Is this a notable article? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor is insisting in marking the lead of Fourth dimension as dubious in "In mathematics, the fourth dimension, or a four-dimensional ("4D") space,[dubious – discuss] is an abstract concept derived by generalizing the rules of three-dimensional space". They say a four dimensional space could be any sort of space not necessarily Euclidean whereas others have said it referes in this instance to an extension of Euclidean 3-space. I would like to remove the dubious tag or otherwise resolve this. This is a bit similar I guess to the N-dimensional space business mentioned in a section above but as far as I can see there has been no real follow up to that, also I think they are a bit different in that N-dimensional space is actually used for many other things like configuration spaces whereas four-dimensional space is rather specific. Talk is at Talk:Fourth dimension#Title?. Dmcq ( talk) 11:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what these two are about exactly, but these two articles seems to be about the same thing. Opinions on what should be done? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Our page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../FAQ lists a number of frequently asked questions about 0.999... One of the answers to these questions deals with the "number" 0.000...01 (with an implied infinity of zeros before the last digit). The answer asserts, correctly, that this number is meaningless as a real decimal. I added a brief parenthetical comment here to the effect that one can make sense of such a number in a proper extension of R, providing a link to a page where this is discussed. The parenthetical remark was apparently too much for the guardians of purity at 0.999... and was reverted, most recently here. I would appreciate some input. Tkuvho ( talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just been reading a mathematics article about the Halting Problem (Turing et al) and found it to be very difficult to read. A lot of text books on subjects particularly in the field of science and maths have been written in this style and it leaves the reader frustrated and confused. Surely an encyclopedic article should be accessible to the widest audience possible? I think some simplification of the language with perhaps more steps and examples would help to get across to the reader some of the concepts involved. Readers are generally not stupid people (else why would they be there) but the knowledge should be communicated better. Language, next to knowledge, is the most important asset an encyclopedia can have.
Sam- Helsinki, Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.106.209 ( talk) 08:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The style/tone could also use some work there, e.g. Minsky exhorts the reader to be suspicious—although a machine may be finite, and finite automata "have a number of theoretical limitations": It reads like one of those controversial, he-says-she-says, social science articles. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In view of the date, please have a look at this article and confirm my suspicions. JohnCD ( talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
One of the more elaborate hoaxes. Created on the appropriate calendar date for such. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a reason not to merge these? Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Frobenius determinant theorem is a near-orphaned article. So if the internal-link-muse speaks to you, figure out which articles should link to it and add the links. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the Futurama theorem merit its own article ? A merger proposal is being discussed at Talk:Futurama theorem. Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The group of Jacques Tits is important in mathematics, and it might be a suitable article for this project to improve to Featured Status in time for next year's April Fool's Day. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There were a bunch of really obvious copy-editing issues that I've just taken care of. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Opinions of Simon Davis (mathematician)? It's been prodded. It says he applies the theory of perfect numbers to physics. I wouldn't have guessed those would be connected, but maybe I'm just naive. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that we currently have no article about Ivar Ekeland, although nine other articles link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Tkuvho has now created the article and some others have contributed to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Pi is about the mathematical constant. There is a question about whether the lead image should be relevant to the topic of the article, or should be an image of the Greek letter. Please comment at Talk:Pi#Pi "Unrolled" animation. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of you will enjoy reading about John Rainwater, who led the functional-analysis seminar at the University of Washington over a 5-decade career. His research achievements and long-relationship with UW are remarkable especially given his graduate-student record, which included plagiarism and planting an explosive device for his professor. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Note two related articles on other functional analysts, Robert Phelps and Peter Orno. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a request to move Fourth dimension to Four-dimensional space at Talk:Fourth dimension#Requested move Dmcq ( talk) 00:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have three articles on the same subject:
Does anyone know why? Are there any objective reasons to have three articles on this relatively elementary topic? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that article is well-written, so perhaps there is a way to keep it available to the public on WikiMedia servers. I don't now much about that, but I think Wikiversity would accept that page as-is. Although Wikiversity doesn't get the same google juice as Wikipedia, we could link it from Boolean algebra; I'm not sure what are the standards for that. Perhaps someone here has experience in that area? Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, there is a book chapter in Padmanabhan & Rudeanu [6] (full ref given in Boolean algebra (structure)), so I have created Axiomatization of Boolean algebras as a redirect, but it's conceivable that it could become a list-type sub-article at some point. I don't have interest in developing it myself though. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the purported proof systems article could contain that's not already in propositional calculus. Can someone enlighten me on that? Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge that as well at BATF. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A. H. Lightstone is on sale here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A._H._Lightstone Tkuvho ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a merger of these articles at Talk:Subrandom numbers. It's not a merger that I myself feel competent enough to carry out, though. Are there any volunteers here? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Could a mathematician take a look at this new article by a new contributor - it seems a bit odd to me but I don't know much about this subject.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Now proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exact Prime Counting Method. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Monty Hall problem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A somewhat odd and certainly under-referenced article. I looked it up after this thread, which is certainly enough to show the interest of this concept as basic geometry. (Of which I wasn't aware.) The corresponding Cut locus (Riemannian manifold) is better, but still looks neglected. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Artin's conjecture on primitive roots and Artin's constant substantially overlap with each other. Each has a hatnote linking to the other. Should they get merged? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I submitted a recommendation to delete an unused and probably uneeded redirect relating to template:Maths rating. You can see the request here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate language is being used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../Arguments Tkuvho ( talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Taylor series, a top importance article, has been nominated for good article status (see WP:GACR for good article criteria). The review is here. We need reviewers and probably also editors. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I stumbled upon
Fuzzy matrix theory, and it looked slightly odd and fringey. The sole source is
this which looks rather like cargo-cult maths to me; so I've sent it to
AfD. All expert inputs would be welcomed on the
AfD page... alternatively, if it could be rescued somehow, that's cool too.
bobrayner (
talk)
21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Until my revision the article Center (group theory) stated that
That may be true, but it sounds as if A4 had a nontrivial center, which is not true, as can be seen in the Cayley table on the right. So maybe it should read
If someone knows that's true he may add it to the article. Until now the sentence is <!---hidden--->. Lipedia ( talk) 09:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Help. Trying to wikify Wright Camera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but, it needs some math expertise. Thanks, Chzz ► 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Taylor's theorem has a largish proliferation of proofs. (It used to have three, and has recently had as many as five. Now it's down to four. At least I've recently simplified two of those considerably.) I can see the usefulness of having some simple proofs that illustrate the basic relevant techniques (like the Cauchy mean value theorem, and restricting to a line segment in the case of several variables). However, there is some discussion of including complete proofs of basically all the results in the article. To me this seems rather contrary to the well-established consensus here, but I'd appreciate some outside input. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Circle (topology) currently redirects to circle group. Some knot-theory articles mentioning circles probably should link to circle (topology) but not to circle group. I've made circle (topology) into a "redirect with possibilities". So how about those possibilities? Should, or will, someone do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I just found that circle action was a red link from quaternionic projective space, but nothing else linked there. So I redirected it to circle group. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For now I've redirected circle (topology) to n-sphere, while leaving the "redirect with possibilities" tag intact. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
What about creating something like WikiProject Prime numbers. I know there is already the sub project Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, but I (and I think some other editors as well) are especially interested in prime numbers. The project could serve as a centralized point of discussion for editors interested in prime numbers, but not working on other number related articles. The scope of this project would include all of the articles about the classes of prime numbers listed in List of prime numbers. It could also include articles where the number class includes a subsequence of prime numbers that do not have an own article (like for example Leyland number). Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:0.999... inexperienced editors sometimes leave comments that are not directly related to improving the page. For this reason, a separate "arguments" page was created where such discussions can continue. Comments not directly related to improving the page are supposed to be moved to the "arguments" page. Recently, a couple of editors started a new trend of summarily deleting comments that are not to their liking. Furthermore, one of them threatened to "report" any further reinstatement of the deleted material. This would not appear to be consistent with minimal standards of politeness we expect at wiki. Tkuvho ( talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Euler on infinite series has been prodded for deletion. 64.229.100.45 ( talk) 04:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually coming back to this as a result of some discussion at Talk:The Prisoner of Benda (where the ridiculous suggestion that minor copyedits to a proof were "original research"). In the past, we've had many discussions on inclusion of proofs in articles, and now there is even the dedicated subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. A basic editing principle that I have always adhered to is that it's better just to say why a result is true than to give a detailed derivation of it. This often means communicating the main ideas of the proof, without going into details. (In some sense, to "talk about the proof" rather than give it.) I find that this produces more seamless prose suited to an encyclopedia article. I've always thought that somewhere this was codified in a guideline or essay. It's certainly a point that I bring up in most discussions about proofs in mathematics articles. But it doesn't seem to be in either WP:MSM or WP:WPM/Proofs. Is this idea, or something like it, something we agree on? Should it be added to WP:WPM/Proofs? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{démonstration| * Si on prend un élément <math>x_n</math> dans chaque <math>F_n</math>, la suite <math>(x_n)</math> est de [[suite de Cauchy|Cauchy]]. En effet, pour un <math>\varepsilon>0</math> fixé, il existe un rang <math>N</math> tel que le diamètre de <math>F_N</math> soit majoré par <math>\varepsilon</math>, et en particulier <math>d(x_n,x_m)\le\varepsilon</math> pour tous <math>m, n\ge N</math>. Cette suite est donc convergente car <math>E</math> est complet. * De plus, sa limite <math>x</math> appartient à chaque <math>F_n</math>. En effet, pour tout <math>n\in\mathbb{N}</math>, la suite <math>(x_m)_{m\ge n}</math> est à valeurs dans <math>F_n</math> (puisque <math>m\ge n\Rightarrow x_m\in F_m\subset F_n</math>) donc sa limite <math>x</math> aussi (puisque <math>F_n</math> est fermé). On a donc prouvé que l'intersection des <math>F_n</math> est non vide. * Enfin, elle est réduite à un point puisque son diamètre est nul (car majoré par tous les diamètres des <math>F_n</math>, dont l'inf est 0).}}
The editor at Talk:The Prisoner of Benda has become increasingly aggressive in his stance that summarizing published proofs and making slight copyedits to them is original research. I would appreciate it if someone uninvolved could have a look. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this ridiculous episode makes it glaringly obvious that we need clarity on whether summarizing proofs, or rewriting proofs in our own words without substantively altering them, or changing notation, is considered to be original research. It is painfully clear to me that, in the case of discussion, no original research has been committed at any time, in any version of the article under discussion. It has already been (convincingly, to my mind, by Kmhkmh), suggested that Andrevan has been misrepresenting the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OR by insisting on an overly rigid interpretation of it. Also, a lot of this is explained by the fact that Andrevan is of the opinion that WP:V means that a lay-person should be able to verify the content of an article, without requiring any special subject knowledge. This is an untenable position for any encyclopedia that covers a wide range of serious topics, in my opinion. But there it is. Perhaps we need to formalize some clarity about that as well. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
May be a little off-topic here, but I don't know where else to ask. Can someone figure out what's the deal with Birkhäuser Verlag vs. the Springer math & science book series, which is still published under that imprint? We might need to create a dab for Birkhäuser. Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Blackburne, of A. H. Lightstone fame, is now attempting to delete a brief quotation at Adequality on the grounds that it is a copyright violation. Help! Tkuvho ( talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for this article which is getting a lot of attention. This is related to Fibonacci number which is #7 on our list of most frequently viewed (really more like #1 if you take out physics and statistics articles).-- RDBury ( talk) 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone improve Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus before it's nominated for deletion? Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone here has an opinion whether clause in logic only means a disjunction. Tijfo098 ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The DYK nomination for the new article on Ivar Ekeland, which Tkuvho started (and which I expanded) should get a lot of DYK hits.
5x expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk). Self nom at 10:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a number of links to non-Newtonian calculus being stuck in to various articles by User Talk:Smithpith ( contribs). He has warnings in the talk page but we should figure out exactly what link should be kept if any I think. Dmcq ( talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
From Michael Grossman: I thought those links were pertinent. If I was wrong, I'm sorry. I have no intention of violating Wikipedia's rules. Smithpith ( talk) 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I created an infobox for articles about integer sequences a while ago (see Template:Infobox integer sequence for the template and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox integer sequence for articles, where it is currently being used). I would like to include an image in every case, where the infobox is in use. For this purpose, it would be nice to have some input on which ways of visualizing integer sequences could be used for creating images for use in the infobox. My preference is in favor of ideas that can be easily realized using simple image editing software. Also I am aware of the visualization methods used by OEIS. Finally, the image should be interesting, without being distracting, even if only two or three terms of the sequence are known. Any additional input is welcome. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
....currently redirects to errors and residuals in statistics. That obviously doesn't make sense. So:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose to move the controversial page Non-Newtonian calculus to a more appropriate title Modifications of the calculus. It can be decided later what to do about multiplicative calculus. The term "non-Newtonian" is a neologism coined by the author of the book that has not been widely accepted. The term makes it appear as if this approach is a significant modification of the calculus, somehow going against the Newtonian approach. Meanwhile, the main idea of this approach seems to amount to apply log to a product before differentiating. Whatever the possible applications of this method may be in engineering, the title should reflect the contents more precisely. Also in any future AfD the participants will have a more accurate picture of the intrinsic merit of the approach. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus (2nd nomination). Please direct your comments there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created List of numeral systems and would appreciate help making it somewhat complete. -- Bea o 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The BBC has a collection of audio programs related to mathematics at [12]. Many of these are episodes of the radio series "In Our Time". Just mentioning it for general interest but I'm also thinking it would be a worthwhile project to make sure we have a link to each program in the "External links" section of the corresponding WP article.-- RDBury ( talk) 17:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for reactions to the idea at File talk:Pi-unrolled-720.gif#Radians. In a nutshell, the idea is to make a relatively minor change to that animation changing the radius from 1/2 to 1 and the circumference from π to 2π (I don't really know whether this would be controversial, but at least to me the reasons for it are pretty sound and in line with the mathematical tendency to deal with circles of radius one). The intro (where it lines up the circles) would probably best be changed to somehow visually emphasize the radius a bit more than the diameter. Whether the new image replaces the old one or just gets used places like Radian and Turn (geometry) is to be determined. If people like the idea, we can presumably get help from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and/or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop (I would have thought the former, but I guess the people at the latter are more accustomed to working with raster images). Kingdon ( talk) 01:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I expect most of us who have math articles on our watchlists see this from time to time -- an article contains the word provably, used correctly, and someone, usually an IP, changes it to probably.
I was just idly wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this. Is it a specific person who just likes to do this for fun, maybe figuring it's a subtle change that might escape notice? Or, is it that a lot of people just don't know the word provably and fix the "typo" in good faith?
Either way, it seems likely that some such changes go uncaught. Just thought I'd mention it so that the next time one of us sees the word probably in a math article, we might give half a second's thought to whether it's really supposed to be provably. (Or, I suppose, the reverse is also possible, but I don't recall an example of that.) -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled Haynsworth inertia additivity formula.
That article and Sylvester's law of inertia treat of this particular concept of "inertia". Is this so called because of a conceptual connection with physical inertia? If so, those article ought to explain the connetion.
To do:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Should we have a list of matrix topics or list of matrix theory topics? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
But navboxes seem to be for navigating, whereas lists are (partly? largely?) for browsing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Branching random walk is a stubby new article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For MF, search among the primary writers of featured articles on English WP.
Malleus Fatuorum and I discussed hyphens previously, with good humor, also. See
the MOS, also.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
23:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the article on Hadamard's lemma. It is presented as a first order application of Taylor's theorem; which is fine. But then it assumes that the function is real valued. I'm sure that it works for functions from C to C. Moreover, I'm sure that the statement can be generalised in terms of other fields. Does the statement holds for functions from a field K to a field K? If not, then what are the necessary conditions? What is the most general form of the lemma? All we need is for a function from K to K to be continuous, and for its first order derivative to be continuous. I've listen to talks about p-adic differentiation and integration (i.e. where the field K is a finite field with a prime number of elements); surely the article can be extended. What do we think? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article titled quasisymmetric map, this is given as the definition:
What does mean? Does it mean ? Clearly the article needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Template:Cubes has been proposed for deletion: {{ cubes}} Please see the discussion regarding its deletion.
Also, consider expanding and improving the Cubes navbox, which was recently created and newly expanded: In particular, crystallography may have many cubic articles. (It was never meant for mathematicians, who are served by the fine navboxes on polytopes, etc., but for civilians.)
Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Shapley–Folkman lemma has been nominated for A-class review. Your comments are most welcome. Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Peter Scholze is at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Scholze. What do we think of this? (Initially I had missed that he was a Clay fellow, but this could tip the discussion the other way.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Another IMO related AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Boreico. This one seems more clear-cut. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable in commutative algebra add the details about Rees' contribution form some math source (and not a newspaper obit of someone else)? I've added the semigroup theory stuff I knew of. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Also the page of his (former) student Michael P. Drazin could enjoy more than a sentence. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
New article looks like it was done as an extra credit project. Well done for what it is but not really encyclopedic in style. Copy to WikiBooks?-- RDBury ( talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have some details on Volterra's role in developing multiplicative calculus and to what extent this was influential? The impact of this subject seems to be not much greater than non-Newtonian calculus (see deletion page). Unless we can justify it as a historical page, it may be next. Tkuvho ( talk) 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the arbitration committee ruling, Monty Hall problem has become a much more cooperative place. Alas, it has also become a place where there are very few editors. If you walked away from the article because of the battleground it became, you might want to consider revisiting it. Guy Macon ( talk) 12:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
To Tkuvho: Rather than put the Monty Hall problem specifically into the list of misconceptions, you should figure out what general misconception about probability or statistics is responsible for the popular misunderstanding of MH and put that into the list. Then MH could be linked to as an example. That would make the entry much more useful and important. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we need Category:Non-Newtonian calculus ? Tkuvho ( talk) 08:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this a notable article? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor is insisting in marking the lead of Fourth dimension as dubious in "In mathematics, the fourth dimension, or a four-dimensional ("4D") space,[dubious – discuss] is an abstract concept derived by generalizing the rules of three-dimensional space". They say a four dimensional space could be any sort of space not necessarily Euclidean whereas others have said it referes in this instance to an extension of Euclidean 3-space. I would like to remove the dubious tag or otherwise resolve this. This is a bit similar I guess to the N-dimensional space business mentioned in a section above but as far as I can see there has been no real follow up to that, also I think they are a bit different in that N-dimensional space is actually used for many other things like configuration spaces whereas four-dimensional space is rather specific. Talk is at Talk:Fourth dimension#Title?. Dmcq ( talk) 11:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what these two are about exactly, but these two articles seems to be about the same thing. Opinions on what should be done? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Our page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../FAQ lists a number of frequently asked questions about 0.999... One of the answers to these questions deals with the "number" 0.000...01 (with an implied infinity of zeros before the last digit). The answer asserts, correctly, that this number is meaningless as a real decimal. I added a brief parenthetical comment here to the effect that one can make sense of such a number in a proper extension of R, providing a link to a page where this is discussed. The parenthetical remark was apparently too much for the guardians of purity at 0.999... and was reverted, most recently here. I would appreciate some input. Tkuvho ( talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just been reading a mathematics article about the Halting Problem (Turing et al) and found it to be very difficult to read. A lot of text books on subjects particularly in the field of science and maths have been written in this style and it leaves the reader frustrated and confused. Surely an encyclopedic article should be accessible to the widest audience possible? I think some simplification of the language with perhaps more steps and examples would help to get across to the reader some of the concepts involved. Readers are generally not stupid people (else why would they be there) but the knowledge should be communicated better. Language, next to knowledge, is the most important asset an encyclopedia can have.
Sam- Helsinki, Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.106.209 ( talk) 08:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The style/tone could also use some work there, e.g. Minsky exhorts the reader to be suspicious—although a machine may be finite, and finite automata "have a number of theoretical limitations": It reads like one of those controversial, he-says-she-says, social science articles. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In view of the date, please have a look at this article and confirm my suspicions. JohnCD ( talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
One of the more elaborate hoaxes. Created on the appropriate calendar date for such. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a reason not to merge these? Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Frobenius determinant theorem is a near-orphaned article. So if the internal-link-muse speaks to you, figure out which articles should link to it and add the links. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the Futurama theorem merit its own article ? A merger proposal is being discussed at Talk:Futurama theorem. Gandalf61 ( talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The group of Jacques Tits is important in mathematics, and it might be a suitable article for this project to improve to Featured Status in time for next year's April Fool's Day. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There were a bunch of really obvious copy-editing issues that I've just taken care of. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Opinions of Simon Davis (mathematician)? It's been prodded. It says he applies the theory of perfect numbers to physics. I wouldn't have guessed those would be connected, but maybe I'm just naive. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that we currently have no article about Ivar Ekeland, although nine other articles link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Tkuvho has now created the article and some others have contributed to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Pi is about the mathematical constant. There is a question about whether the lead image should be relevant to the topic of the article, or should be an image of the Greek letter. Please comment at Talk:Pi#Pi "Unrolled" animation. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of you will enjoy reading about John Rainwater, who led the functional-analysis seminar at the University of Washington over a 5-decade career. His research achievements and long-relationship with UW are remarkable especially given his graduate-student record, which included plagiarism and planting an explosive device for his professor. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Note two related articles on other functional analysts, Robert Phelps and Peter Orno. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a request to move Fourth dimension to Four-dimensional space at Talk:Fourth dimension#Requested move Dmcq ( talk) 00:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have three articles on the same subject:
Does anyone know why? Are there any objective reasons to have three articles on this relatively elementary topic? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that article is well-written, so perhaps there is a way to keep it available to the public on WikiMedia servers. I don't now much about that, but I think Wikiversity would accept that page as-is. Although Wikiversity doesn't get the same google juice as Wikipedia, we could link it from Boolean algebra; I'm not sure what are the standards for that. Perhaps someone here has experience in that area? Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, there is a book chapter in Padmanabhan & Rudeanu [6] (full ref given in Boolean algebra (structure)), so I have created Axiomatization of Boolean algebras as a redirect, but it's conceivable that it could become a list-type sub-article at some point. I don't have interest in developing it myself though. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the purported proof systems article could contain that's not already in propositional calculus. Can someone enlighten me on that? Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a proposal to merge that as well at BATF. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A. H. Lightstone is on sale here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A._H._Lightstone Tkuvho ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a merger of these articles at Talk:Subrandom numbers. It's not a merger that I myself feel competent enough to carry out, though. Are there any volunteers here? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Could a mathematician take a look at this new article by a new contributor - it seems a bit odd to me but I don't know much about this subject.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Now proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exact Prime Counting Method. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Monty Hall problem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A somewhat odd and certainly under-referenced article. I looked it up after this thread, which is certainly enough to show the interest of this concept as basic geometry. (Of which I wasn't aware.) The corresponding Cut locus (Riemannian manifold) is better, but still looks neglected. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Artin's conjecture on primitive roots and Artin's constant substantially overlap with each other. Each has a hatnote linking to the other. Should they get merged? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I submitted a recommendation to delete an unused and probably uneeded redirect relating to template:Maths rating. You can see the request here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate language is being used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../Arguments Tkuvho ( talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Taylor series, a top importance article, has been nominated for good article status (see WP:GACR for good article criteria). The review is here. We need reviewers and probably also editors. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I stumbled upon
Fuzzy matrix theory, and it looked slightly odd and fringey. The sole source is
this which looks rather like cargo-cult maths to me; so I've sent it to
AfD. All expert inputs would be welcomed on the
AfD page... alternatively, if it could be rescued somehow, that's cool too.
bobrayner (
talk)
21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Until my revision the article Center (group theory) stated that
That may be true, but it sounds as if A4 had a nontrivial center, which is not true, as can be seen in the Cayley table on the right. So maybe it should read
If someone knows that's true he may add it to the article. Until now the sentence is <!---hidden--->. Lipedia ( talk) 09:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Help. Trying to wikify Wright Camera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but, it needs some math expertise. Thanks, Chzz ► 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Taylor's theorem has a largish proliferation of proofs. (It used to have three, and has recently had as many as five. Now it's down to four. At least I've recently simplified two of those considerably.) I can see the usefulness of having some simple proofs that illustrate the basic relevant techniques (like the Cauchy mean value theorem, and restricting to a line segment in the case of several variables). However, there is some discussion of including complete proofs of basically all the results in the article. To me this seems rather contrary to the well-established consensus here, but I'd appreciate some outside input. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Circle (topology) currently redirects to circle group. Some knot-theory articles mentioning circles probably should link to circle (topology) but not to circle group. I've made circle (topology) into a "redirect with possibilities". So how about those possibilities? Should, or will, someone do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I just found that circle action was a red link from quaternionic projective space, but nothing else linked there. So I redirected it to circle group. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For now I've redirected circle (topology) to n-sphere, while leaving the "redirect with possibilities" tag intact. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
What about creating something like WikiProject Prime numbers. I know there is already the sub project Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, but I (and I think some other editors as well) are especially interested in prime numbers. The project could serve as a centralized point of discussion for editors interested in prime numbers, but not working on other number related articles. The scope of this project would include all of the articles about the classes of prime numbers listed in List of prime numbers. It could also include articles where the number class includes a subsequence of prime numbers that do not have an own article (like for example Leyland number). Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:0.999... inexperienced editors sometimes leave comments that are not directly related to improving the page. For this reason, a separate "arguments" page was created where such discussions can continue. Comments not directly related to improving the page are supposed to be moved to the "arguments" page. Recently, a couple of editors started a new trend of summarily deleting comments that are not to their liking. Furthermore, one of them threatened to "report" any further reinstatement of the deleted material. This would not appear to be consistent with minimal standards of politeness we expect at wiki. Tkuvho ( talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Euler on infinite series has been prodded for deletion. 64.229.100.45 ( talk) 04:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually coming back to this as a result of some discussion at Talk:The Prisoner of Benda (where the ridiculous suggestion that minor copyedits to a proof were "original research"). In the past, we've had many discussions on inclusion of proofs in articles, and now there is even the dedicated subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. A basic editing principle that I have always adhered to is that it's better just to say why a result is true than to give a detailed derivation of it. This often means communicating the main ideas of the proof, without going into details. (In some sense, to "talk about the proof" rather than give it.) I find that this produces more seamless prose suited to an encyclopedia article. I've always thought that somewhere this was codified in a guideline or essay. It's certainly a point that I bring up in most discussions about proofs in mathematics articles. But it doesn't seem to be in either WP:MSM or WP:WPM/Proofs. Is this idea, or something like it, something we agree on? Should it be added to WP:WPM/Proofs? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{démonstration| * Si on prend un élément <math>x_n</math> dans chaque <math>F_n</math>, la suite <math>(x_n)</math> est de [[suite de Cauchy|Cauchy]]. En effet, pour un <math>\varepsilon>0</math> fixé, il existe un rang <math>N</math> tel que le diamètre de <math>F_N</math> soit majoré par <math>\varepsilon</math>, et en particulier <math>d(x_n,x_m)\le\varepsilon</math> pour tous <math>m, n\ge N</math>. Cette suite est donc convergente car <math>E</math> est complet. * De plus, sa limite <math>x</math> appartient à chaque <math>F_n</math>. En effet, pour tout <math>n\in\mathbb{N}</math>, la suite <math>(x_m)_{m\ge n}</math> est à valeurs dans <math>F_n</math> (puisque <math>m\ge n\Rightarrow x_m\in F_m\subset F_n</math>) donc sa limite <math>x</math> aussi (puisque <math>F_n</math> est fermé). On a donc prouvé que l'intersection des <math>F_n</math> est non vide. * Enfin, elle est réduite à un point puisque son diamètre est nul (car majoré par tous les diamètres des <math>F_n</math>, dont l'inf est 0).}}
The editor at Talk:The Prisoner of Benda has become increasingly aggressive in his stance that summarizing published proofs and making slight copyedits to them is original research. I would appreciate it if someone uninvolved could have a look. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this ridiculous episode makes it glaringly obvious that we need clarity on whether summarizing proofs, or rewriting proofs in our own words without substantively altering them, or changing notation, is considered to be original research. It is painfully clear to me that, in the case of discussion, no original research has been committed at any time, in any version of the article under discussion. It has already been (convincingly, to my mind, by Kmhkmh), suggested that Andrevan has been misrepresenting the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OR by insisting on an overly rigid interpretation of it. Also, a lot of this is explained by the fact that Andrevan is of the opinion that WP:V means that a lay-person should be able to verify the content of an article, without requiring any special subject knowledge. This is an untenable position for any encyclopedia that covers a wide range of serious topics, in my opinion. But there it is. Perhaps we need to formalize some clarity about that as well. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
May be a little off-topic here, but I don't know where else to ask. Can someone figure out what's the deal with Birkhäuser Verlag vs. the Springer math & science book series, which is still published under that imprint? We might need to create a dab for Birkhäuser. Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Blackburne, of A. H. Lightstone fame, is now attempting to delete a brief quotation at Adequality on the grounds that it is a copyright violation. Help! Tkuvho ( talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for this article which is getting a lot of attention. This is related to Fibonacci number which is #7 on our list of most frequently viewed (really more like #1 if you take out physics and statistics articles).-- RDBury ( talk) 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone improve Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus before it's nominated for deletion? Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone here has an opinion whether clause in logic only means a disjunction. Tijfo098 ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The DYK nomination for the new article on Ivar Ekeland, which Tkuvho started (and which I expanded) should get a lot of DYK hits.
5x expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk). Self nom at 10:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a number of links to non-Newtonian calculus being stuck in to various articles by User Talk:Smithpith ( contribs). He has warnings in the talk page but we should figure out exactly what link should be kept if any I think. Dmcq ( talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
From Michael Grossman: I thought those links were pertinent. If I was wrong, I'm sorry. I have no intention of violating Wikipedia's rules. Smithpith ( talk) 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I created an infobox for articles about integer sequences a while ago (see Template:Infobox integer sequence for the template and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox integer sequence for articles, where it is currently being used). I would like to include an image in every case, where the infobox is in use. For this purpose, it would be nice to have some input on which ways of visualizing integer sequences could be used for creating images for use in the infobox. My preference is in favor of ideas that can be easily realized using simple image editing software. Also I am aware of the visualization methods used by OEIS. Finally, the image should be interesting, without being distracting, even if only two or three terms of the sequence are known. Any additional input is welcome. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
....currently redirects to errors and residuals in statistics. That obviously doesn't make sense. So:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose to move the controversial page Non-Newtonian calculus to a more appropriate title Modifications of the calculus. It can be decided later what to do about multiplicative calculus. The term "non-Newtonian" is a neologism coined by the author of the book that has not been widely accepted. The term makes it appear as if this approach is a significant modification of the calculus, somehow going against the Newtonian approach. Meanwhile, the main idea of this approach seems to amount to apply log to a product before differentiating. Whatever the possible applications of this method may be in engineering, the title should reflect the contents more precisely. Also in any future AfD the participants will have a more accurate picture of the intrinsic merit of the approach. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus (2nd nomination). Please direct your comments there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created List of numeral systems and would appreciate help making it somewhat complete. -- Bea o 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The BBC has a collection of audio programs related to mathematics at [12]. Many of these are episodes of the radio series "In Our Time". Just mentioning it for general interest but I'm also thinking it would be a worthwhile project to make sure we have a link to each program in the "External links" section of the corresponding WP article.-- RDBury ( talk) 17:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for reactions to the idea at File talk:Pi-unrolled-720.gif#Radians. In a nutshell, the idea is to make a relatively minor change to that animation changing the radius from 1/2 to 1 and the circumference from π to 2π (I don't really know whether this would be controversial, but at least to me the reasons for it are pretty sound and in line with the mathematical tendency to deal with circles of radius one). The intro (where it lines up the circles) would probably best be changed to somehow visually emphasize the radius a bit more than the diameter. Whether the new image replaces the old one or just gets used places like Radian and Turn (geometry) is to be determined. If people like the idea, we can presumably get help from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and/or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop (I would have thought the former, but I guess the people at the latter are more accustomed to working with raster images). Kingdon ( talk) 01:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I expect most of us who have math articles on our watchlists see this from time to time -- an article contains the word provably, used correctly, and someone, usually an IP, changes it to probably.
I was just idly wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this. Is it a specific person who just likes to do this for fun, maybe figuring it's a subtle change that might escape notice? Or, is it that a lot of people just don't know the word provably and fix the "typo" in good faith?
Either way, it seems likely that some such changes go uncaught. Just thought I'd mention it so that the next time one of us sees the word probably in a math article, we might give half a second's thought to whether it's really supposed to be provably. (Or, I suppose, the reverse is also possible, but I don't recall an example of that.) -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled Haynsworth inertia additivity formula.
That article and Sylvester's law of inertia treat of this particular concept of "inertia". Is this so called because of a conceptual connection with physical inertia? If so, those article ought to explain the connetion.
To do:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Should we have a list of matrix topics or list of matrix theory topics? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
But navboxes seem to be for navigating, whereas lists are (partly? largely?) for browsing. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Branching random walk is a stubby new article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For MF, search among the primary writers of featured articles on English WP.
Malleus Fatuorum and I discussed hyphens previously, with good humor, also. See
the MOS, also.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
23:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the article on Hadamard's lemma. It is presented as a first order application of Taylor's theorem; which is fine. But then it assumes that the function is real valued. I'm sure that it works for functions from C to C. Moreover, I'm sure that the statement can be generalised in terms of other fields. Does the statement holds for functions from a field K to a field K? If not, then what are the necessary conditions? What is the most general form of the lemma? All we need is for a function from K to K to be continuous, and for its first order derivative to be continuous. I've listen to talks about p-adic differentiation and integration (i.e. where the field K is a finite field with a prime number of elements); surely the article can be extended. What do we think? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article titled quasisymmetric map, this is given as the definition:
What does mean? Does it mean ? Clearly the article needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Template:Cubes has been proposed for deletion: {{ cubes}} Please see the discussion regarding its deletion.
Also, consider expanding and improving the Cubes navbox, which was recently created and newly expanded: In particular, crystallography may have many cubic articles. (It was never meant for mathematicians, who are served by the fine navboxes on polytopes, etc., but for civilians.)
Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Shapley–Folkman lemma has been nominated for A-class review. Your comments are most welcome. Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Peter Scholze is at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Scholze. What do we think of this? (Initially I had missed that he was a Clay fellow, but this could tip the discussion the other way.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Another IMO related AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Boreico. This one seems more clear-cut. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable in commutative algebra add the details about Rees' contribution form some math source (and not a newspaper obit of someone else)? I've added the semigroup theory stuff I knew of. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Also the page of his (former) student Michael P. Drazin could enjoy more than a sentence. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
New article looks like it was done as an extra credit project. Well done for what it is but not really encyclopedic in style. Copy to WikiBooks?-- RDBury ( talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have some details on Volterra's role in developing multiplicative calculus and to what extent this was influential? The impact of this subject seems to be not much greater than non-Newtonian calculus (see deletion page). Unless we can justify it as a historical page, it may be next. Tkuvho ( talk) 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the arbitration committee ruling, Monty Hall problem has become a much more cooperative place. Alas, it has also become a place where there are very few editors. If you walked away from the article because of the battleground it became, you might want to consider revisiting it. Guy Macon ( talk) 12:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
To Tkuvho: Rather than put the Monty Hall problem specifically into the list of misconceptions, you should figure out what general misconception about probability or statistics is responsible for the popular misunderstanding of MH and put that into the list. Then MH could be linked to as an example. That would make the entry much more useful and important. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we need Category:Non-Newtonian calculus ? Tkuvho ( talk) 08:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)