, and in this case really silly math mistakes. The changes made a complete mess of the tables, but the biggest problem is that he's just completely wrong. Sorry to keep bothering people, but I cannot do a whole lot by myself. I do not have banning powers (nor do I want them). But that does mean one of you who has Admin powers needs to keep an eye on him. -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have apologized to Anneka Bart for repeating a major error by mis-reading Clagett, et al. The error was repeated for one week, making my belligerence unbelievable. My misplaced intent was to exactly report scholarly information, placing my views aside. I failed. Promising to do better, RMP 43 and the Kahun Papyrus used a common formula that Robins-Shute "The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus", 1987 reported (on page 46) a RMP 42 volume formula "([8/9)]^2[d^2](h) cubit-cubit = (3/2)[d^2](h)khar = (32/27)[d^2](h)= (2/3) x ([4/3)^2][d^2](h)khar". Quotations are always better than paraphrasing. Best Regards, Milogardner ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Vector quadruple product is currently on AfD but, as a article title in MathWorld, it was formerly in Wikipedia:Missing science topics. It seems a bit inconsistent to request that an article be created by putting on a list of missing articles only to discover that the subject has questionable notability once it has been created. So I thought it might be a good time to look at the list and see if some changes are needed.-- RDBury ( talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What do "we" think of Clackson scroll formula, an article whose deletion has been proposed and is being discussed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody take a look at this article? He seems to be a serious mathematician, but the bio's claim that he solved P=NP problem suggests that something was lost in translation from the author's original language, perhaps. Ray Talk 02:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
A reader has commented on the Help Desk to thank all those who contributed to the mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Well done you guys! Gonzonoir ( talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hoax? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove some redundant (imo) material from tangent. What I'd like to do ultimately is add more advanced material and generally bring the article up to C quality. I've started a Talk:Tangent#Derivative motivation sections thread to discuss the changes and would appreciate additional opinions on the issue.-- RDBury ( talk) 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Mathematics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An IP has been modifying Gottfried Leibniz in a dazzling direction. I signaled it at the talkpage but he seems to be moving faster than other editors. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The article on multivariate kernel density estimation is very new but very good. Could someone who is more familiar than me with the rating of mathematics articles take a look at it and give it a rating? I have a feeling it may be a B-class article, but I could be wrong. Yaris678 ( talk) 09:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this term in the physics/engineering literature, quadruple product. There are two of them, a scalar and a vector quadruple product. The definitions are trivial combinations of other vector operations, and yet the engineers have still named them. We had an older page on the vector quadruple product that had the wrong definition and got deleted, so someone made a new page, which was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple product.
Right now the bulk of the votes is to delete, and I can't understand why. I gave a couple of examples of usage, including the calculus class at MIT, and a robotics class at Oxford. I don't know how that's not a slam-dunk proof of notability. This isn't one of those pages where somebody was noodling on a piece of paper and decided to stick it on Wikipedia. This is real terminology. (I don't disagree it's "stupid" terminology, but I never would have coined the term triple product either, and that's a real term too.) -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like some third party input if possible on Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. I think the main argument comes down to WP:OR. The results that the other editor wants to add contradict what is in the regular literature. The discussion is at the bottom of the page. Other issues are with the type of editing. Check out [4] and look at the editing comments if you will. And see the table for weights etc on this edit [5]. There may be useful comments in there somewhere, but separating the wheat from the chaff is rather difficult here. -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is simple. In RMP 41 Clagett mentioned 4800 hekat was computed from 960 khar obtained from 640 CC + 320 CC. Anneka wishes not to divide 4800 hekat by 960 khar taht revealed Ahmes' 5 hekat per khar. Anneka wishes Clagett's raw data reported 20 hekat per khar (off by a factor of 4). Proof: In RMP 42 Clagett mentioned 5925 hekat computed from (290 1/18 1/27 1/54 1/81) CC + (395 1/36 + 1/54 + 1/81) CC = (1185 1/2 1/54 1/81) khar. Again, dividing 5925 hekat by 1185 1/2 1/53 1/81, revealed 5 hekat per khar. The same is true for RMP 43. I'll spare everyone the grief of dividing total hekats by the khar value repsorted in the problem. Let me assure everyone, 5 hekat per khar again was found ... hence a double proof is provided by Clagetts' raw data. Case closed! Milogardner ( talk) 23:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What is a RFCU? Controversy related to the contents of Egyptian mathemati9cs has filled scholarly journals for over 100 years. Schools of thought have developed related to these controversies. Anneka and I belong to two different schools of thought. Anneka can best cite the school to which she subscribes. My understanding is that Anneka prefers algorithmic approaches. That approach is fine. When a controversy arises, be it related to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus containing a formula that calculated the largest term in an arithmetic progression (a topic that I subscribe, and cite scholars like John Legon), or geometry formulas that calculated cubit^3, khar and hekat values, cited by Clagett and Peet, an algorithmic approach cited by scholars seems required. I too would be saddened if Anneka Bart decides to leave Wikipedia. Spotlights on Egyptian math controversies are healthly. Wikipedia is well placed to document the controversies, a small number of which may have been resolved over the last 10 years, depending upon your school of thought. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that David Eppstein would comment. A RFCU must be a serious step. I am very appreciative of Eppstein's insistence that I read the Liber Abaci in 2006. I bought the book at read it with great pleasure. After reading Fibonacci's seven rules, summarized on pages 123-124 that converted rational numbers n/p to unit fraction series following one of three notations David and I seem to disagree on a host of issues. We have not shared much over the last four years. That action is fine with me. I learned that two of the seven rules (distinction per Sigler's 2002 translation) namely: (1) (n/p - 1/m) = (mn -mp) = 1, and (7) when (mn -mp) could not be set to one, ie. 4/13, Fibonacci selected LCM 4 and 18 per, 4/13 - 1/4 = (16 - 13)/52, with 3/52 - 1/18 = (54 - 42)/52 = 1/468, meant 4/13 = 1/4 1/18 1/468, written right to left following Arab, Greek and Egyptian conventions. Silencing a few Wikipedia words in the short term may be involved in a RFCU, but Fibonacci's and Ahmes' words will speak for themselves reported by a host of scholars in the long term, maybe posted to Wikipedia, and maybe not. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Time for an apology to Anneka Bart concerning the scaling of a cubit-cubit to a khar unit. Dr. Bart was correct, and I have been wrong for seven days. I would be pleased to post this apology, or a related apology, any where on Wikipedia that Dr. Bart requests. Proper scribal scalings of CC, khar and hekat units appear in a Bruce Friedman email that has forwarded to Dr. Bart for her review. These scribal scaling facts do not resolve an on-going CC and khar scsling to a hekat debate that currently separates Dr. Bart and myself, and our respective schools of thought. Time will close these controversial issues. I feel very bad for offering a false scaling of a CC to a khar unit as if reported by scholars when there were none. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Doug, please go ahead and do what you must. But, at some point, you may see that I am ONLY documenting un-resolved Egyptian math controversies within a well established school of thought (scribal arithmetic, arithmetic progression, algebraic and geometry formulas) that Wikipedia acknowledges from time to time, but not all of the scribal math controversies. Interdisciplinary groups populated by more than more Egyptian math school of thought must, at point, resolve all the controversies. Subtle controversies fill the scholarly literature. Need I list them for you? As you know, being a member of Anneka Bart's group, any person or group of persons on Wikipedia can 'cherry pick' scholarly references to make a preliminary school of thought point without actually resolving the deeper controversy, or set of controversies related to it. This is the issue at hand. Anneka Bart is a well-motivated and trained modern mathematician that has been working with Annette Imhausen to report one school of thought's findings. I have no problem with the algorithmic school of thought being energized about their preliminary findings. Publish them in journals as if the deeper controversies have been resolved. But please do not destroy valid formulas on Wikipedia that have been documented by many scholars, as took place recently with respect to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Until a balanced interdisciplinary team formally agrees and publishes findings, such the 2009 interdisciplinary team that began an important process (but, to my understanding did not publish findings) Wikipedia posters can not close off controversial debates. When finding of interdisciplinary teams are published PLEASE cite them as a reference on Wikipedia. Seeing no references of this type mentioned by your group, why should I not conclude that your group is pretending that the arithmetic progression formula did not exist? Ahmes' problems 40 and 64 and the Kahun Papyrus scribal shorthand notes do exist. John Legon in 1992 wrote a wonderful paper that attempted to document the same arithmetic progression formula calculated the largest term in RMP 40, 64 and the Kahun Papyrus. I propose that Legon achieved his goal despite a minor flaw in the paper (which was informally resolved around 2006). Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Doug,
My work is not original. When 2/3 is n ot misread as 3/2, I faithfully follow scholarly information. For example, researching Robins-Shute's 1987 "RMP" book, the following may be of interest with respect to showing a quadruple hekat was curious to a well known scholar. On page 40, "Other conversion tables are provided in RMP 47, 80 and 81 gives one-tenth graduations of 100 quadruple hekat expressed in Horus-Eye fractions of a quadruple hekat and quadruple ro ...
A curious feature of the table is that 1/70 times 100 hekat ... reached
(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64(hekat) + (2 + 1/7)ro"
an arithmetically correct answer.
As Wikipedia readers know, I have been using Hana Vymazalova's (64/64) hekat unity to convert Ahmes' hekat rational numbers into binary quotients and ro scaled answers (properly cited by Robins-Shute). Concerning RMP 47, the following the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (64/64) scaling of rational number is proposed to be equivalent to Ahmes' arithmetic steps per:
(6400/64)/70 = 91/64 + 30/4480 = (64 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 1)/64 + (150/70)ro =
(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64) hekat + (2 + 1/7)ro
Yes, there is a curious aspect of the problem, mentioning 100 quadruple hekat in the introduction when 100 hekat and hekat were mentioned in the calculations. But is a curious point to Robins-Shute in RMP 47 a serious point in RMP 41, 42, and 43? The numerical calculations identified in RMP 47 suggest (to me) that a 100-quadruple hekat was likely scaled to 100-hekat, a proposed scaling found in RMP 41, 42 and 43. Robins-Shute is only the first of a long list of scholarly documents that will be researched. None of my own valuations of a 'quadruple hekat' will be offered, hence refuting Doug's straw man.
Was Ahmes' use of a 100-hekat and quadruple hekat symbols used identically elsewhere? How many 'curious' uses must be pointed out before a major controversy has been identified? More later, Milogardner ( talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Paul, you are correct on one level, and incorrect on another. We are dealing with an intellectual issue that Wikipedia rules, when fairly applied, will resolve in my favor. Concerning the Lahun mathematical Papyrus Anneka Bart and her group replaced Robin-Shute's view of "RMP nos. 40 and 64 are of interest because they show that Egyptians had an understanding of arithmetic progressions. In no. 40, 100 loaves of bread are to be divided among 5 men so that the sum of the two smallest shares is one-seventh of the sum of the the greatest. It is evident from the working, although not stated, that the shares are to be in arithmetic progression. It is required to find the common difference of the shares", with a lesser statement that under reported the facts. Annette Imhausen's view was inserted in a manner that made no attempt to fill-in any obvious unstated aspects of Ahmes' problems or the Kahun Papyrus problem.
Restating my position: the vivid and valid formula aspects of the RMP issue is the same one reported in the Kahun Papyrus. John Legon's formula disappeared from Anneka Bart and Annette Imhausen's version of the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Where is the spirit of Wikipedia rules that discourage narrow citations of academic references that 'cherry pick' thereby distorting the academic literature? My view is that Anneka Bart consciously places one school of thought's position (her personal views of algorithms that under report scribal formulas) over equally valid schools of thought, one being my group that has reported a range of abstract formulas for over 80 years. This is the central conflict, intellectual in scope, nothing more or nothing less, once my personal discussions begin and end with scholarly citations. I promise to do better. The RMP 41, 42 and 43 cases define a second example where well established formulas have been downgraded on Wikipedia Egyptian weights and measures entries, and replaced by lesser transliterations that improperly under report scribal unit measures. Let's work together by fairly reporting all of the academic literature. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Most of Anneka Bart's Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussions include a link to modern number theory defintions. For example arithmetic progression was mentioned related RMP 40, 64 and a Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussion. I saw no attempt by Dr.Bart to offer scribal formula(s) on the topic. Dr. Bart actually removed one formula on scribal arithmetic progressions that had resided on Wikipedia for several years. In replacement a fuzzy introduction of modern algorithmic number theory definitions were linked by Dr. Bart to scribal thinking. Modern number theory links need to be justified by Dr. Bart, or anyone else that links them to scribal data. My view is that most of Ahmes and Kahun Papyrus formulas were algebraic, and not algorithmic, a subtle issue for non-mathematicians. I'll mention Robins-Shute's proof that formulas in RMP 42 that used
V =3/2 (H)](8/9)(D)]khar became V = (2/3((H)[(4/3](D)]^2 khar
in RMP 43, with both formulas removed by Dr. Bart with a fuzzy 'grammar' justification. Let the scribal math be reported by scholars, and may Wikipedia editors clean up anyone's grammar without throwing out the baby (scribal formulas) with the bath water. Best Regards to all, Milogardner ( talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner
There is an ongoing cleanup effort, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup, which affects a number of articles related to this project. I count at least 60 math related articles involved in the cleanup and several in related areas such as logic and physics.-- RDBury ( talk) 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dirichlet form is currently proposed for deletion as its just too short to even qualify as a stub. There seem to be plenty of references on google to justify notability so some expansion and removal of the prod tag would seem in order. -- Salix ( talk): 06:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There are a few nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics that could benefit from review, if anyone is interested. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently all the old International Congress of Mathematicians proceedings have now become available online. See this blog post for more details. This seems likely to be very helpful for sourcing articles here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)