I've nominated 1387 (number) and 3571 (number) as not notable. Comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
TricksterWolf ( talk · contribs) changed the articles Fixed-point lemma for normal functions, Normal function, and Limit ordinal in a way which does not conform to conventional definition of limit ordinal as a nonzero nonsuccessor ordinal. I changed them back; but now after a delay, he is changing them again. He claims to have certain authors on his side, but it sounds to me like those authors were just being sloppy in the definitions to which he refers (assuming he is reporting correctly what they said). His definition is that a limit ordinal is a nonsuccessor ordinal. That is, he includes zero as a limit ordinal. His definition is bad for the following reasons: (1) it contradicts the definition of limit used in topology and analysis, (2) it makes "limit" a synonym of "nonsuccessor" thereby eliminating a useful concept (nonzero nonsuccessors) which means that we must use more complicated expressions to get our points across, (3) it is inconsistent with the usage in the rest of Wikipedia, and (4) zero is clearly different from limits since the cofinality of zero is zero while the cofinality of limits is infinite (and cofinality of successors is one). JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear to me (as a largely disinterested observer) that we have solid reliable sources for both points of view, and that our article on limit ordinals should therefore cover both points of view without taking sides. It doesn't have to be a big part of the article, just a sentence saying that some sources[cite] include zero as a limit ordinal while others[cite] explicitly exclude it. In other articles that refer to limit ordinals, in those (possibly rare?) cases where it make a difference, we should specify more precisely whether it makes sense to think of zero as a limit or not, according to what the reliable sources for those other subjects say. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Metadefinition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
202.124.73.181 (
talk)
02:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The addition of an image of a so-called "logic garnet" to the logic article put me on a path that stumbled on the article about Shea Zellweger. To me the article seems to be written from a promotional point of view. Does anyone know anything about Zellweger's work? -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Mathmaticians, please comment at Talk:Abel's binomial theorem as to whether to merge the page to Binomial theorem. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Bourbaki dangerous bend symbol claims, without any sourcing, that the "dangerous bend" symbol was introduced by Bourbaki and later adopted by Knuth. I find this rather hard to believe. First, Bourbaki was a French group -- why would they choose a street sign of distinctly American design? Second, Knuth is always meticulous about crediting earlier work, and does not mention Bourbaki in this context in the TeXbook at all. Third, though I've never read Bourbaki myself, everything I've heard about them indicates that the idea of warning the reader about difficult sections is not one they would embrace. In particular Knuth's use of the symbol to justify substantive forward references in the text would be anathema to Bourbaki, wouldn't it? – Henning Makholm ( talk) 11:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Article looks much improved now. Good work, everyone. – Henning Makholm ( talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Algebra II is about as silly an article as I've seen in a while. How to proceed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
My bad. The actual name was Mathematics II. (It's basically algebra and early calculus, so I thought it's algebra II. Interesting enough, we had Mathematics A, B; they are discrete mathematics like probability.) Anyway, I think the question whether we organize materials by nationality or by subject. Since we can't possibily have an article for each country, I think that the subject-wise scheme makese more sense. -- 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Mathematics Subject Classification is an attempt to organize the fields of mathematics. It seems to be international, although maybe just North American and European. Are there any other popular classification schemes? I ask because I'm trying to get figure out what the fields are, in a citable way, for the sake of the Mathematics article. Mgnbar ( talk) 23:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, Areas of mathematics mentions the Dewey Decimal System, etc. So let me refine my question: What are the relative merits of the various schemes, and should one of the schemes be used to organize the fields of mathematics on Wikipedia? Mgnbar ( talk) 23:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask this, but why are Stern–Brocot tree and Calkin–Wilf tree separate articles? The only difference is whether the tree is directed toward the root or away from the root. I'd ask on the individual articles, but it might lead to a naming war, so I thought I'd ask on "neutral territory". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In Going-up_theorem it is assumed that A⊆B is an integral extension. Then when the 'going down' property is discussed, it is additionally assumed that A is integrally closed in B, but doesn't this make A=B and everything trivial? If so, can someone point out the correct hypotheses to use for the going down statement? Thanks. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The article currently states the hypothesis that A is integrally closed. This does not mean that A is integrally closed in B, it means that A is integrally closed in its field of fractions. RobHar ( talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some formatting changes to the Former featured articles list on the main page. Probably not controversial but I'm mentioning it in case someone wants to review.-- RDBury ( talk) 16:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A thread was started here about the speedy delete of two articles on Brazilian math competitions. I case anyone wants to add their $.02.-- RDBury ( talk) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This link redirects to Cartesian product, which makes no mention of cylinders. If you look at Cylinder (disambiguation), it says a cylinder in algebra is a cartesian product of a set with its superset. The superset article also makes no mention of cylinders. Does anyone know what this is all about? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Alpha shape is a new article.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Several consecutive edits were made to Prime number theorem [4]. Can someone familiar with the history check these? They move credit from Gauss to Dirichlet, add the French revolutionary date in addition to the modern date, and discuss Euler's use of the zeta function.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Strangely, we cannot agree on a very simple matter; please visit Talk:Stone's representation theorem for Boolean algebras#Strange phrase. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions for mathematics-related additions to the level 4 Vital Articles list here: Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Mathematics. Currently the Mathematics section is somewhat on the lean side. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Classical orthogonal polynomials has a stale 'Under construction' tag. I know there was a recent split with Orthogonal polynomials and presumably its related to that. The article also seems to have very few links to it.-- RDBury ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some of our articles use arsinh, arcosh, artanh for inverse hyperbolic functions rather than the, to my mind, more conventional arcsinh, arccosh, arctanh. I don't like bringing up another notational issue, especially since nothing ever seems to be decided with them and there are potentially so many. I'm thinking the best way to avoid unnecessary discussion is to defer to some freely available external authority wherever possible, for example Abramowitz and Stegun or Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. I don't particularly care which standard is used, but when I go from one page to another and see differences in spelling or notation I think there's a typo or spelling error.-- RDBury ( talk) 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The rationale seems to be that "arc" is about arc lengths, but this is about area rather than arc lengths. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I found this new article tagged as {{ db-a1}}. I admit, the article is incomprehensible also to me, however, G-scholar gives a lot of links for this term, and I think it should be properly discussed. Is there any valuable information for this project? Btw, the page is completely unreferenced. Thanks for any help. Regards. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just started the article. I don't know if someone created a page like this in the past but got it deleted. I don't think it's completely useless; it provides some red links at least. To a long-time contributor such as myself, it is quite amusing that there is no integral point. Really?? -- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This list is much more ambitious than Point in the math department! Rschwieb ( talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As I don't have much time right now, see User talk:Gamewizard71#Apparently undiscussed moves List -> Outline and the user's contributions. Hans Adler 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to post the following I noticed Gamewizard71 ( talk · contribs) has moved a number of "list" articles. The following are recent and appear relevant to this project:
Are these moves helpful? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Each article has been placed in these categories: Category:Incomplete outlines and Category:Outlines, and Lists of mathematics topics has been edited to use the new links. It's easier to see the moves with this log. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a particularly interesting situation with Outline of mathematical logic (whose lead proclaims it to be a list) and Outline of logic (whose talk page has some heated discussion of the list/outline issue) existing as two independent pages but with a lot of shared content. Both have been called lists in the past. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I, too, think these moves are ridiculous. The WikiProject Outline every now and then goes ahead and makes these changes and people complain and after much needless discussion things are put back until the next time someone from WP outline changes them again. You'll notice that the first phrase in the wikipedia article Outline (summary) is "An outline is a list", so you may have trouble convincing them that a list is not what most people will first think of if they see an encyclopedia article with "outline" in the title. Back before this edit on April 13, 2010, the first sentence was "An outline is a rough draft or summary of the main features of a given topic." and was sourced to the OED. Wikitionary here of course knows that an outline is "A general description of some subject" (definition 4) and doesn't mention the word "list". Is there anyway that we can prevent future occurrences of these unwanted mass pages moves? Can there be a guideline against it? RobHar ( talk) 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
@Gamewizard71: No one is preventing you from creating outlines on all of these topics, we'd just prefer if you created the content first and then named the article, whereas what you've done is rename articles based on future content. That's confusing and unhelpful. You can just go ahead and create a new blank article called "Outline of algebraic geometry" and start adding content to it. RobHar ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the page List of algebraic structures (which oddly hasn't been renamed to "outline...") really does look like an outline. The difference between this and a bare list of links should be very clear. Jowa fan ( talk) 04:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the first nine items on the list above back to "list of....". I haven't yet checked "what links here" on any of them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the rare cases where something actually is an outline rather than a list, I think we should be ready to acknowledge this. Comments welcome at Talk:List of algebraic structures#Requested_move "List ..." -> "Outline ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowa fan ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Elimination_of_outline_articles. Ozob ( talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Śleszyński–Pringsheim theorem is a new and imperfect article. I have some uncertainties about its content, which I hope will be resolved shortly. Do what you can with it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've created links from the following articles to the new article; others should be created as appropriate:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
To do in this article:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); it is a review of Sl's work on continued fractions.
Sasha (
talk)
16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)There is, once again, an issue about the lead image at the article pi. It was settled several times in the past that the best lead image for that article is the image File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif. However, User:Anythingyouwant (apparently the only editor staunchly opposed to that image) has once again replaced it with something else and has now reverted me to again include his preferred montage of images. The pi unrolled image is one of the best images I have ever seen in a mathematics article, and I feel strongly that it should be included in the lead. It is utterly naive: it communicates precisely what π is, without any need whatsoever for equations or specialized mathematical notation. By contrast, both of the lead images in the current montage require equations and further explanation in order to be understood by a reader. They are less suitable for an immediate understanding of the topic to as wide a readership as possible. I have started a thread at Talk:Pi#Pi unrolled to solicit broader input on this matter. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix#Finding_the_matrix_of_a_transformation explains how to find the matrix belonging to a linear map. But how do I find the transformations that belong to a given matrix, which means finding the angle of rotation, scale factor and so on for the basic transformations? In other words: how to decompose a matrix into the basic transformations mentioned in said paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.37.3 ( talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Opinions of this edit are requested at Talk:Fourier transform#Unreferenced additions of special functions to the table. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A new image has just been added to the two pages Function composition and Fixed point (mathematics). I think the picture is interesting but potentially confusing. What do other people think? See also Fraction (mathematics) and Translation (geometry). Jowa fan ( talk) 02:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the use of the {{ frac}} template is recommended at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Fractions but proscribed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Fractions? I note that someone has just added frac templates to fraction (mathematics). Jowa fan ( talk) 07:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion either here or at MOSMATH where the mathematicians we overwhelmingly against this. It might be helpful to dig up the discussion. If I recall, this breaks exponents, so shouldn't be used in math pages. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Literature of phase boundaries is a new article. The format---including getting the software to number the references, if that is appropriate in this case---could use some work by someone skilled in Wikipedia's conventions for this sort of thing.
Are there particular lists that should link to this?
And which articles should link to this? The links still need to be put there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We have no article titled Table of Fourier transforms. Does it exist under another title to which that should redirect? If not, should it be created? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Laguerre polynomials contains vast lists of unreferenced identities, virtually all of which were added by User:A. Pichler, a long-time problem editor of special functions articles (that I have alerted the project about before, but failed to generate sufficient interest at the time). I'm not sure what should be done with it, but it's a complete disaster at the moment. It's almost tempting to roll the article a few years back in time to the last "clean" version. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been working heavily on the catenary article and feel it's nearly ready for a GA review. I removed most of the unreferenced material but there is one "citation needed" left that I'd like to keep, see Talk:Catenary#Simple suspension bridges, citation needed. The article is still incomplete in that there are aspects of the subject that could still be added, but completeness is not one of GA criteria. What I'm looking for is an unbiased pair of eyes to look over the article to verify my assessment of GA readiness, kind of a pre-review review. Comments will be appreciated, please reply on the article talk page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just added an {{ Unreliable sources}} tag to the page Opposites theorem, since I wasn't aware that this fact had a generally accepted name, and the only source given is self-published. I'm not convinced that it's even notable enough to deserve an article. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone has queried the addition table on the Balanced ternary talk page. I believe that the table as given in the article is correct, but another comment makes me think that I have misunderstood the meaning. Please could someone check it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There's an anon editor at 180.216.76.63 who is refusing to reference a statement, and is instead insisting on including his proof in the article. I reverted his changes twice but he rereverted both times. I asked him to view MATH:MOS#Proofs and WIKI:NOR but I only got these classic responses:
Would appreciate if someone else would help remove the proof and keep this guy from reposting. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The same editor is now apparently stalking my edits, since he recently reverted changes I made at integrally closed domain and then rewrote the same portions to his own liking. Can I revert these? The new edits don't correct or contribute anything, they seem to be entirely spite-driven. I would also appreciate any other advice of steps I can take to censure this person, because this is the first time I've encountered such extreme behavior. Thanks again, Rschwieb ( talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks for the advice Ozob. Only two people have accused me of being a troll: rschwieb and kinu so I wouldn't say "several people have accused me of being a troll". You're free to think of "nice guy" as you like but what I mean is that I don't fight with anyone unless provoked. Tell me frankly, Ozob, do you think it's fair for someone (Rschwieb) to say "Here's hoping he fades away ..."/"... when he is banned"? Even a nice guy can only take so much; even the nicest person in the world won't put up with constant harrassment/insults. Now D. (as you call him) only had one person to ignore you see. But many people seem to be against me here. It's hard to ignore people when they're threatening to ban you. I'm avoiding rschwieb but I needed to defend myself here.
At the end of the day, I've got better things to do than to argue with empty matters on a small scale forum. I doubt anyone is going to read "Going up and Going Down" or that anyone here in "Project Mathematics" is actually a mathematician (and even if they are, I highly doubt anyone of some calibre contributes here; and no I don't hold double standards and I'm not claiming I have high calibre either; I'm just someone who likes to contribute math to the world). It's pretty clear that rschwieb is wasting his time with trivialities but hey I'm not one to judge as I'm doing the same here. So I'm not going to comment here anymore I've made my point. I will check for responses to my message and maybe thank you for it but I'm not interested in this discussion. I made an edit and that's all I can do. I can't force people to appreciate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 ( talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
They've just restored the proof again, but with a more polite and constructive edit summary. Possibly they've glanced at their talk page since last time. It appears that the proof isn't WP:OR, but is by Matsumura. If they can tell us exactly where it comes from (I think Matsumura wrote two commutative algebra books), are you happy to see it remain in the article? Jowa fan ( talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs for a previous discussion and possible solutions. Jmath666 ( talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, that someone has worked on the material hard doesn't justify its inclusion. In this particular topic, however, I tend to think having some proofs/short arguments might be a good idea. As I understand, the basic question is how to prove going-up/down, not from the pedagogical point view but from the mathematical point view. That is, one (e.g., Kaplansky) often studies whether various conditions are necessarily for going-up/down/inc/lying over. Proofs seem to be integral part of this sort of investigation. One can cite statements with just references, but doing so with giving what techniques/arguments are used is probably more illuminating. Having said, it is possible that maybe a wikipedia article on this topic have to be exceptional (since it's encyclopedia.) -- Taku ( talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I just created this page: An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances.
I'll add a lot to it unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Taku's last post suddenly made me realize there is a good alternative to deletion. That proof would be excellent material for Localization_of_a_ring#Applications, since it showcases the exactness of the localization functor. That section I linked could use some more material anyway. This would be a good alternative to deletion!
Secondly, for the record, I have never accused 180.216.76.63 of being a troll. I wrote what I wrote because of the inexcusably rude behavior of 180.216.76.63 at the time. Rather than discuss, they immediately engaged in personal attack and a single instance of edit stalking. I had a hard time believing 180.216.76.63 would ever participate in civil discussion at all. But since then he/she has shown willingness to cooperate, and so it turns out I spoke too soon. I'm sorry 180.216.76.63 for my rash comments, and I generally retract them. Rschwieb ( talk) 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This edit changes almost all the <math> tags to {{math}} -- is this an accepted standard? -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Earlier you mentioned forcing all inline formulas to render as PNGs. I think this is a really bad idea. In general inline formulas should only very rarely ever appear by default as PNG images. You can use <math> inline, but only for formulas that don't render as PNG with default user settings (the WP:MOSMATH says that this may be used for "very simple formulae"). For more complicated formulas, basic html formatting should be used. (Wrap it in {{ math}} if you must, but I don't see this as an essential requirement.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I prefer <math> because in works in all wikipedias, which is a plus for people editing outside en.wp as well. Moreover I really dislike the idea of breaking up a unified approach (single method) to deal with all math rendering just to achieve (subjective) "slightly better" display results in eyes of some. Having several methods unnecessarily complicates the handling by humans or machine alike and it breaks the ability to easily deploy future improvements of the rendering process to all math formulas within WP. Also many math editors probably prefer latex notation, since that is the lingua franca of sorts for math formulas anyway. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear about the issue, emphasis mine:
“ | Having LaTeX-based formulae in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons.
|
” |
and later, emphasis mine:
“ | Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable.
However, still try to avoid in-line PNG images. Even if you use |
” |
No such user ( talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that we seem to have a bunch of different templates for OEIS links, namely {{ OEIS}}, {{ OEIS2C}} and {{ OEIS url}}. I don't really see the benefit of having three different templates for essentially the same purpose. Personally I would like to see a consensus to use only one of these templates and perhaps abandon the other two, but would like to hear what other people think. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the icon needs to go: (sequence 12345). It's barely decipherable, and looks like a Chinese Unicode character that doesn't render properly. It communicates less effectively than the old link. Moreover, this is a template that is supposed to be used inline; I believe there is something somewhere in the MoS about avoiding inline images. I don't think IAR applies here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently reverted some links to the site digi-area.com, if not spam then at least spammy and from an apparent SPA. Might be a good idea to keep an eye out for similar links.-- RDBury ( talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We have two competing notations for the vector magnitude and (ignoring, for brevity, the competing notations for how to identify as a vector). What would it take to come to a consistent notation across all Wikipedia pages? KlappCK ( talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Robert Berger (mathematician) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Berger (mathematician). -- Lambiam 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Signature (quadratic form) and Signature of a quadratic form have recently been redirected (by AvicBot) to Signature (disambiguation), and I was wondering if they should point instead to a specific article. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hypercomputation article deeply troubles me. It is portrayed as if this kind of "computation" is meaningful from the viewpoint of general applicability. And also, it is a misunderstanding of Turing's oracle machines, that was supposed to be just a theoretical device for proofs. It is not supposed to be a model of a physically plausible machine, a mechanism that requires infinite resources is not a real mechanism, it is a fictional one. That's why it's called an "oracle". I would like to see this point stressed over and over again with the relevant quote from Turing's paper. It does not concern me the least bit whether an article about this was published in Science. Most certainly the author of that paper is an ignoramus in the vein of Copeland, and it does not warrant Wikipedia'a clearance of a metaphysical word salad as if it were a scientifically respectable idea. Exa ( talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated 1387 (number) and 3571 (number) as not notable. Comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
TricksterWolf ( talk · contribs) changed the articles Fixed-point lemma for normal functions, Normal function, and Limit ordinal in a way which does not conform to conventional definition of limit ordinal as a nonzero nonsuccessor ordinal. I changed them back; but now after a delay, he is changing them again. He claims to have certain authors on his side, but it sounds to me like those authors were just being sloppy in the definitions to which he refers (assuming he is reporting correctly what they said). His definition is that a limit ordinal is a nonsuccessor ordinal. That is, he includes zero as a limit ordinal. His definition is bad for the following reasons: (1) it contradicts the definition of limit used in topology and analysis, (2) it makes "limit" a synonym of "nonsuccessor" thereby eliminating a useful concept (nonzero nonsuccessors) which means that we must use more complicated expressions to get our points across, (3) it is inconsistent with the usage in the rest of Wikipedia, and (4) zero is clearly different from limits since the cofinality of zero is zero while the cofinality of limits is infinite (and cofinality of successors is one). JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear to me (as a largely disinterested observer) that we have solid reliable sources for both points of view, and that our article on limit ordinals should therefore cover both points of view without taking sides. It doesn't have to be a big part of the article, just a sentence saying that some sources[cite] include zero as a limit ordinal while others[cite] explicitly exclude it. In other articles that refer to limit ordinals, in those (possibly rare?) cases where it make a difference, we should specify more precisely whether it makes sense to think of zero as a limit or not, according to what the reliable sources for those other subjects say. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Metadefinition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
202.124.73.181 (
talk)
02:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The addition of an image of a so-called "logic garnet" to the logic article put me on a path that stumbled on the article about Shea Zellweger. To me the article seems to be written from a promotional point of view. Does anyone know anything about Zellweger's work? -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Mathmaticians, please comment at Talk:Abel's binomial theorem as to whether to merge the page to Binomial theorem. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Bourbaki dangerous bend symbol claims, without any sourcing, that the "dangerous bend" symbol was introduced by Bourbaki and later adopted by Knuth. I find this rather hard to believe. First, Bourbaki was a French group -- why would they choose a street sign of distinctly American design? Second, Knuth is always meticulous about crediting earlier work, and does not mention Bourbaki in this context in the TeXbook at all. Third, though I've never read Bourbaki myself, everything I've heard about them indicates that the idea of warning the reader about difficult sections is not one they would embrace. In particular Knuth's use of the symbol to justify substantive forward references in the text would be anathema to Bourbaki, wouldn't it? – Henning Makholm ( talk) 11:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Article looks much improved now. Good work, everyone. – Henning Makholm ( talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Algebra II is about as silly an article as I've seen in a while. How to proceed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
My bad. The actual name was Mathematics II. (It's basically algebra and early calculus, so I thought it's algebra II. Interesting enough, we had Mathematics A, B; they are discrete mathematics like probability.) Anyway, I think the question whether we organize materials by nationality or by subject. Since we can't possibily have an article for each country, I think that the subject-wise scheme makese more sense. -- 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Mathematics Subject Classification is an attempt to organize the fields of mathematics. It seems to be international, although maybe just North American and European. Are there any other popular classification schemes? I ask because I'm trying to get figure out what the fields are, in a citable way, for the sake of the Mathematics article. Mgnbar ( talk) 23:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, Areas of mathematics mentions the Dewey Decimal System, etc. So let me refine my question: What are the relative merits of the various schemes, and should one of the schemes be used to organize the fields of mathematics on Wikipedia? Mgnbar ( talk) 23:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask this, but why are Stern–Brocot tree and Calkin–Wilf tree separate articles? The only difference is whether the tree is directed toward the root or away from the root. I'd ask on the individual articles, but it might lead to a naming war, so I thought I'd ask on "neutral territory". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In Going-up_theorem it is assumed that A⊆B is an integral extension. Then when the 'going down' property is discussed, it is additionally assumed that A is integrally closed in B, but doesn't this make A=B and everything trivial? If so, can someone point out the correct hypotheses to use for the going down statement? Thanks. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The article currently states the hypothesis that A is integrally closed. This does not mean that A is integrally closed in B, it means that A is integrally closed in its field of fractions. RobHar ( talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some formatting changes to the Former featured articles list on the main page. Probably not controversial but I'm mentioning it in case someone wants to review.-- RDBury ( talk) 16:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A thread was started here about the speedy delete of two articles on Brazilian math competitions. I case anyone wants to add their $.02.-- RDBury ( talk) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This link redirects to Cartesian product, which makes no mention of cylinders. If you look at Cylinder (disambiguation), it says a cylinder in algebra is a cartesian product of a set with its superset. The superset article also makes no mention of cylinders. Does anyone know what this is all about? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Alpha shape is a new article.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Several consecutive edits were made to Prime number theorem [4]. Can someone familiar with the history check these? They move credit from Gauss to Dirichlet, add the French revolutionary date in addition to the modern date, and discuss Euler's use of the zeta function.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Strangely, we cannot agree on a very simple matter; please visit Talk:Stone's representation theorem for Boolean algebras#Strange phrase. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions for mathematics-related additions to the level 4 Vital Articles list here: Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Mathematics. Currently the Mathematics section is somewhat on the lean side. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Classical orthogonal polynomials has a stale 'Under construction' tag. I know there was a recent split with Orthogonal polynomials and presumably its related to that. The article also seems to have very few links to it.-- RDBury ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some of our articles use arsinh, arcosh, artanh for inverse hyperbolic functions rather than the, to my mind, more conventional arcsinh, arccosh, arctanh. I don't like bringing up another notational issue, especially since nothing ever seems to be decided with them and there are potentially so many. I'm thinking the best way to avoid unnecessary discussion is to defer to some freely available external authority wherever possible, for example Abramowitz and Stegun or Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. I don't particularly care which standard is used, but when I go from one page to another and see differences in spelling or notation I think there's a typo or spelling error.-- RDBury ( talk) 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The rationale seems to be that "arc" is about arc lengths, but this is about area rather than arc lengths. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I found this new article tagged as {{ db-a1}}. I admit, the article is incomprehensible also to me, however, G-scholar gives a lot of links for this term, and I think it should be properly discussed. Is there any valuable information for this project? Btw, the page is completely unreferenced. Thanks for any help. Regards. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just started the article. I don't know if someone created a page like this in the past but got it deleted. I don't think it's completely useless; it provides some red links at least. To a long-time contributor such as myself, it is quite amusing that there is no integral point. Really?? -- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This list is much more ambitious than Point in the math department! Rschwieb ( talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As I don't have much time right now, see User talk:Gamewizard71#Apparently undiscussed moves List -> Outline and the user's contributions. Hans Adler 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to post the following I noticed Gamewizard71 ( talk · contribs) has moved a number of "list" articles. The following are recent and appear relevant to this project:
Are these moves helpful? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Each article has been placed in these categories: Category:Incomplete outlines and Category:Outlines, and Lists of mathematics topics has been edited to use the new links. It's easier to see the moves with this log. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a particularly interesting situation with Outline of mathematical logic (whose lead proclaims it to be a list) and Outline of logic (whose talk page has some heated discussion of the list/outline issue) existing as two independent pages but with a lot of shared content. Both have been called lists in the past. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I, too, think these moves are ridiculous. The WikiProject Outline every now and then goes ahead and makes these changes and people complain and after much needless discussion things are put back until the next time someone from WP outline changes them again. You'll notice that the first phrase in the wikipedia article Outline (summary) is "An outline is a list", so you may have trouble convincing them that a list is not what most people will first think of if they see an encyclopedia article with "outline" in the title. Back before this edit on April 13, 2010, the first sentence was "An outline is a rough draft or summary of the main features of a given topic." and was sourced to the OED. Wikitionary here of course knows that an outline is "A general description of some subject" (definition 4) and doesn't mention the word "list". Is there anyway that we can prevent future occurrences of these unwanted mass pages moves? Can there be a guideline against it? RobHar ( talk) 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
@Gamewizard71: No one is preventing you from creating outlines on all of these topics, we'd just prefer if you created the content first and then named the article, whereas what you've done is rename articles based on future content. That's confusing and unhelpful. You can just go ahead and create a new blank article called "Outline of algebraic geometry" and start adding content to it. RobHar ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the page List of algebraic structures (which oddly hasn't been renamed to "outline...") really does look like an outline. The difference between this and a bare list of links should be very clear. Jowa fan ( talk) 04:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the first nine items on the list above back to "list of....". I haven't yet checked "what links here" on any of them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the rare cases where something actually is an outline rather than a list, I think we should be ready to acknowledge this. Comments welcome at Talk:List of algebraic structures#Requested_move "List ..." -> "Outline ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowa fan ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Elimination_of_outline_articles. Ozob ( talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Śleszyński–Pringsheim theorem is a new and imperfect article. I have some uncertainties about its content, which I hope will be resolved shortly. Do what you can with it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've created links from the following articles to the new article; others should be created as appropriate:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
To do in this article:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); it is a review of Sl's work on continued fractions.
Sasha (
talk)
16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)There is, once again, an issue about the lead image at the article pi. It was settled several times in the past that the best lead image for that article is the image File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif. However, User:Anythingyouwant (apparently the only editor staunchly opposed to that image) has once again replaced it with something else and has now reverted me to again include his preferred montage of images. The pi unrolled image is one of the best images I have ever seen in a mathematics article, and I feel strongly that it should be included in the lead. It is utterly naive: it communicates precisely what π is, without any need whatsoever for equations or specialized mathematical notation. By contrast, both of the lead images in the current montage require equations and further explanation in order to be understood by a reader. They are less suitable for an immediate understanding of the topic to as wide a readership as possible. I have started a thread at Talk:Pi#Pi unrolled to solicit broader input on this matter. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix#Finding_the_matrix_of_a_transformation explains how to find the matrix belonging to a linear map. But how do I find the transformations that belong to a given matrix, which means finding the angle of rotation, scale factor and so on for the basic transformations? In other words: how to decompose a matrix into the basic transformations mentioned in said paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.37.3 ( talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Opinions of this edit are requested at Talk:Fourier transform#Unreferenced additions of special functions to the table. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A new image has just been added to the two pages Function composition and Fixed point (mathematics). I think the picture is interesting but potentially confusing. What do other people think? See also Fraction (mathematics) and Translation (geometry). Jowa fan ( talk) 02:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the use of the {{ frac}} template is recommended at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Fractions but proscribed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Fractions? I note that someone has just added frac templates to fraction (mathematics). Jowa fan ( talk) 07:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion either here or at MOSMATH where the mathematicians we overwhelmingly against this. It might be helpful to dig up the discussion. If I recall, this breaks exponents, so shouldn't be used in math pages. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Literature of phase boundaries is a new article. The format---including getting the software to number the references, if that is appropriate in this case---could use some work by someone skilled in Wikipedia's conventions for this sort of thing.
Are there particular lists that should link to this?
And which articles should link to this? The links still need to be put there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We have no article titled Table of Fourier transforms. Does it exist under another title to which that should redirect? If not, should it be created? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Laguerre polynomials contains vast lists of unreferenced identities, virtually all of which were added by User:A. Pichler, a long-time problem editor of special functions articles (that I have alerted the project about before, but failed to generate sufficient interest at the time). I'm not sure what should be done with it, but it's a complete disaster at the moment. It's almost tempting to roll the article a few years back in time to the last "clean" version. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been working heavily on the catenary article and feel it's nearly ready for a GA review. I removed most of the unreferenced material but there is one "citation needed" left that I'd like to keep, see Talk:Catenary#Simple suspension bridges, citation needed. The article is still incomplete in that there are aspects of the subject that could still be added, but completeness is not one of GA criteria. What I'm looking for is an unbiased pair of eyes to look over the article to verify my assessment of GA readiness, kind of a pre-review review. Comments will be appreciated, please reply on the article talk page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just added an {{ Unreliable sources}} tag to the page Opposites theorem, since I wasn't aware that this fact had a generally accepted name, and the only source given is self-published. I'm not convinced that it's even notable enough to deserve an article. Jowa fan ( talk) 13:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone has queried the addition table on the Balanced ternary talk page. I believe that the table as given in the article is correct, but another comment makes me think that I have misunderstood the meaning. Please could someone check it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There's an anon editor at 180.216.76.63 who is refusing to reference a statement, and is instead insisting on including his proof in the article. I reverted his changes twice but he rereverted both times. I asked him to view MATH:MOS#Proofs and WIKI:NOR but I only got these classic responses:
Would appreciate if someone else would help remove the proof and keep this guy from reposting. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The same editor is now apparently stalking my edits, since he recently reverted changes I made at integrally closed domain and then rewrote the same portions to his own liking. Can I revert these? The new edits don't correct or contribute anything, they seem to be entirely spite-driven. I would also appreciate any other advice of steps I can take to censure this person, because this is the first time I've encountered such extreme behavior. Thanks again, Rschwieb ( talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks for the advice Ozob. Only two people have accused me of being a troll: rschwieb and kinu so I wouldn't say "several people have accused me of being a troll". You're free to think of "nice guy" as you like but what I mean is that I don't fight with anyone unless provoked. Tell me frankly, Ozob, do you think it's fair for someone (Rschwieb) to say "Here's hoping he fades away ..."/"... when he is banned"? Even a nice guy can only take so much; even the nicest person in the world won't put up with constant harrassment/insults. Now D. (as you call him) only had one person to ignore you see. But many people seem to be against me here. It's hard to ignore people when they're threatening to ban you. I'm avoiding rschwieb but I needed to defend myself here.
At the end of the day, I've got better things to do than to argue with empty matters on a small scale forum. I doubt anyone is going to read "Going up and Going Down" or that anyone here in "Project Mathematics" is actually a mathematician (and even if they are, I highly doubt anyone of some calibre contributes here; and no I don't hold double standards and I'm not claiming I have high calibre either; I'm just someone who likes to contribute math to the world). It's pretty clear that rschwieb is wasting his time with trivialities but hey I'm not one to judge as I'm doing the same here. So I'm not going to comment here anymore I've made my point. I will check for responses to my message and maybe thank you for it but I'm not interested in this discussion. I made an edit and that's all I can do. I can't force people to appreciate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 ( talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
They've just restored the proof again, but with a more polite and constructive edit summary. Possibly they've glanced at their talk page since last time. It appears that the proof isn't WP:OR, but is by Matsumura. If they can tell us exactly where it comes from (I think Matsumura wrote two commutative algebra books), are you happy to see it remain in the article? Jowa fan ( talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs for a previous discussion and possible solutions. Jmath666 ( talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, that someone has worked on the material hard doesn't justify its inclusion. In this particular topic, however, I tend to think having some proofs/short arguments might be a good idea. As I understand, the basic question is how to prove going-up/down, not from the pedagogical point view but from the mathematical point view. That is, one (e.g., Kaplansky) often studies whether various conditions are necessarily for going-up/down/inc/lying over. Proofs seem to be integral part of this sort of investigation. One can cite statements with just references, but doing so with giving what techniques/arguments are used is probably more illuminating. Having said, it is possible that maybe a wikipedia article on this topic have to be exceptional (since it's encyclopedia.) -- Taku ( talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I just created this page: An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances.
I'll add a lot to it unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Taku's last post suddenly made me realize there is a good alternative to deletion. That proof would be excellent material for Localization_of_a_ring#Applications, since it showcases the exactness of the localization functor. That section I linked could use some more material anyway. This would be a good alternative to deletion!
Secondly, for the record, I have never accused 180.216.76.63 of being a troll. I wrote what I wrote because of the inexcusably rude behavior of 180.216.76.63 at the time. Rather than discuss, they immediately engaged in personal attack and a single instance of edit stalking. I had a hard time believing 180.216.76.63 would ever participate in civil discussion at all. But since then he/she has shown willingness to cooperate, and so it turns out I spoke too soon. I'm sorry 180.216.76.63 for my rash comments, and I generally retract them. Rschwieb ( talk) 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This edit changes almost all the <math> tags to {{math}} -- is this an accepted standard? -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Earlier you mentioned forcing all inline formulas to render as PNGs. I think this is a really bad idea. In general inline formulas should only very rarely ever appear by default as PNG images. You can use <math> inline, but only for formulas that don't render as PNG with default user settings (the WP:MOSMATH says that this may be used for "very simple formulae"). For more complicated formulas, basic html formatting should be used. (Wrap it in {{ math}} if you must, but I don't see this as an essential requirement.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I prefer <math> because in works in all wikipedias, which is a plus for people editing outside en.wp as well. Moreover I really dislike the idea of breaking up a unified approach (single method) to deal with all math rendering just to achieve (subjective) "slightly better" display results in eyes of some. Having several methods unnecessarily complicates the handling by humans or machine alike and it breaks the ability to easily deploy future improvements of the rendering process to all math formulas within WP. Also many math editors probably prefer latex notation, since that is the lingua franca of sorts for math formulas anyway. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear about the issue, emphasis mine:
“ | Having LaTeX-based formulae in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons.
|
” |
and later, emphasis mine:
“ | Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable.
However, still try to avoid in-line PNG images. Even if you use |
” |
No such user ( talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that we seem to have a bunch of different templates for OEIS links, namely {{ OEIS}}, {{ OEIS2C}} and {{ OEIS url}}. I don't really see the benefit of having three different templates for essentially the same purpose. Personally I would like to see a consensus to use only one of these templates and perhaps abandon the other two, but would like to hear what other people think. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the icon needs to go: (sequence 12345). It's barely decipherable, and looks like a Chinese Unicode character that doesn't render properly. It communicates less effectively than the old link. Moreover, this is a template that is supposed to be used inline; I believe there is something somewhere in the MoS about avoiding inline images. I don't think IAR applies here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently reverted some links to the site digi-area.com, if not spam then at least spammy and from an apparent SPA. Might be a good idea to keep an eye out for similar links.-- RDBury ( talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We have two competing notations for the vector magnitude and (ignoring, for brevity, the competing notations for how to identify as a vector). What would it take to come to a consistent notation across all Wikipedia pages? KlappCK ( talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Robert Berger (mathematician) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Berger (mathematician). -- Lambiam 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Signature (quadratic form) and Signature of a quadratic form have recently been redirected (by AvicBot) to Signature (disambiguation), and I was wondering if they should point instead to a specific article. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hypercomputation article deeply troubles me. It is portrayed as if this kind of "computation" is meaningful from the viewpoint of general applicability. And also, it is a misunderstanding of Turing's oracle machines, that was supposed to be just a theoretical device for proofs. It is not supposed to be a model of a physically plausible machine, a mechanism that requires infinite resources is not a real mechanism, it is a fictional one. That's why it's called an "oracle". I would like to see this point stressed over and over again with the relevant quote from Turing's paper. It does not concern me the least bit whether an article about this was published in Science. Most certainly the author of that paper is an ignoramus in the vein of Copeland, and it does not warrant Wikipedia'a clearance of a metaphysical word salad as if it were a scientifically respectable idea. Exa ( talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)