What are our opinions of recent edits at Differentiation rules? There is a discussion on the talk page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I am not a very active editor, but I saw that Template:Rules_of_inference was missing two important rules (existential generalization and existential instantiation). They are briefly discussed in Existential quantification, but I think that the way the template is organized is very messy. I created a page for existential generalization, but I held off on creating existential instantiation because I did not think it would be prudent to create another stub. Perhaps all four rules of inference can be merged into a new page? Let me know your thoughts on this. Yarou ( talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not find in Wikipedia any mention of the multivariate resultant (AKA Macaulay's resultant). It is the main tool of elimination theory, but it is not even cited in that page. Someone is willing to write the page? D.Lazard ( talk) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Also there is nothing on the subresultants nor on the various (pseudo)remainder sequences which are used to compute the gcd of univariate polynomials over the integers or another polynomial ring. Classical Euclid's algorithm generates fractions which may costly to simplify, and pseudo divisions (another lacking page) generate an exponential growth of the coefficients. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As I was examining a number of related stubs; Imaginary point, Imaginary line (mathematics), Real point, Real curve, and Imaginary curve, the thought struck me that these should all be redirects to an article on elementary properties of complex vector spaces and complex projective spaces, which could sort out all these definitions coherently. My initial thought was that this page should be called Complex geometry, as the natural title for someone looking for this type of information. But this page already exists, and while it started out as an elementary version of what I have in mind, it was "hijacked" with the argument that Complex geometry technically means the study of complex manifolds and functions of several complex variables in the mathematical research community. The material that was on the page was dumped into Complex analytic geometry; perhaps a more accurate title for the content, but much harder to find if you're not familiar with geometric taxonomy. This was all done 4-5 years ago and the Complex geometry page, consisting now of the above technical definition and one additional sentence, has remained a stub. I propose re-aligning the page to talk about elementary definitions and properties of some complex manifolds and directing readers wanting a more advanced treatment to the well developed Complex manifold page. Comments? Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The discipline of "complex geometry" certainly does exist. There are people out there studying complex manifolds and complex (analytic) spaces using a mixture of analytic, algebraic and geometric techniques; my research supervisor is one of them. Older work in this area was usually classified under the name "several complex variables", but during the last couple of decades more people have started to use the word "geometry". The title "complex analytic geometry" is more restrictive, and doesn't cover the full range of this subject. "Analytic geometry" intersects complex geometry but isn't the same thing; there are also real analytic geometers out there who aren't interested in complex spaces. Wikipedia's coverage of this whole area is rather sketchy; it's not good to try and draw conclusions about the nature of a discpline solely by what's represented on this web site. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get too far away from the intent of my post. I am really interested in the most appropriate way to deal with this "walled garden" (thanks for that term!). I am not claiming that "complex geometry" isn't used in the research community, it clearly is (a google search indicates this ... although an argument can be made that the most popular use of the term is for a line of leather clothing). What I am proposing is an abuse of that title – which is why I've brought up the issue here. I agree with RDBury, our coverage of elementary algebraic geometry is a bit weak and too scattered, making it hard for readers to get an introduction to the advanced topics; so I see a need to fill this gap. My thinking is that by using a very classical interpretation of "Complex geometry" we can take a page which serves no real function and turn it into something that could be fairly useful. Anyone coming to this page looking for the modern meaning would be directed to the appropriate place, while those who are naively searching will actually get to something that they may be looking for. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Niven's theorem states that the only rational multiples of π whose sine is rational are the ones you learned in childhood: sin 0°, ±sin 30°, and ±sin 90°. The article is new. Work on it if you are so moved. (Currently it does not include a proof and there are just two references. Also, there may be more articles that ought to link to it than currently do.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The central result, Theorem 3.9, was proved by D. H. Lehmer,
Amer. Math. Monthly, 40 (1933), 165-166. The extension to the tangent function in Theorem 3.11 has not been given elsewhere, so far as we know. A proof of Corollary 3.12 independent of Theorems 3.9 and 3.11 was given by J. M. H. Olmsted, Amer. Math. Monthly, 52 (1945), 507-508. The topic is a recurring one in the popular literature: as examples we cite B. H. Arnold and Howard Eves, Amer. Math. Monthly, 56 (1949), 20-21; R. W. Hamming, Amer. Math. Monthly, 52 (1945), 336-337; E. Swift, Amer. Math. Monthly, 29 (1922), 404-405; R. S. Underwood, Amer. Math. Monthly, 28
(1921), 374-376.
A new editor removed "Jewish chatter" about Carleman's alcoholism, etc.
Given my recent blocking (involving the phrase "national socialism"), I would appreciate if another would deal with this editor, who is active also on Swedish Wikpedia.
Thanks, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Some relatively new editors seem to be on a campaign to change all of our italic d's in differentials into upright d's. (See Special:Contributions/193.2.120.35, and recent edits to Differential of a function.) I think we need to get some firm consensus on how to deal with this trend. This seems to be a convention that is substantially in the minority in the mathematical sciences, although maybe some subfields prefer the upright "d" (whence the small but dedicated group that wants to change everything to their way). I have examined many of the textbooks on my shelves. These include texts in mathematics, physics, computer science, aimed at all levels of higher education (from a number of textbooks for first year calculus to research monographs), and I have yet to find a single example of an upright "d" used for the differential. There is allegedly an ISO standard ( ISO 80000) that recommends the upright "d". Can anyone confirm this? At any rate, I don't see that our typography is necessarily dictated by the ISO. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The argument for the upright "d" seems to be that it leaves the letter d available for use as a variable, like all variables in its italic form. Thus one can unambiguously write
But that's a pretty minor advantage, and I hardly ever see the upright "d" used this way in print. I think maybe in the writings of physicists it may be more frequently seen, but I'm not sure. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Which authors use upright or italic "d" in differentials?
The image of Yuri Linnik was nominated for deletion. Could an expert in copyright please check whether the image File:Yuri Linnik (photo).jpg is OK (and if yes, how to tag it properly)? Thanks, Sasha ( talk) 05:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The article titled Geometric formulas is at best quite weak. Is it worth developing? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion copied into Talk:Geometric formulas. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge several articles relating to angles in elementary geometry into a single article. See Talk:Vertical angles#Merge? if interested.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The name of Encyclopaedia of Mathematics is now 'Encyclopedia of Mathematics' (the 'a' was dropped); any objections to moving the article to the new name over the existing redirect?-- RDBury ( talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Also it might be interesting to note, that Springer has switched its encyclopedia to a Mediawiki and a community editing (with editorial supervision by board though). Another consequence of this software switch is, that is looks like that all old links to its articles are dead. Is there a chance to use bot to fix them. If we have a template for the encyclopedia that would need fixing too.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Water retention on mathematical surfaces has been nominated for deletion. Maybe it's just a matter of adding more sources from the literature. Opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water retention on mathematical surfaces. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the discussion should best be done here, as to the proper use of {{ frac}}, {{ fracText}}, {{ frac/sandbox}}, etc. It certaily needs to be done somewhere in a single location. The present users of {{ frac}} might object to replacement with the stacked version, even if it could be done cleanly with the sandbox modifications working. Perhaps the talk pages of WP:MOSMATH#Fractions or WP:MOSNUM#Fractions would be a better place for the discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can everyone please see this link when they have time? It is a proposed workaround for including the closed double and triple integral symbols not possible with LaTeX. They are rendered JPEG images:
\oiint and \oiiint:
and as templates: {{ oiint}}, {{ oiiint}}, and {{ Oiint+Oiiint}}. I had high hopes for templates, unfortuatley they didn't work out as well the the pure images.
Thanks - feel free to criticize as heavy as you will, all comments very welcome... -- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize so many people would answer so quickly. The next step then is to upload a new version of the files as PNG and on a transparent background. However - why the statement "size them as TeX would output them"? They already are the correct size. Even if they arn't anyone can still change the size by going to the template page and editing the image syntax. Thats the least of the problems.
As updated on the talk page here, templates are no longer a problem - cheers to Nageh. Thanks for feedback though.-- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an on-going dispute, with fourth revert cycles now, on whether material from a paper on arxiv.org should be included in the article. Some impartial assistance is needed to resolve the issue or find a compromise.-- RDBury ( talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that the Lo Shu Square article had essentially no information on its origin. For example, it does not give the first source in which it is known to have appeared -- or, for that matter, any source in which it appeared.
It does mention an apocryphal origin tying it to Yu the Great. I've seen other origin legends going ll the way back to (if I understand them properly) Fu Xi.
Any historians of math (or historians, or interested amateurs, or people who read Chinese) who can help?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
User:Daniele.tampieri suggested to add an "author" field to the template. Please comment at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal.
Sasha ( talk) 16:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Encyclopaedia of Mathematics and a quick look at the website the EoM is now an open wiki at a new site. This raises a couple of concerns:
(related to the above thread they use MathJax as well as MediaWiki - see their front page for info).-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Couple of comments here. First, Nbrothers (and everyone else) wants to fix the articles where the change of the template hs led to bad outbound links to EOM's new site. These links would have the new website, but the old id piece so something like http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/f/f041470.htm any way that we can do an intelligent search for that? Secondly, I think that using interwiki would be great not directly used for reference which would have an oldid. Thirdly, references are held to a different level of reliability than interwikis. It is entirely possible for the decision to be one of three. Use for ref and 'see also's, use only for 'see also's and don't use at all. Naraht ( talk) 11:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I see really nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources, what matters first and foremost is whether they are reputable and reliable not whether they are secondary or tertiary. If you would argue strictly against reliable tertiary sources, you could even cite most math textbooks, which are tertiary sources as well. Moreover good tertiary sources may even offer another layer of error correction and can be more comprehensive than individual secondary sources. As far as "inferior" tertiary sources such as MathWorld are concerned, use them where they work and don't use them where they don't. There is plenty of basic stuff where you can use MathWorld without any problems and in doubt it is better to such topics in WP sourced with MathWorld than not having it sourced at all. In areas where MathWorld's descriptions become iffy or questionable just don't use it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
A mathematical reviewer is requested. Thanks for your interest. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Besides his work on HR, editor Sodin/Sasha wrote the following biography, which will interest functional analysts and probabilists:
Created by Sodin ( talk). Self nom at 23:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Well done! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I was editing the article on Euler's totient. In the section [ [3]] there are a number of summataion formulae without source. The only on-line source I could find was [4]
Is this considered a reliable source? If so how should I reference it?
Thanks
Virginia-American ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Would someone in this project familiar with maths articles please determine the future of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proof that the set of super-prime numbers is small. and use the links on the AFC template to prompote this as an article or else provide feedback to the author. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid by the number of pages dealing with almost the same subject which are not of badly inter referenced. Recently, in this talk page we came on the various meanings of "normal" with no reference to curvature vector nor to binormal vector. Looking to curvature, I have remarked (and corrected) that radius of curvature and curvature were not inter referenced. Earlier in this page, we have encountered the same problem with algebraic number field and global field. I have recently corrected the same problem between dimension of an algebraic variety and Krull dimension. Is there a systematic way to solve this issue? May be a subproject of this project? D.Lazard ( talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Strict conditional may need some attention. -- 202.124.75.203 ( talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Re.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matrix Chernoff bound
Help, please.
Can some mathematician please check out
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matrix Chernoff bound.
If it's acceptable as an article (ie, unlikely to be deleted), please just move it to a live article, and remove the header.
If not, you could explain why directly on that page, and leave a note for the author.
Thanks,
Chzz
► 08:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sendov's conjecture is a new article. If you're so inclined:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
At the moment Category:Music theory is found under the parent Category:Mathematics. Having a look at some of the articles of Category:Music theory because i have little knowledge of it, it seems that it is not purely mathematical, but should Category:Music theory be under Category:Mathematics of music instead or should only the specific articles relating to the mathemathematics of music be placed in it, with Category:Music theory being removed from Category:Mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream music theory is not part of mathematics (although some people would have us believe that there is a mathematical flavour to it). There is some valid mathematics to be done in the fields of intonation (part of music theory) and acoustics (generally not considered a branch of "music theory", rather some combination of science and engineering). And there are some small connections between mathematics and some ways of viewing musical structure, e.g. people finding the golden ratio in the works of some composers, and Ligeti drawing inspiration from fractals and chaos. Also some bad pseudoscience in alleged applications of things like group representation theory and axiomatic set theory to the theory of harmony (the article Transformational theory is at the respectable end of this; it gets much worse, but there's not much of this on Wikipedia so far).
My feeling is that Category:Mathematics of music should be a subcategory of Category:Mathematics as well as of Category:Applied mathematics (oddly, applied mathematics is not part of mathematics according to our category system!) but Category:Music theory should not have any mathematics categories as parents; there is plenty of scope for articles to belong to more than one category here. Jowa fan ( talk) 03:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was just noticing how long the talk page for l'Hopital's rule is (some of the comments are from 2003 and there are 40 subsections) and I was wondering how to go about archiving some of that. I'd like to see how that's done, if possible. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 01:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
a reviewer is needed for two mathematicians' DYK (one of them already mentioned above):
The article on Torsten Carleman has also recently been expanded (but is not nominated for DYK, so needs no effort from you)
Thank you very much for the help!
I did the Riesz one. That's a lot more detailed and well sourced than most brand-new articles on mathematicians — well done. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently Normal line, with a few other normal objects, redirects to Surface normal, which I found a bit surprising since I think of normals existing for objects with dimension other than 2. Perhaps expanding the scope of 'Surface normal' to include other normals with a corresponding change in name would be in order. Tangent#Normal line to a curve covers some of this material as well but you'd have to know to look there.-- RDBury ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Trovatore ( talk) 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to reason with Rschwieb about this, but he decided to ignore my concerns, regardless of the fact that it is purely logic and math based, pointing out errors in his current proof in the article. I'm looking for a mediator in this, someone who can address the mathematical issues I bring forth in Talk:l'Hôpital's rule#Error in general proof. Thanks. Toolnut ( talk) 11:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In our Lists of integrals we can learn that
and all sorts of other things like that. Do we also have a list of sums? If not, we probably should. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please help - we need your expertise to fix the large number of disambiguation links to Positive definiteness: 59 links; Lemniscate: 39 links; Plane geometry: 38 links; and Random number: 37 links. Alternately, please consider whether all of these pages should be disambiguation pages. Perhaps, for example, an article can be written encompassing the various concepts of a "random number" or a "lemniscate" curve. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Another mathematics disambiguation page with a large number of incoming links is Linear least squares: 37 links. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's one more - Generating set: 39 links. It might be helpful if someone from this project were to peruse Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/December 2011 to see if there are other pages with solutions for which mathematical expertise would be useful. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please look at the following change to Monodromy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Monodromy&action=historysubmit&diff=467516318&oldid=465625556), I'm not sure if it should be removed or just altered...
is ars inveniendi a true notion or jibberish? I do not understand a single word there.
Sasha ( talk) 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion about possibly renaming a bunch of math stub templates at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/December/28#Math_stubs. The full list is at Category:Mathematics stubs. This might be a good time to consider whether renaming them is worthwhile. The discussion should probably happen at the "Stub types for deletion" page, which is not accurately named. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that Ellis–Nakamura lemma should be moved to Ellis–Numakura lemma. I've brought it up here for two reasons. 1. Perhaps someone more familiar with this area of mathematics could check this. 2. I am not familiar with the procedure for moving pages. -- Kompik ( talk) 17:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have Category:Mathematical comparisons? Brad7777 ( talk) 12:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#References on the preferred way to reference proofs and derivations. Neither the Scientific citation guidelines or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is very specific about this other than saying that they should be referenced.-- RDBury ( talk) 19:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The following text is copied from Talk:Algebraic geometry. However there are few intervention in this talk page. Moreover, I think that the main page of an area of mathematics is of interest for the whole wikiproject. Therefore I post it here also.
I have just rewritten a large part of algebraic geometry. One of the aims of my edits was to better covering the various sub areas of modern algebraic geometry: except for the scheme theory and its generalizations, none of them were even mentioned in the previous version. My guideline for my edits was Did you know that algebraic geometry is not as esoteric as it could seem?
Reviews and comments would be of great help to improve the result.
I need also some specific help to finish the work. Here is a list of the main points on which I need more specific help:
Good new year 2012 D.Lazard ( talk) 12:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of scheme theory in the main algebraic geometry article is a bit heavy-handed. I don't see why every conceivable topology and every generalization of schemes should be mentioned, particularly not when the basic idea of a scheme as an object that is "locally like an affine variety" is completely absent. I'm not sure how this content should more appropriately be reconfigured, but I do support a substantial overhaul of the article, and I think Lazard's suggestions are very worthwhile. I don't think, though, that we should spurn dimensions 1 and 2 since these are the greatest success story of algebraic geometry. Rather, I think we should have a section on curves and a section on surfaces, in addition to the kinds of things Lazard suggests. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say a great work: it is important to have well-balanced articles on general subjects. But the absence is equally problematic as precence (cf. the above). Thus, the following should be covered (but not limited to): defomation theory, intersection theory, geometry of positve characteristic (i.e., Mumford), arithmetic algebraic geometry, geometric invariant theory, resolution of singularities, toric varieties, algebraic groups (e.g., linear algebraic groups, abelian varieties, Jacobian varieties), more generally representation-theoretic stuff), cohomological stuff (e.g., Serre duality, standard conjecture), algebraic vector bundles, smooth morphisms (we "really" need an article on it), elliptic curves, classical classifications (e.g., Italian classification of surfaces, Kodaira classifications), Mori program, algebraic stack, theory of descent (connection to Galois descent), Neron models, conspiracy theory (algebraic geometers taking over the rest of mathematics.)
I agree that the scheme-theoretic matters should be minimized: scheme-theretic fibers v.s. set-thereotic ones, functor of points point of view. A better appraoch is to constrast different approaches: scheme-theoreitc ones, Weil-type stuff (i.e., field of definition) and complex-analytic approach (i.e., Griffiths-Harris). I'm not so sure how much commutative algebra stuff should be there: multiplicities, Hilbert polynomials, Nakayama lemma in geometric language, etc. -- Taku ( talk) 15:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. On several pages where big-oh notation is used and not rendered in TeX, the result looks like an enormous alpha on my screen. I didn't recognize it at all, at first. Am I at cross purposes with any existing policy if I append \, to these expressions to force them to render differently? Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
<math>
translated into HTML renders okay, but in this case it's pretty bad. That same paragraph contains , which on Safari 5.1.2 and Firefox 8.0.1 looks pretty awful (there are big gaps around the |'s).There are several discussions on this in Talk:Big O notation, most recently Talk:Big O notation#calligraphic O. I'm not sure the consensus is clear but the majority opinion seems to be that we should be using a simple italic capital O rather than a fancy calligraphic capital O. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Irrational numbers. The articles ζ(3), √2, √3, √5, ρ, δS all feature the template on inside a funny table (frankly, not too attractive) showing the numbers in different bases. Tables showing similar information on γ, φ, and π look slightly better. ( α, δ, and e, do not seem to have the table.) While all these tables have the same type of content, they are apparently not templates, but one-time formatted tables in each instance.
Is there a reason why there isn't a special infobox set up for constants like these? It would be a good idea on these pages to standardize via template the formatting of a few pieces of information, such as the decimal expansion to 20 or 50 places and whether the number is irrational or transcendental, I think. Currently, different numbers of places are shown for the golden ratio, e, and π.
I also notice that there's a Template:Infobox number, but it doesn't seem particularly well-suited to non-integers. (Furthermore, the integers -1 through 9 don't seem to use the template for some reason.) Leonxlin ( talk) 05:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed to move Andrey Markov (Soviet mathematician) to Andrey MArkov, Jr. See here. Sasha ( talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What are our opinions of recent edits at Differentiation rules? There is a discussion on the talk page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I am not a very active editor, but I saw that Template:Rules_of_inference was missing two important rules (existential generalization and existential instantiation). They are briefly discussed in Existential quantification, but I think that the way the template is organized is very messy. I created a page for existential generalization, but I held off on creating existential instantiation because I did not think it would be prudent to create another stub. Perhaps all four rules of inference can be merged into a new page? Let me know your thoughts on this. Yarou ( talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not find in Wikipedia any mention of the multivariate resultant (AKA Macaulay's resultant). It is the main tool of elimination theory, but it is not even cited in that page. Someone is willing to write the page? D.Lazard ( talk) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Also there is nothing on the subresultants nor on the various (pseudo)remainder sequences which are used to compute the gcd of univariate polynomials over the integers or another polynomial ring. Classical Euclid's algorithm generates fractions which may costly to simplify, and pseudo divisions (another lacking page) generate an exponential growth of the coefficients. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As I was examining a number of related stubs; Imaginary point, Imaginary line (mathematics), Real point, Real curve, and Imaginary curve, the thought struck me that these should all be redirects to an article on elementary properties of complex vector spaces and complex projective spaces, which could sort out all these definitions coherently. My initial thought was that this page should be called Complex geometry, as the natural title for someone looking for this type of information. But this page already exists, and while it started out as an elementary version of what I have in mind, it was "hijacked" with the argument that Complex geometry technically means the study of complex manifolds and functions of several complex variables in the mathematical research community. The material that was on the page was dumped into Complex analytic geometry; perhaps a more accurate title for the content, but much harder to find if you're not familiar with geometric taxonomy. This was all done 4-5 years ago and the Complex geometry page, consisting now of the above technical definition and one additional sentence, has remained a stub. I propose re-aligning the page to talk about elementary definitions and properties of some complex manifolds and directing readers wanting a more advanced treatment to the well developed Complex manifold page. Comments? Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The discipline of "complex geometry" certainly does exist. There are people out there studying complex manifolds and complex (analytic) spaces using a mixture of analytic, algebraic and geometric techniques; my research supervisor is one of them. Older work in this area was usually classified under the name "several complex variables", but during the last couple of decades more people have started to use the word "geometry". The title "complex analytic geometry" is more restrictive, and doesn't cover the full range of this subject. "Analytic geometry" intersects complex geometry but isn't the same thing; there are also real analytic geometers out there who aren't interested in complex spaces. Wikipedia's coverage of this whole area is rather sketchy; it's not good to try and draw conclusions about the nature of a discpline solely by what's represented on this web site. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get too far away from the intent of my post. I am really interested in the most appropriate way to deal with this "walled garden" (thanks for that term!). I am not claiming that "complex geometry" isn't used in the research community, it clearly is (a google search indicates this ... although an argument can be made that the most popular use of the term is for a line of leather clothing). What I am proposing is an abuse of that title – which is why I've brought up the issue here. I agree with RDBury, our coverage of elementary algebraic geometry is a bit weak and too scattered, making it hard for readers to get an introduction to the advanced topics; so I see a need to fill this gap. My thinking is that by using a very classical interpretation of "Complex geometry" we can take a page which serves no real function and turn it into something that could be fairly useful. Anyone coming to this page looking for the modern meaning would be directed to the appropriate place, while those who are naively searching will actually get to something that they may be looking for. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Niven's theorem states that the only rational multiples of π whose sine is rational are the ones you learned in childhood: sin 0°, ±sin 30°, and ±sin 90°. The article is new. Work on it if you are so moved. (Currently it does not include a proof and there are just two references. Also, there may be more articles that ought to link to it than currently do.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The central result, Theorem 3.9, was proved by D. H. Lehmer,
Amer. Math. Monthly, 40 (1933), 165-166. The extension to the tangent function in Theorem 3.11 has not been given elsewhere, so far as we know. A proof of Corollary 3.12 independent of Theorems 3.9 and 3.11 was given by J. M. H. Olmsted, Amer. Math. Monthly, 52 (1945), 507-508. The topic is a recurring one in the popular literature: as examples we cite B. H. Arnold and Howard Eves, Amer. Math. Monthly, 56 (1949), 20-21; R. W. Hamming, Amer. Math. Monthly, 52 (1945), 336-337; E. Swift, Amer. Math. Monthly, 29 (1922), 404-405; R. S. Underwood, Amer. Math. Monthly, 28
(1921), 374-376.
A new editor removed "Jewish chatter" about Carleman's alcoholism, etc.
Given my recent blocking (involving the phrase "national socialism"), I would appreciate if another would deal with this editor, who is active also on Swedish Wikpedia.
Thanks, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Some relatively new editors seem to be on a campaign to change all of our italic d's in differentials into upright d's. (See Special:Contributions/193.2.120.35, and recent edits to Differential of a function.) I think we need to get some firm consensus on how to deal with this trend. This seems to be a convention that is substantially in the minority in the mathematical sciences, although maybe some subfields prefer the upright "d" (whence the small but dedicated group that wants to change everything to their way). I have examined many of the textbooks on my shelves. These include texts in mathematics, physics, computer science, aimed at all levels of higher education (from a number of textbooks for first year calculus to research monographs), and I have yet to find a single example of an upright "d" used for the differential. There is allegedly an ISO standard ( ISO 80000) that recommends the upright "d". Can anyone confirm this? At any rate, I don't see that our typography is necessarily dictated by the ISO. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The argument for the upright "d" seems to be that it leaves the letter d available for use as a variable, like all variables in its italic form. Thus one can unambiguously write
But that's a pretty minor advantage, and I hardly ever see the upright "d" used this way in print. I think maybe in the writings of physicists it may be more frequently seen, but I'm not sure. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Which authors use upright or italic "d" in differentials?
The image of Yuri Linnik was nominated for deletion. Could an expert in copyright please check whether the image File:Yuri Linnik (photo).jpg is OK (and if yes, how to tag it properly)? Thanks, Sasha ( talk) 05:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The article titled Geometric formulas is at best quite weak. Is it worth developing? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion copied into Talk:Geometric formulas. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge several articles relating to angles in elementary geometry into a single article. See Talk:Vertical angles#Merge? if interested.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The name of Encyclopaedia of Mathematics is now 'Encyclopedia of Mathematics' (the 'a' was dropped); any objections to moving the article to the new name over the existing redirect?-- RDBury ( talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Also it might be interesting to note, that Springer has switched its encyclopedia to a Mediawiki and a community editing (with editorial supervision by board though). Another consequence of this software switch is, that is looks like that all old links to its articles are dead. Is there a chance to use bot to fix them. If we have a template for the encyclopedia that would need fixing too.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Water retention on mathematical surfaces has been nominated for deletion. Maybe it's just a matter of adding more sources from the literature. Opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water retention on mathematical surfaces. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the discussion should best be done here, as to the proper use of {{ frac}}, {{ fracText}}, {{ frac/sandbox}}, etc. It certaily needs to be done somewhere in a single location. The present users of {{ frac}} might object to replacement with the stacked version, even if it could be done cleanly with the sandbox modifications working. Perhaps the talk pages of WP:MOSMATH#Fractions or WP:MOSNUM#Fractions would be a better place for the discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can everyone please see this link when they have time? It is a proposed workaround for including the closed double and triple integral symbols not possible with LaTeX. They are rendered JPEG images:
\oiint and \oiiint:
and as templates: {{ oiint}}, {{ oiiint}}, and {{ Oiint+Oiiint}}. I had high hopes for templates, unfortuatley they didn't work out as well the the pure images.
Thanks - feel free to criticize as heavy as you will, all comments very welcome... -- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize so many people would answer so quickly. The next step then is to upload a new version of the files as PNG and on a transparent background. However - why the statement "size them as TeX would output them"? They already are the correct size. Even if they arn't anyone can still change the size by going to the template page and editing the image syntax. Thats the least of the problems.
As updated on the talk page here, templates are no longer a problem - cheers to Nageh. Thanks for feedback though.-- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an on-going dispute, with fourth revert cycles now, on whether material from a paper on arxiv.org should be included in the article. Some impartial assistance is needed to resolve the issue or find a compromise.-- RDBury ( talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that the Lo Shu Square article had essentially no information on its origin. For example, it does not give the first source in which it is known to have appeared -- or, for that matter, any source in which it appeared.
It does mention an apocryphal origin tying it to Yu the Great. I've seen other origin legends going ll the way back to (if I understand them properly) Fu Xi.
Any historians of math (or historians, or interested amateurs, or people who read Chinese) who can help?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
User:Daniele.tampieri suggested to add an "author" field to the template. Please comment at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal.
Sasha ( talk) 16:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Encyclopaedia of Mathematics and a quick look at the website the EoM is now an open wiki at a new site. This raises a couple of concerns:
(related to the above thread they use MathJax as well as MediaWiki - see their front page for info).-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Couple of comments here. First, Nbrothers (and everyone else) wants to fix the articles where the change of the template hs led to bad outbound links to EOM's new site. These links would have the new website, but the old id piece so something like http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/f/f041470.htm any way that we can do an intelligent search for that? Secondly, I think that using interwiki would be great not directly used for reference which would have an oldid. Thirdly, references are held to a different level of reliability than interwikis. It is entirely possible for the decision to be one of three. Use for ref and 'see also's, use only for 'see also's and don't use at all. Naraht ( talk) 11:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I see really nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources, what matters first and foremost is whether they are reputable and reliable not whether they are secondary or tertiary. If you would argue strictly against reliable tertiary sources, you could even cite most math textbooks, which are tertiary sources as well. Moreover good tertiary sources may even offer another layer of error correction and can be more comprehensive than individual secondary sources. As far as "inferior" tertiary sources such as MathWorld are concerned, use them where they work and don't use them where they don't. There is plenty of basic stuff where you can use MathWorld without any problems and in doubt it is better to such topics in WP sourced with MathWorld than not having it sourced at all. In areas where MathWorld's descriptions become iffy or questionable just don't use it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
A mathematical reviewer is requested. Thanks for your interest. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Besides his work on HR, editor Sodin/Sasha wrote the following biography, which will interest functional analysts and probabilists:
Created by Sodin ( talk). Self nom at 23:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Well done! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I was editing the article on Euler's totient. In the section [ [3]] there are a number of summataion formulae without source. The only on-line source I could find was [4]
Is this considered a reliable source? If so how should I reference it?
Thanks
Virginia-American ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Would someone in this project familiar with maths articles please determine the future of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proof that the set of super-prime numbers is small. and use the links on the AFC template to prompote this as an article or else provide feedback to the author. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid by the number of pages dealing with almost the same subject which are not of badly inter referenced. Recently, in this talk page we came on the various meanings of "normal" with no reference to curvature vector nor to binormal vector. Looking to curvature, I have remarked (and corrected) that radius of curvature and curvature were not inter referenced. Earlier in this page, we have encountered the same problem with algebraic number field and global field. I have recently corrected the same problem between dimension of an algebraic variety and Krull dimension. Is there a systematic way to solve this issue? May be a subproject of this project? D.Lazard ( talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Strict conditional may need some attention. -- 202.124.75.203 ( talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Re.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matrix Chernoff bound
Help, please.
Can some mathematician please check out
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matrix Chernoff bound.
If it's acceptable as an article (ie, unlikely to be deleted), please just move it to a live article, and remove the header.
If not, you could explain why directly on that page, and leave a note for the author.
Thanks,
Chzz
► 08:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sendov's conjecture is a new article. If you're so inclined:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
At the moment Category:Music theory is found under the parent Category:Mathematics. Having a look at some of the articles of Category:Music theory because i have little knowledge of it, it seems that it is not purely mathematical, but should Category:Music theory be under Category:Mathematics of music instead or should only the specific articles relating to the mathemathematics of music be placed in it, with Category:Music theory being removed from Category:Mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream music theory is not part of mathematics (although some people would have us believe that there is a mathematical flavour to it). There is some valid mathematics to be done in the fields of intonation (part of music theory) and acoustics (generally not considered a branch of "music theory", rather some combination of science and engineering). And there are some small connections between mathematics and some ways of viewing musical structure, e.g. people finding the golden ratio in the works of some composers, and Ligeti drawing inspiration from fractals and chaos. Also some bad pseudoscience in alleged applications of things like group representation theory and axiomatic set theory to the theory of harmony (the article Transformational theory is at the respectable end of this; it gets much worse, but there's not much of this on Wikipedia so far).
My feeling is that Category:Mathematics of music should be a subcategory of Category:Mathematics as well as of Category:Applied mathematics (oddly, applied mathematics is not part of mathematics according to our category system!) but Category:Music theory should not have any mathematics categories as parents; there is plenty of scope for articles to belong to more than one category here. Jowa fan ( talk) 03:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was just noticing how long the talk page for l'Hopital's rule is (some of the comments are from 2003 and there are 40 subsections) and I was wondering how to go about archiving some of that. I'd like to see how that's done, if possible. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 01:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
a reviewer is needed for two mathematicians' DYK (one of them already mentioned above):
The article on Torsten Carleman has also recently been expanded (but is not nominated for DYK, so needs no effort from you)
Thank you very much for the help!
I did the Riesz one. That's a lot more detailed and well sourced than most brand-new articles on mathematicians — well done. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently Normal line, with a few other normal objects, redirects to Surface normal, which I found a bit surprising since I think of normals existing for objects with dimension other than 2. Perhaps expanding the scope of 'Surface normal' to include other normals with a corresponding change in name would be in order. Tangent#Normal line to a curve covers some of this material as well but you'd have to know to look there.-- RDBury ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Trovatore ( talk) 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to reason with Rschwieb about this, but he decided to ignore my concerns, regardless of the fact that it is purely logic and math based, pointing out errors in his current proof in the article. I'm looking for a mediator in this, someone who can address the mathematical issues I bring forth in Talk:l'Hôpital's rule#Error in general proof. Thanks. Toolnut ( talk) 11:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In our Lists of integrals we can learn that
and all sorts of other things like that. Do we also have a list of sums? If not, we probably should. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please help - we need your expertise to fix the large number of disambiguation links to Positive definiteness: 59 links; Lemniscate: 39 links; Plane geometry: 38 links; and Random number: 37 links. Alternately, please consider whether all of these pages should be disambiguation pages. Perhaps, for example, an article can be written encompassing the various concepts of a "random number" or a "lemniscate" curve. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Another mathematics disambiguation page with a large number of incoming links is Linear least squares: 37 links. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's one more - Generating set: 39 links. It might be helpful if someone from this project were to peruse Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/December 2011 to see if there are other pages with solutions for which mathematical expertise would be useful. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please look at the following change to Monodromy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Monodromy&action=historysubmit&diff=467516318&oldid=465625556), I'm not sure if it should be removed or just altered...
is ars inveniendi a true notion or jibberish? I do not understand a single word there.
Sasha ( talk) 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion about possibly renaming a bunch of math stub templates at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/December/28#Math_stubs. The full list is at Category:Mathematics stubs. This might be a good time to consider whether renaming them is worthwhile. The discussion should probably happen at the "Stub types for deletion" page, which is not accurately named. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that Ellis–Nakamura lemma should be moved to Ellis–Numakura lemma. I've brought it up here for two reasons. 1. Perhaps someone more familiar with this area of mathematics could check this. 2. I am not familiar with the procedure for moving pages. -- Kompik ( talk) 17:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have Category:Mathematical comparisons? Brad7777 ( talk) 12:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#References on the preferred way to reference proofs and derivations. Neither the Scientific citation guidelines or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is very specific about this other than saying that they should be referenced.-- RDBury ( talk) 19:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The following text is copied from Talk:Algebraic geometry. However there are few intervention in this talk page. Moreover, I think that the main page of an area of mathematics is of interest for the whole wikiproject. Therefore I post it here also.
I have just rewritten a large part of algebraic geometry. One of the aims of my edits was to better covering the various sub areas of modern algebraic geometry: except for the scheme theory and its generalizations, none of them were even mentioned in the previous version. My guideline for my edits was Did you know that algebraic geometry is not as esoteric as it could seem?
Reviews and comments would be of great help to improve the result.
I need also some specific help to finish the work. Here is a list of the main points on which I need more specific help:
Good new year 2012 D.Lazard ( talk) 12:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of scheme theory in the main algebraic geometry article is a bit heavy-handed. I don't see why every conceivable topology and every generalization of schemes should be mentioned, particularly not when the basic idea of a scheme as an object that is "locally like an affine variety" is completely absent. I'm not sure how this content should more appropriately be reconfigured, but I do support a substantial overhaul of the article, and I think Lazard's suggestions are very worthwhile. I don't think, though, that we should spurn dimensions 1 and 2 since these are the greatest success story of algebraic geometry. Rather, I think we should have a section on curves and a section on surfaces, in addition to the kinds of things Lazard suggests. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say a great work: it is important to have well-balanced articles on general subjects. But the absence is equally problematic as precence (cf. the above). Thus, the following should be covered (but not limited to): defomation theory, intersection theory, geometry of positve characteristic (i.e., Mumford), arithmetic algebraic geometry, geometric invariant theory, resolution of singularities, toric varieties, algebraic groups (e.g., linear algebraic groups, abelian varieties, Jacobian varieties), more generally representation-theoretic stuff), cohomological stuff (e.g., Serre duality, standard conjecture), algebraic vector bundles, smooth morphisms (we "really" need an article on it), elliptic curves, classical classifications (e.g., Italian classification of surfaces, Kodaira classifications), Mori program, algebraic stack, theory of descent (connection to Galois descent), Neron models, conspiracy theory (algebraic geometers taking over the rest of mathematics.)
I agree that the scheme-theoretic matters should be minimized: scheme-theretic fibers v.s. set-thereotic ones, functor of points point of view. A better appraoch is to constrast different approaches: scheme-theoreitc ones, Weil-type stuff (i.e., field of definition) and complex-analytic approach (i.e., Griffiths-Harris). I'm not so sure how much commutative algebra stuff should be there: multiplicities, Hilbert polynomials, Nakayama lemma in geometric language, etc. -- Taku ( talk) 15:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. On several pages where big-oh notation is used and not rendered in TeX, the result looks like an enormous alpha on my screen. I didn't recognize it at all, at first. Am I at cross purposes with any existing policy if I append \, to these expressions to force them to render differently? Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
<math>
translated into HTML renders okay, but in this case it's pretty bad. That same paragraph contains , which on Safari 5.1.2 and Firefox 8.0.1 looks pretty awful (there are big gaps around the |'s).There are several discussions on this in Talk:Big O notation, most recently Talk:Big O notation#calligraphic O. I'm not sure the consensus is clear but the majority opinion seems to be that we should be using a simple italic capital O rather than a fancy calligraphic capital O. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Irrational numbers. The articles ζ(3), √2, √3, √5, ρ, δS all feature the template on inside a funny table (frankly, not too attractive) showing the numbers in different bases. Tables showing similar information on γ, φ, and π look slightly better. ( α, δ, and e, do not seem to have the table.) While all these tables have the same type of content, they are apparently not templates, but one-time formatted tables in each instance.
Is there a reason why there isn't a special infobox set up for constants like these? It would be a good idea on these pages to standardize via template the formatting of a few pieces of information, such as the decimal expansion to 20 or 50 places and whether the number is irrational or transcendental, I think. Currently, different numbers of places are shown for the golden ratio, e, and π.
I also notice that there's a Template:Infobox number, but it doesn't seem particularly well-suited to non-integers. (Furthermore, the integers -1 through 9 don't seem to use the template for some reason.) Leonxlin ( talk) 05:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed to move Andrey Markov (Soviet mathematician) to Andrey MArkov, Jr. See here. Sasha ( talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)