Could we add something about Galilean transformations as a Lie group? For example, the Euclidean transformations, Euc(n,R) can be embedded as a Lie subgroup of GL(n+1,R), if I remember correctly, by
where X is a special orthogonal transformation and t is a translation. Could (or should) we add something similar for Galilean transformations? — Fly by Night ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not long ago, there was a discussion about links to Springer's Encyclopedia of Mathematics now being broken due to a restructuring of that website. I just noticed that many of the links are still broken. Is someone making a systematic effort to repair these, or are we supposed to do it on an ad hoc basis? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An incident is being discussed here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The page is being proposed for deletion even though there are suitable secondary sources there. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How many things wrong can be found here: Steven G. Krantz? Main thing I can see is that it seems to have been written (or at least contributed to) by himself. Also see some weasel words: "Krantz is widely considered to be a charismatic and galvanizing teacher. Many students consider him to be the best mathematics teacher that they have ever had." What do we do with pages like this? -- Matt Westwood 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just learned of {{
mvar}} through its installation on
Quaternion. It applies {{
math}} and additionally surrounds its argument in HTML <var>
tags.
Is this a good idea? I recall the discussion
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 2#Variable markup where consensus was that manually applying <var>
was undesirable. It seems to me that {{
mvar}} really isn't any better.
Ozob (
talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
<var>
is undesirable, but that individual editors have some freedom. It was also apparent that the semantic markup value in HTML was pretty much a lost cause in the math context, but that font formatting is necessary. The implementation of {{
mvar}} is not important (i.e. whether it uses <var>
or ''
to italicize), as this can be changed in principle in the template. The question then becomes whether use of {{mvar|x}}
in place of {{math|''x''}}
is to be discouraged - i.e. whether the template {{
mvar}} should be deprecated. I see no urgency in doing so. Its only real value is a shorthand for italic-serif. Its use does show up the continued shortcomings of the HTML output of <math>
, and the inconvenience of formatting both italic and serif in-line, resulting in the (IMO unfortunate) de facto use of sans-serif for math. —
Quondum
t
c 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
{{ MacTutor/sandbox}} now implements a suggestion of Daniele Tampieri: O'Connor & Robertson are downgraded to editors, and there are author fields (last, first, last2, ...) It seems to work on the examples that I have checked. I suggest to replace {{ MacTutor}} with this version.
Please criticise this suggestion (and the implementation) before it's too late.
Sasha ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi: I recently moved Double centralizer theorem and a related article on balanced modules into the mainspace. Feel free to take a look if you have spare time. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Real algebraic geometry#Edits by user:Estater need to be reverted which needs the intervention of other people. The subject of the dispute is edits unambiguously aimed to promote Selman Akbulut's work. Tentative to revert these edits has led to an edit war, which, for the moment, is won by the supporters of Akbulut (most probably Akbulut himself, with several login names). For non specialist people, I precise that Real algebraic geometry is a stub, almost reduced to an historical "guideline", which, before the edits, provided a good idea of the history of the area. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
More of a signal processing than a mathematical article you may think; and you should be right. But this is a needy article with a hefty chunk of mathematical notation, in need of: restructuring, rewriting, and admin attention, I hope in that order (but don't count on it - it has been briefly protected after heavy edit-warring). I'd regard it as a personal favour if people could weigh in and make it all make some sense. The page protection expires in the next few seconds ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add another article about the other Egorov's Theorem which I mention on the talk page of Egorov's Theorem and a disambiguation page (because the two theorems are really not related). Any guidance or input on how to do this? Holmansf ( talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
following a suggestion of Pym1507, I have added placed a "propose move" template at Talk:Sokhatsky–Weierstrass_theorem#Requested_move. Please comment.
Sasha ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So i have created the page Glossary of areas of mathematics which at the moment is more of a list with few annotations. i think it has potential and would compliment Areas of mathematics in the same way Outline of mathematics compliments mathematics. It would be useful to see thoughts on this page, and for any help completing it. Ultimately, should it be kept? (btw few entries may not be relevant but i figured it is easy to delete them) Brad7777 ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look at
Who would click on for example Category:mathematical comparisons?? or Category:mathematical examples? or Category:mathematical tables? Category:mathematics-related lists? these are apart of the outline of mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of the 12 pages already in this category,
Just to clarify, an index is just a list that is in alphabetical order? If so, should all the articles in this category called "list of ..." that are in alphabetical order be renamed to "index of ..."? And what are thoughts about the renaming of Category:Indexes of mathematics topics to Category:Mathematics-related indexes to include all the relevant indexes, as im assuming there will be more from the 230 pages currently in Category:Mathematics-related lists. Brad7777 ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Last month I put Catenary up for GA and have put a lot of work into it since in response to the reviewer's comments. If interested, see Talk:Catenary/GA1 for the discussion, especially if you'd like to help resolve the outstanding issues. For some reason this isn't showing up on the current activity page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The page The Method used to be a disambiguation page, one of the meanings being The Method of Mechanical Theorems of Archimedes. An editor redirected it to Method acting, claiming that the other meanings are rarely used. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Tricomplex number has been nominated for deletion. -- Lambiam 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the lead example involving John, being a bachelor, and being a man, is actually an example not of logical inconsequence as written, but of tautological inconsequence. That is, if Γ = {“John is a bachelor”}, S1 = “John is a bachelor” and S2 = “John is a man,” then S2 is not a tautological consequence of Γ. S2 is still, however, a logical consequence of Γ. And this is only the beginning of the article. It appears there is severe confusion between the concepts of logical consequence (which currently redirects to entailment) and tautological consequence. This article needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm worried that an article about Sine exists, but not one for Cosine. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions, and a draft for this article is available within my userspace.
Here are some excerpts from the discussion:
This user was for the move:
Sine can be treated independently [of the other trigonometric functions] and it's clearly useful to do so... it seems foolhardy to suggest you delete an article that's accessed 1000+ times a day, has hundreds of internal inbound links, and exists on 34 other language Wikipedias, just because you think people need to simultaneously learn cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, and cosecant. If someone wants to know about sine, let them learn about sine.
Try reading this article with the goal of finding a definition of "sine". First, you have to get to the second sentence of the second paragraph. And then you have to decipher a 443 word sentence. It's absolutely shockingly bad at defining sine, yet you want the hundreds of references to sine to redirect here?
All the same arguments apply equally for cosine. Cosine, although conceptually very similar to sine, has its own properties, some of which are trivial, and others are trivial for sine but more complex for cosine (e.g. fixed point). I really hope I don't have to argue this point further, and I hope no one else has to deal with deletionist trolls when it comes to basic mathematics articles.
— User:Pengo
This user was against the move:
In fact I'd get rid of the sine article and redirect to this article. It already has accumulated ridiculous cruft compared to this article. There is no sine topic, the topic is the trigonometrical functions. Sine is just one of those functions. A name is not the same as a topic.
— User:Dmcq
You may discuss here as well, but please check the simultaneous discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions and in my userspace before you say something someone else has already said.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not paper. I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the Cosine article. You may also edit my article as necessary, as long as you refrain from vandalism, trolling etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
The Doctahedron, 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i have came up with a theorem and this may sound crazy but stick with me. i would like to ask you all what you think the definition is of the word "negitive". to me, negitive is more than the absence but the inverted space. by this i believe that a simple problem, for example, -1*-1=1, may not be true because 1 can be described as a "ditto" number. anything times 1 is itself so for example, if x*1, it = x. but if we have a problem like x*-1 then then it gets rid of that number and ends up with zero. i would like to hear back about this idea. p.s. this is a 14 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.254.225 ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I happened to run across Baker's theorem and Linear forms in logarithms within a few days of each other. They look very closely related to me — do they really warrant being two separate articles, or should they be merged? — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals is being discussed here Tkuvho ( talk) 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The related Category:Mathematical comparisons has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Brad7777 ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The current votes:
Park test is a new article by a new user that is a mess. It definitely needs a look over from an expert from Mathematics or Statistics. I will also leave a note on the Statistics project page. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. User:Ab konst would like to contribute a new section at L'Hôpital's rule, but is having a little trouble getting the concepts across in English. Specifically, some undefined notions of "conversion" and "comparability" are involved, and a connection to Hardy fields. I'm unable to help (I don't know what the user is referring to) but I'm hoping someone else can. The subject matter is probably very straightforward to an analyst. See Talk:L'Hôpital's rule#Conversion. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently 'Homogeneous', 'Homogenous', 'Inhomogeneous', 'Homogeneous (mathematics)', 'Heterogenous', 'Homogenisation', 'Homogeneous equation', etc. redirect to Homogeneity and heterogeneity which, for the most part, concerns itself with the chemical definition of the terms, though there is an odd mathematical dab section within the article. Most of the mathematical meanings of Homogeneous have nothing to do with chemistry and there are several other cases where the meaning intended in the article has nothing to do with the chemical meaning. So I'm thinking that many of these redirects, and in particular the mathematical ones, should link to Homogeneity (disambiguation) instead and the the articles that link to them should be matched to the article with the intended meaning. I'm going to go ahead and start with the most obvious misplaced redirects, and if there are no objections or better suggestions merge the dab section of 'Homogeneity and heterogeneity' into the actual dab page.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also homogeneous equation was a redirect to homogeneity and heterogeneity which has nothing to do with equations. I have redirected it instead to homogeneous linear equation, and put a see also there to homogeneous differential equation. There seem to be some more math articles listed at [ [1]], if anyone wants to fix these. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We seem to have a little edit war going on (again) in Graph isomorphism problem. Can I find an uninvolved admin here to semiprotect it, or would RFPP be a better choice? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just linked to the Percentage page from the Sourdough page. The How to banner at the top of Percentage struck me, particularly the phrasing, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train", with the emphasis, "present facts, not ... train". The implication that training is not presenting facts seems odd. If one doesn't have facts, then one has non-facts. Non-facts might include beliefs. It just struck me as unusual any training would consist of Belief. The connection to Mathematics project was the banner on Percentage, and I don't have available time to debate, although if anyone has any clarity on the above implication, which I distill to training = belief ?, your thoughts would be appreciated. Gzuufy ( talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator could use some input. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created Category:Theorems in abstract algebra, please help fill it. Many articles can be found in Category:Theorems in algebra and Category:Abstract algebra. Thanks Brad7777 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that many of our math-related articles use the word "we", some of them quite often (i.e. "we find that...", "we can use [blank] to prove that...", if we take...", ect. Generally speaking, this is an unencyclopedic method of phrasing, and I usually don't to hesitste to change it in the rare cases that I find it elsewhere on Wikipedia. But as it seems to be so ubiquitous in math articles, I figured I had better check here before making multiple changes. Joefromrandb ( talk) 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Algebraic structure is an abomination. Is there a good tag for this sort of situation? Rschwieb ( talk) 15:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs related to the Digamma function. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody translate fr:Entier_de_Dirichlet from french into english please? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the footnote in the first sentence says the following: "While the mathematical content of this article is a usual part of the field of number theory, the term "Dirichlet integer" is not in common usage. The set of these integers is usually denoted OQ[√5] and they are often not given any name.". I, for one, have never heard this term and the only source for it given in the (quite detailed) French article is a blog. There's discussion on the talk page of the French article and on their Math WikiProject concerning the problems with this title. So, if we are to translate this, I think we should first come up with a better name. RobHar ( talk) 15:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but maybe real) suggestion for a title: The ring of quadratic integers of discriminant five. This is what the article would be about and it avoids using mathematical notation (which was the opposition to titles such "Q(√5)" that were suggested on French wiki). RobHar ( talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I expanded the article. Please, check for possible mistakes. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Integral value transformation is quite a badly written article, to say the least. Is it worth doing something with? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Debate at Talk:Definite bilinear form#Definite bilinear forms: symmetric only?. The question is whether the definition of definiteness is restricted to symmetric bilinear forms. Curiously, many but not all authors appear to restrict the definition to the symmetric case, although the restriction appears to be unnecessary and cumbersome. Also, the Properties seciton of the article needs checking and expansion (a few minutes by someone familar with the topic, particularly relating to eigenvalues and related properties). — Quondum ☏ ✎ 10:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
AfD for Smooth completion may be found here. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
[3] despite [4]. Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Another user (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2011/Sep#Digiarea links) has added a bunch more links to digi-area.com; the most recent one was added to Polar coordinate system. The purpose of the site/product is provide people with pre-made formulas that can be used in TeX or Mathematica. I think this falls under WP:ELNO and I'm going to undo the changes, assuming there are no valid objections, but I was wondering if requesting some help from XLinkBot would be appropriate at this point.-- RDBury ( talk) 12:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Brad7777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned, making thousands of changes to categorization of mathematics articles without any discussion. I thought we had a discussion here in which the overall tone was that Brad should stop what he is doing since many of his notions were somewhat controversial. At the time, I checked through the hundred or so mathematics category edits, and reverted the ones that didn't make any sense. But now he's using hotcat, and has done over a thousand such edits. He seems to be single-handedly attempting to redo all of the categories for mathematics articles based on his own personal opinion of what belongs in which category. This is disruptive and a waste of community resources to check all of this damage. What should be done about this? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask specifically, that Brad please stop adding categories to redirect pages like paracompactness, compactness (topology), and probably more. This is just one reason I think Brad should stop doing any more category edits. It is going to take hours if not days to clean up his mess. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Baroc has been adding photographs of mathematicians to our biographies (e.g. Colin McLarty and Robert Phelps), and deserves our thanks!
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I am currently having an argument about whether a "by calculus" proof of Euler's formula should appear in the article of the same subject. I'd like some additional opinions on the subject, and so if you're interested I'd appreciate it if you could go to the talk page there and comment. Thanks. Holmansf ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The page Mikhail Gromov went through several transformations and is currently redirected to his full name including the little-used middle name. The problem seems to be that there is an aviator of the same first and last name. I think a case can be made in favor of keeping the page at "Mikhail Gromov" with a hat sending the reader to the aviator. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This category currently has 214 articles in it, any suggestions for diffusing it? Brad7777 ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the article fiber bundle is in the following categories:
Whilst the category Category:Fiber bundles is in:
First, does Category:Fiber bundles need to be a subcat of Category:Topology? Should it be made subcat of Category:Algebraic topology and Category:Homotopy theory instead, or aswell? In which case, secondly, does the article Fiber bundle need to be in any other category except Category:Fiber bundles? Any other comments? Brad7777 ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is in the categories Category:Topological spaces and Category:General topology, whilst Category:Topological spaces is a subcat of Category:General topology. The topological space should be removed from Category:General topology, because this is overcategorization is it not? I also suggest Category:Topological spaces should be a subcat of Category:Topology aswell, as this could help defuse the category Category:Topology, any objections? Brad7777 ( talk) 23:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Opinions on the creation of this category? Category:Theorems in topology contains 49 articles. Category:Geometric topology contains 123 articles. Category:Theorems in geometric topology would possibly hold 13 articles and is likely to grow. Geometric topology already could do with diffusing, and is also likely to grow in the future. So i think this category will help. Articles for consideration: Grushko theorem, Rokhlin's theorem, Annulus theorem, Side-approximation theorem, Sphere theorem (3-manifolds), Bing's recognition theorem, Double suspension theorem, Blaschke selection theorem, Moise's theorem, Loop theorem, Gordon–Luecke theorem, Cyclic surgery theorem, Fary–Milnor theorem Brad7777 ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Are these two articles overcategorized? They only need to be in one category: Category:Manifolds surely? Brad7777 ( talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is, a problem in the categorization of manifolds, but surely not a problem of overcategorization. Analytic manifold, analytic variety, complex manifold are close and strongly related notions. One may add complex variety which redirects to algebraic variety, when analytic variety would be better suited. I have not found any category more specific than Category: Mathematics which contains all these pages. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
At the moment this category seems to be being abused. Many of the articles are on "topological spaces with properties". Strictly, this is like placing articles on triangles in a category called "properties of triangles" while there is a category called "triangles". What are your thoughts on categorizing redirected pages to this category instead where possible. For example, Connectedness (topology), categorized into Category:Properties of topological spaces, instead of Connected space being categorized into there? This would be a more proper use of the categories. It would require that the redirects are more specific where possible, but would reveal which articles do not have a section on the property they have when they could do with one (especially because of this category). I would also suggest that articles which don't have a relevant redirect to them are left in there, although these tend to be mainly stub articles. Comments? Brad7777 ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it:
If there are no large objections, I will go about fixing the category tree to reflect this. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Could those who agree with fixing the categories to match my comment of 18:47, 6 February 2012 please leave some sort of positive comment so I can gauge consensus? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The article paracompact space currently begins with the following sentence:
Not only is this a meaningless sentence, the link paracompactness redirects back to the same article! This seems to be due to a significant edit by Brad7777. I will work on fixing the article, but more eyes on it (and other edits by Brad7777) would be helpful. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The links Cofinite topology and Finite complement topology currently redirect to Cofiniteness#Cofinite topology, and I would like to add these redirects to Category:Topological spaces. However, given the discussion above concerning Category:Topological spaces and Category:Properties of topological spaces I thought I should ask before doing anything that might be seen as pouring oil into the fire. The article Cofiniteness itself is already in Category:General topology.
(There is an editing guideline at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects concerning the categorization of redirects, and I think categorizing a redirect to a subsection of a larger article is covered by the section Subtopic categorization.)
— Tobias Bergemann ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article on cycle index confuses or elides the distinction between groups generally and permutation groups. Since cycle indices are properties of permutation groups, not of abstract groups, this renders it confusing, and possibly incorrect. I have put a more detailed complaint on the talk page. I hope someone more skilled in algebraic terminology can clean it up. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends on whether we want to enlighten or to obfuscate (see Talk:Function (mathematics)). Tkuvho ( talk) 13:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The mathematics article fractal fraction is up for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal fraction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article horocycle was recently merged to horosphere. I've undone this merger, but was quickly reverted. I'd appreciate outside input at Talk:Horosphere. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across the page Correspondence (mathematics). As well as being completely unsourced, it strikes me as a collection of things that really don't belong together—each definition could better be placed on the page for the appropriate topic. Also, the first definition contradicts the definition given at relation (mathematics). Links such as those from the first sentence of function (mathematics) to correspondence (mathematics) only serve to muddy the waters further. Does anyone see this page as worth keeping? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) has proposed renaming Category:Triangulation to Category:Triangulation (geometry). Discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 14. The same discussion page also contains a proposal to delete Category:Polyhedra rest category and merge it into its parent category. And there are also quite a few renames of mathematical categories proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, e.g. Category:Logical symbols to Category:Logic symbols, Category:Tiling to Category:Tessellation, etc. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Charles Wells (mathematician) is up for deletion. -- Lambiam 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a small dispute as to whether certain links should be included in the External links section. Additional opinions at Talk:Tangram#EL links removed will be appreciated.-- RDBury ( talk) 04:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that covering set was another term for cover (topology). I was surprised that the covering set article is purely about a number-theoretic meaning. Now I'm not sure whether to add an xref. Can someone take a look? Thanks. 67.117.145.9 ( talk) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
At WP: Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic) I proposed to make a conceptdab article, but there was not any movement in this direction. Later, I asked help at WikiProject Logic, to be ignored. Now, at Conditional statement (logic) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) users Artur Rubin and History2007 try to redirect this to material conditional, which I consider as inappropriate. On the other hand, Hanlon1755 ( talk · contribs) pushes his own ideas about what is logical condition. Please, help to put the end to redirects' jumble and make a valid disambiguation of the term "conditional" in logic, programming and linguistics. Preferably, as a WP:CONCEPTDAB article. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The war progressed for another 5 days. Now I self-proclaimed a mediation at Talk:Conditional statement (logic)#Conditions for acceptable solution and ask the WikiProject for support. Please, provide an explicit output. Don't give just a silent agreement, because warriors can disrespect my self-imposed conditions. Please, express some will to end the edit war even if the cause and exact conditions seems not so important. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Manifold Destiny#Birman of Joan Birman's comments concerning Yau. My personal opinion is that the comment is not only incorrect but borders on slanderous, and should not be included. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to track down a reference for the article on Euler's criterion when I found this: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/
Is there a special convention or template for citing it?
Virginia-American ( talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There are four proposals to move categories in the logic department. I think some people who have actually done some study on the subject should take a look. Please do drop in. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
When I saw this Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#University research project on categories seeks interviewees I immediately thought of this project.Can't for the life of me say why ;-) Dmcq ( talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A known problematic editor has set his sights on matrix (mathematics). I have no intention of further engaging with this particular editor. It would be helpful if some project members could keep an eye. T R 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss and do the merge at Talk:Arithmetic complexity of the discrete Fourier transform. I don't understand this math at all and can't do it myself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw that there was an old thread about the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its new wiki form at http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org. Of the points raised, I'm much the most concerned about the broken links, at present. Do we have a plan of action for fixing them? And, if we can decide about how that could be sorted out, where are we on MathJax or indeed any long-term solution for formulae? Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we have a template for EoM?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The news from the External link finder is actually not that bad. Just now there were 368 hits: but I took out those not from actual articles, and the number came down to 178. And some of those are multiple uses of the same link. So this could get done, I suggest. Charles Matthews ( talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made a simple converter[ [6]] which can take the citation from the bottom of the springer page and produces the complete template with parameter for our reference. -- Salix ( talk): 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The page symbolic combinatorics contains several redlinks to labelled enumeration theorem. It looks like the latter page existed in 2009, since it has been copied at http://citizendia.org/Labelled_enumeration_theorem, but I can't find a deletion discussion for it. Does anyone know what happened here? Jowa fan ( talk) 03:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I restored the article so that everyone can look at the content. I recommend adding additional references if the article is kept, to demonstrate that the topic passes the inclusion/notability criteria. This is just a pro forma undeletion, I have no opinion about whether the article should be deleted again. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any of these "proofs" should be given, for the following reasons:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should have "proofs" of these rules. I would not object to a truth table in some cases, though. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The proofs should be allowed, with qualifying language. Any given proof isn't "the" proof but rather "a" proof. I do understand Rubin's points though. Even the transformation rules template gives a particular set of rules. However, that isn't intended to represent any particular system, but rather gives common rules used in various systems. At some point I think this kind of information (i.e. Dooot) is expected in a comprehensive encyclopedia article on particular rules of inference. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I came up on the page Projective range. It lacks of a formal definition that I can understand. Should it be expanded or deleted? D.Lazard ( talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The following "trivial" or "uninteresting" cases seem to have encyclopedic value at least inasmuch as they provide clarity for someone seeking to understand their status. Unlike a field with one element, they appear to be uncontrovertial:
I've come across another term in a few places and papers, enough to warrant a stub:
Any opinions on the creation of these stubs? — Quondum ☏ ✎ 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Jean-Claude Sikorav is a new article by Tkuvho, which will probably soon be listed on AfD. Comments/improvements are welcome. Sasha ( talk) 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there any suggestions of subcategories for this category in order to improve the usefulness of this category? At the moment there is around 80 articles in it which may be daunting to somebody looking through the theorems of number theory or maybe not. At the moment there are a few subcats; a couple which are more specific branches of number theory and another relating to the prime numbers, but perhaps there are more that could be added for ease of the user. Perhaps related - where does number theory and algebraic geometry intersect? Brad7777 ( talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a suggestion at Template talk:Maths rating to rename the template. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/119.154.67.223 notes disruptive editing by three neighboring IPs.
Blocks for disruptive editing are warranted, regardless of the SPI issue. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 12:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
template:Maths rating is under discussion, please see template talk:Maths rating
70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP has been straightening out all the italic "d"s in dy/dx at fundamental theorem of calculus. I had the impression the consensus in an earlier discussion was otherwise. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A help needed from experts in logic. I recently wrote a small article about the false (I complained about its absence since 2009, and nobody else made it), but I probably failed to explain a subtle difference between false and contradiction. We all understand the difference between logical truth and a theorem, and there should be the same on the dark side of the logic. So, it would be nice to clarify the terminology in "contradiction" and "principle of explosion". What is contradiction: an occurrence or use of the false in proofs? A proof-theoretical interpretation of the false distinguished for historical reasons from, say, truth-functional one? And what terminology ("false", "contradiction", both as synonyms, or distinction) to use in "principle of explosion"? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps something should be said about how classical logic can get away with treating all non-truths as equivalent to each other? JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the best answer is simply to delete
false (logic), given that it's ambiguous between the truth value "false" and the notion of "logical falsehood" (that is, logically necessary falsehood, which is very close to if not the same as contradiction). If it were actually a useful link, I suppose you could set up a disambig page, but I do not understand what is the rationale for having such a link at all. False (logic) is an unlikely search term and a bad internal link; having it around seems to do nothing but encourage overlinking. There is rarely if ever going to be any good reason to link the word false at all. --
Trovatore (
talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
<math>
tags, but I'll be happy to go with consensus. —
Quondum
☏
✎ 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Before the debate goes too far, I think it should be noted that this topic has been covered before (e.g. here), and it seems clear to me that consensus on this question will not emerge here. In particular, there is enough support for inline {{ math}} use that no recommendation to the contrary will be accepted. I think the inadequacy of the fonts in the context of math and browsers should be addressed as a broader WP issue, not at the template level. So I think the only principles that will emerge are already in place:
— Quondum ☏ ✎ 06:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should avoid using the {{ math}} template (and its cousins like {{ var}}, etc.) This makes the code more difficult to edit by hand, and it is looking very likely that MathJax will give a much better solution very soon. I think it's time we start to deprecate html (and these funny templates). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
span.texhtml {
font-family: 'DejaVu Serif', serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
See e.g. this edit for why sans-serif inline math is bad. If we can't distinguish the capital vowel I from the lowercase consonent l from the digit 1 from the vertical bar |, we have a problem. (In the font I use, the digit is clearly distinguishable from the other three, but obviously even that's not true for everyone.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
<math>
and MathJax, much as is done in professional texts. This would mean some override of the browser's default font choice for serif and sans-serif, and carries with it the pitfall that these may not be installed fonts for a large enough base. If serif is to be avoided due to display problems, and widely installed suitable matched serif and sans-serif fonts cannot be found, this problem is probably going to be around for longer than we'd like. —
Quondum
☏
✎ 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A mathematician may say "I have proved that the following products are both equal to 5:
If they're both equal to the same number, and a product is the value that results from multiplying, and these are both equal to 5, then these are not two products, but one. Our article titled product (mathematics) says:
The latter usage occurs in such expressions as the title of a book called Table of Integrals, Series, and Products or articles titled "Proof that a Product Considered by Schriemann Diverges to Zero". Yet it seems many sources say only that a product is the value of a multiplication operation. A non-logged-in user has been arguing on my talk page that we should therefore omit the "expression" characterization from the definition given in the article.
Opinions of this proposal? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Both usages are important. It is counterproductive to favor one over the other. Rschwieb ( talk) 17:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Seconding Tkuvho and Rschwieb. D.Lazard, your proposed alternative, whatever its advantages, will do much to make the article unimpenetrable for many readers. (One possible confusion that it will create: it appears to assert that $x \cdot y + z$ is a product.) The current wording is clear, correct, easy to understand, and should be kept as-is. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"Unimpenetrable"? Maybe impenetrable? Rschwieb ( talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that that way of using the word "leftmost" will be---um------"unimpenetrable" to almost everyone. I understood it here only because of the context of this present discussion. And I think other aspects of that proposed opening sentence are objectionable on grounds almost as cogent as that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello to all,
I am that non-logged-in user (but I learned how to log-in now!) who asked the question from Michael.
First let talk about the difference between multiplication and product in Natural numbers (ℕ). Multiplication in ℕis a binary operation which is a function from ℕ×ℕ to ℕ, so it gets two Natural numbers as input and the result or output of this function is another Natural number. The mathematical symbol for multiplication function is ×, so in function notation we can write: ×(3,4)= 12. In infix notation we can put the operation (here ×) between two operands (here factors) and use the notation 3×4=12. But we know a function is a set of single valued ordered pairs. In this point of view multiplication is a set like ×={((1,1), 1), ((1,2), 2), …} and one of its elements is ((3,4), 12) and the output or value or result 12 associated with the pair (3,4).
By the present definition, product refers just to the result (and result can be a number or an expression like Meriam Webster but still refers just to the result). The difference between product and multiplication is like as the difference between element and set.
There is another close example. When you say the function f(x)=x² actually you omit two important parts, domain and codomain. This function is not one-to-one from ℝ toℝ but it is one-to-one from ℕ to ℕ, so you can omit the details if there is no ambiguity.
I agree both usages of the product are important, so it seems we need to change the definition of the product, but how? By inserting in Wikipedia? I think this is not a good idea because a divergence will appear between Wikipedia and other references. It is better to think for a better way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sohrab.Rahbar (
talk •
contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSINTRO used to say "Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles." So in that state it wasn't really relevant to this project, since it was only about other articles. But in this edit a month ago, an editor (intending to broaden it to allow formulas in technical but non-mathematical articles such as Joule) changed it to instead say "Mathematical equations and formulas should only be used when absolutely necessary." Today this has led to an editor on golden ratio attempting to take all the math out of the lead section there, because math articles are no longer exempt and he didn't see why it was necessary. So anyway, this is just a heads up: discussion on the issue has started at Talk:Golden ratio for the specific editing concerns there, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section for what the MOS should actually say about this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There was a request to rearrange the redirect Lists of mathematics articles. Right now it points at Lists of mathematics topics but the request was to use Lists of mathematics articles to hold List of mathematics articles instead. I opened a thread here to discuss the best way to handle those confusing names. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote an essay how to improve standards for articles about mathematical logic. I hope, some day it will become an official guideline. Thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Projective resolutions and free resolutions is a new article. Projective resolution and Free resolution redirect elsewhere. Should the redirects be altered or should some articles get merged or what? No other articles linked to the new article until a moment ago when I added a cross-reference. If it is not merged into other articles, then some things should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just noted that resolution (algebra) contains another important class of resolutions, which generalizes all the other ones. I have tried to clarify the corresponding section which was not understandable, even with some background in homological algebra. I hope that the result is better and mathematically correct. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Factor theorem is up for deletion. -- Lambiam 02:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is one of our more interesting articles relating to the history of mathematics. I have been working it over to sort material, and remove some of the more obvious misunderstandings from old text. There are a couple of minor queries left on the Talk page. It could easily be 50% bigger, and as usual more inline referencing is needed (quite important here because Boole has been praised for the wrong things in the past).
Boole was famous in his own time for differential equations. His stuff looks like D-modules to me; that line of attack traces back to Thomas Gaskin and a notorious Tripos question (not as celebrated as the one which set the Stokes theorem, but that might be historical injustice in a way). Without OR rearing its ugly head, it appears that a better job of explaining what Boole actually did would be possible on the basis of some recent research papers that are still behind paywalls. Drop me a note if you come up with anything. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
In reply to question 3 above regarding {{ algebraic structures}}:
If abelian group is on there, then commutative ring should be too. The study of commutative rings is a huge discipline, and I don't see anything silly about having a link to it in the template. Personally I'd rather see the template expanded to include Unique factorization domain and Principal ideal domain and Euclidean domain, then the chain of inclusions on those pages could be replaced by the template.
Ideally the template would have collapsible sections along the same lines as {{ calculus}}. We could have one big division for types of rings, one for groups, one for modules (including vector spaces and Lie algebras), and one for magma, semigroup, monoid (not sure of a good collective name for those three). I don't have the necessary template super-powers to make this happen myself. Is anyone else game? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many articles on fields of mathematics, examples include algebra, geometry etc. There also exists a category Fields of mathematics. This category at the moment contains a few selected eponymous categories aswell a few articles related to the term "fields of mathematics". The category Fields of mathematics is a set category, i.e a category named after a class so I think it would be logical to include all articles that fit this class, i.e all fields of mathematics like algebra, geometry etc. I have brought this idea up before but as I was a new editor I was not able to explain it. I hope those who saw my previous effort now understand what I mean. I think not only this logical, it is also very practical for a user-browser of Wikipedia, particularly those with interests across the scope of mathematics, who do not necessarily want to have to dig deep through the subcats. Of course, this should't be done without consesus, so views? Brad7777 ( talk) 20:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We still need a short list of proposals of what fields you think should move. As I glance at it, quite a few of the broad fields are already there, and I can't immediately see what's missing. A good place to start would be to pick a subset of first level areas on Mathematics_Subject_Classification. I will suggest a few additions for comment: commutative algebra, algebraic geometry, field theory, category theory, universal algebra, differential equations, functional analysis, differential geometry, algebraic topology, probability theory, statistics, numerical analysis, information theory, mathematical physics, game theory. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
A new template, Template:Conic sections was recently added to the articles on conic sections. I'm not convinced this is an improvement and if not whether it can be made into one by tweaking the template. My main objection is that previously the lead images in Ellipse were an ellipse and a rather nice photo of Saturn, but now the lead image has all the conic sections, which makes it a bit unclear what the article is about, and Saturn has been pushed down "below the fold". Is it just me and if not what should be done?-- RDBury ( talk) 03:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm making good progress on integrating MathJax into the Math extension and hope to make it available as an experimental option shortly (it'll definitely be on an experimental wiki very soon!). Currently there are some problems with Chrome and with our JavaScript debug mode which I hope to resolve. list of all bug dependencies
After that it should be mostly testing to make sure things work, and then we'll see if we need to make fixes to upstream MathJax or additional customizations (eg custom latex commands that might not be translated yet). -- brion ( talk) 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
On this page on bugzilla.wikimedia.org, we find this comment from Brion Vibber:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I just tried to set my preferences, and I find:
But I see no third option. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The code needs a quick review before deployment to the 1.19 wikis; I think you guys are probably our best testers for math stuff so English Wikipedia will certainly be among those that get it soon. :) -- brion ( talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In principle, the former should contain only rules such as A ⊢ B, and the latter should not contain rules at all, only facts such as (axioms) ⊢ B. But after a mass addition of articles by Gregbard there is much confusion in the theorems' category. Modus ponens is not a propositional theorem by no means. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Arthur, we are engaging in some civil discourse here, and again I have seen the same pattern. You throw words around in a way that is so careless, as to affect your credibility. All theorems are tautologies so calling tautologies theorems is "misnamed?" Obviously that is not true at all. The same objects are called both in different contexts. However, "tautologies" as a category will surely place these articles in more philosophy category trees than mathematics categories. Your suggestion is inconsistent with the form of subcats in category "mathematical theorems." So you basically have a lot of explaining to do on that suggestion. Secondly, you are completely incorrect in saying that the given theorem called "modus ponens" can't be derived without a modus ponens inference rule. It certainly can be derived in a formal system that does not also contain the modus ponens inference rule. I am a little surprised at that mistake Art. You should know better. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A succession of anonymous/new editors have been editing divisor function and Riemann hypothesis, inserting what looks like a claim to have proved the result unconditionally, supported only by a preprint at vixra.org. More eyes on both articles would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Its still ongoing. Someone should protect Riemann hypothesis at least. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with English terminology, but something like it certainly should exist. A proposition is strong if it entails many other propositions. The proposition P is stronger than Q if P├ Q (provability/deducibility partial order relation) or P ⊧ Q (semantic partial order relation). Also, it may be generalized to theories. A theory is stronger if it has more theorems that another, which uses the same formal language. For example, classical propositional calculus is stronger than intuitionistic one, and an inconsistent theory is the strongest possible.
I could use titles strong and weak (logic) or strong and weak propositions, which is better? Also, which sources should I search for definitions? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 06:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
“ | Wizzle's theorem has a stronger antecedent and hence is weaker than Woozle's theorem. But Wizzle's theorem admits a generalization to bobjects in Poozle's spaces which cannot be obtained as a consequence of Woozle's theorem. Pizzle's conjecture for Poozle's spaces was stronger than both Wizzle's and Woozle's theorems, but Squizzle recently built a counterexample to it (and also to generalized Woozle's theorem) in a foo-dimensional Poozle's space. At Winnie-the-Pooh symposium it was discussed that in foo-dimensional case some weakened version of Woozle's theorem may be true, which is not equivalent to Wizzle's theorem. But for all known bobjects the corresponding statement is a really a consequence of either the foo-dimensional Wizzle's theorem or this theorem in some degenerate space. | ” |
Do we really need two separate articles for a basically one single topic: localization in commutative algebra (or algebraic geometry)? For one thing, the constructions are the same. For another, it's simpler to have one article to discuss basic facts like local property. For example, "noetherian" is not local property. But if localization of a module has a section on local property, it probably should have a mention of this. -- Taku ( talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for a fun diversion, bringing mathematical fallacy into decent shape looks like a project with collaboration potential. See my comment at Talk:Mathematical fallacy. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently in a discussion (see my talk page) with another editor on the meaning of the phrase "the first 5 Fibonacci numbers". My interpretation is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, but the other editor, based on conventions used in computer languages such as C and Python, thinks it would be 0, 1, 1, 2, 3. The other interpretation has some merit in that most authors start the sequence with 0, so it comes down to whether you consider 0 the 0th number or the 1st number in the sequence. My preferred solution is to avoid the issue altogether my rewording the phrase, but we've been back and forth several times now so I thought it was time to raise the issue in a larger forum.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's link to the section being discussed: Fibonacci_number#Combinatorial_identities. I agree that there's a lot of potential for confusion. To my mind, if we have a sequence beginning F0, F1, F2,..., then F0 is the first element, F1 the second element and so on. But it's liable to be interpreted differently by different people. What is the reason for writing out all the formulae in words as well as in symbols? Perhaps the nineteenth-century charm of the prose style is enjoyable, but in this case it causes more trouble that it's worth. Why not just delete all the verbal descriptions, and then there's no argument about the meaning of nth? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
After I felt like Algebraic structures was in recovery, I reexamined restoring the outline version to usefulness. It has many problems, some of which might have been caused by the whole outline/list fiasco. I've proposed some changes on the talk page, and I hope a few other WP:Math members are willing to check it out from time to time. Among the recommendations: organize it more like Algebraic structure, include a section on the usual order of learning things in intro, decrease total number of mentioned structures, remove example list. I'm awaiting response from WP:Outlines concerning if they want to help. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Check your preferences: with MW 1.9 the math rendering options are down to two: always PNG and display TeX. See the RfC here: [7]. Renders some of the Math MOS redundant, such as MOS:MATH#Forcing output to be an image and MOS:MATH#Very simple formulae. Probably the whole section needs rewriting. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
At some point soon (i.e. maybe during 2012), mathJax should become the default for everyone. Developers are working on it. Does this latest roll-out have anything to do with progress in that direction? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I missed something with MathJax. Does anybody use it to browse articles in English Wikipedia and is it really functioning? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The new article titled Iteration of mathematical curves is at best currently a mess, and possibly a violation of WP:OR. Further opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This does highlight the messy state of out articles on curves. We have
all of which overlap somewhat, none of which are particularly complete. What sees to be missing is an article on parametric curve the closest there being Parametric equation.-- Salix ( talk): 08:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Boodlepounce believes these articles are nonsense. Can anyone at the project refute Boodlepounce's assessment by verification from reliable sources? Boodlepounce ( talk) 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion on disambiguation. Please have a look. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In their infinite wisdom a number of editors have decided it would be a good idea to delete {{ expert-subject}}. This means Category:Mathematics articles needing expert attention will soon be empty. Is anyone interested in preserving this list of articles somewhere (or taking the template to WP:DRV)? — Ruud 13:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Expert-subject. — Ruud 16:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've created a mathematics specific version {{ expert-maths}} as an experiment. It has an additional reason parameter to indicate what the problem is.-- Salix ( talk): 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ expert-subject}} has been relisted for TfD discussion. Nageh ( talk) 10:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with the picture of „intuitive explanation“. Which one is better/„not too false“? a,b or c? In my opinion a) is the worst one, but it is back in the article.
-- Svebert ( talk) 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Lebesgue partitioned the y-axis, not the x-axis. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reference again: Bernd Siegfried Walter Schröder (12 November 2007). Mathematical analysis: a concise introduction. John Wiley & Sons. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-470-10796-6. Retrieved 19 March 2012.. You are right, Lebesgue partitioned the y-axis and Riemann the x-axis. But what figure a) shows definitively doesn't happen in Lebesgue integration. The Lebesgue integral is defined as follows:
here is the simple function, which is essentially a sum of characeristic functions on some sets . These sets are parts of the x-axis in the shown pictures. The integral now, „looks up“ the bigness of every and scales it with the appropriate factor of the simple function.
Please explain to me, where are horizontal slices shown in figure a) in the definition? Figure a) is totally misleading because it shows that some parts of the x-axis (some ) are added several times to obtain the integral. But in the definition every is considered exactly 1 time in the sum.
The idea of lebesgue integration is reflected much more precise with figure b) and c): One partitions the y-Axis in say N equal parts with length . So one can assign for every such y-interval an interval on the x-axis (in general disjoint /scatterd). Each such interval on the x-axis is now one set . The lebesgue integration now measures the bigness of every only one time and scales this bigness with the appropriate factor . In both figures b) and c) exactly this is shown. The measure of the sets are the x-axis parts of rectangles with same color.
This is what Henry Lebesgue said: Lebesgue integration is that what a careful businessman does. If he has to count his money than Riemann would just count the coins as they come: 1,1,4,4,5,4,3,1. The careful businessman would order the coins after there value: 3*1+3+3*4+5. (Here ).-- Svebert ( talk) 09:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The figure (b) has now been substantially improved, especially with the addition of the horizontal rulings. While I don't think it adequately conveys the fundamental difference between the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals, I think it should be given by itself as an independent illustration of the "simple function" definition of the Lebesgue integral. Could this be separated from the Riemann integral?
One doesn't actually need to know anything about simple functions to have an intuitive grasp of the meaning of the Lebesgue integral, and this probably points to an overall fault in our article. Probably the simplest definition I know for a nonnegative measurable function f, the Lebesgue integral is simply
where
and the integral on the right is an ordinary (improper) Riemann integral. The idea implicit here is that, intuitively speaking, we can rearrange the function values by sliding all of the horizontal slabs to the left in the picture (a). You'll note that this integral agrees with the limit in my earlier comment
-- Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been working through all the pages that have links to the disambiguation page Conjugation, but I have been unable to resolve those listed here. I am hoping that an expert from this project will be able to fix these. Thanks. Trace identity, SL2(R), David Spiegelhalter, Complete group. Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear members of world mathematical community!
The Fundamental theorem of vector calculus, (
Helmholtz decomposition) states that any sufficiently smooth, rapidly decaying vector field in three dimensions can be constructed with the sum of an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field (scalar potential and a vector potential )
(1*)
However, the gradient of scalar function does not form the
vector field. As well known from textbook [1, p. 15] « … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector »: hence the theory requiring (1) must be false. The next unpleasant things we can see for such well-known classical rules. In mathematics and physics the rot (or
curl) is an operation which takes the vector field and produces another vector field . However it is well-known that is an Antisymmetric Tensor . Therefore under co-ordinate change the tensor transforms differently from a true vector. For elimination of these contradictions the Fundamental theorem of vector calculus can be written as follows:
. (2*)
This formula completely corresponds to transformed
Navier–Stokes equations(NSE) for incompressible fluids ()
(3*)
Here,
Equations (3) and (2) are consistent. Hence there is no reason to say that the theory requiring (2) must be false. As we can see from NSE the sum - forms the vector field.
Note that we will receive the formula (2) also after similar transformation of the Navier–Stokes for a compressible fluid and after transformation of the Lame equations for an elastic media.
From this brief note follows that Helmholtz decomposition is wrong and demands major revision. This follows from comparison of two articles in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition ).
Therefore let's try to formulate the text for editing of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition .
1. B. A.; Fomenko, A. T.; Novikov, Sergeĭ Petrovich (1992). Modern Geometry--methods and Applications: The geometry of surfaces, transformation groups, and fields] (2nd ed.) . Springer. (p. 15). ISBN 0387976639.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The vector potential in the invariant version of the Helmholtz decomposition is a pseudovector. However most sources do not make this distinction, so I don't think our article should either. If someone is bothered by it, then we can add a remark about it somewhere. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is precisely the same notion as that in category theory, provided that a vector or a covector is defined to be a functor that associates a list of numbers to a frame, where both frames and lists of numbers carry the structure of a GL(n)-torsor. But it is not the same in the category of manifolds and mappings between them. However, I much rather prefer to think of the vector as existing independently of how it is described in coordinates (that is invariant under passive diffeomorphism), so calling a vector "contravariant" because of how its components transform seems to put the cart before the horse. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Participants of discussion!
Many thanks for your professional comments. Please, pay attention to addition in my message (Notation 1). However I ask (if it is possible) not talk this problem outside of rectangular Cartesian co-ordinates. It can be made later (after consensus for rectangular Cartesian co-ordinates). I ask to apply only short phrase without difficultly translated words. Remember that your comments are reading all over the world by means of computer translators.
Notation 1.
The vector fields cannot be constructed out of scalar fields using the gradient operator. Therefore so-called Laplacian field is not a true vector field. Thus, the requirements are inconsistent for true vector fields.
This result confirms the proof about impossibility of irrotational velocity field in this old university textbook [10]p. 100-101. 2. Other unpleasant things we can see for many well-known classical equations in Wikipedia. For example the Euler equations (fluid dynamics) can be written as follows
Note that such equations have no sense as exact vector equations because
is not the true vector.
Here Helmholtz_decomposition we can read: “This theorem is of great importance in electrostatics, since Maxwell's equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the static case are of exactly this type.[2]” Thus Maxwell's equations have no sense as exact vector equations. We can to continue a list of similar incorrect mathematical physics equations in Wikipedia.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 12:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały. I have formulated my conclusion on the basis of this university textbook;
1.B. A.; Fomenko, A. T.; Novikov, Sergeĭ Petrovich (1992). Modern Geometry--methods and Applications: The geometry of surfaces, transformation groups, and fields] (2nd ed.) . Springer. (p. 15).
ISBN
0387976639. Authors of this textbook – authoritative mathematicians:
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?&personid=8368&option_lang=eng
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?option_lang=eng&personid=4537
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?option_lang=eng&personid=21899
As well known from this textbook « … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector ». Therefore the gradient of scalar function does not form the vector field. Thus, your objections «You seem to be very confused…. » concern first of all these authors.
I can present other and newer arguments that gradient of scalar function does not form the vector field.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Participants of discussion!
The assumption “vector fields can be constructed out of scalar fields using the gradient operator and so-called Laplacian field is a true vector field” is 100 years old. This assumption have many “Strict proofs”, covered in hundreds of textbooks, and taught each year to many thousands of students. It is difficult to believe that all “Strict proofs” are wrong. Therefore has changed nothing after edition in 1979 of the textbook Modern Geometry in which it is written '« … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector » The convincing counterexample is necessary. Such counterexample I bring to your attention. This counterexample kills mentioned “Strict proofs”. I will specify a source of this counterexample later.
Counterexample. As we well know the divergence of any vector field on Euclidean space is a scalar field. Therefore as an example let's calculate the divergence of an acceleration vector . The acceleration vector components can be written as
After taking an operator div we have
(1)
As we can see this formula can be written as
(2)
if and only if such equality is true
The realization of (3) require such equality:
(4)
Note that equality (3) can make sense only for
In the case
all terms in brackets of (3) are positive and is impossible. Thus the requirements
for vector field are inconsistent. As we well know
, if . Therefore the
vector fields cannot be constructed out of
scalar fields using the
gradient operator and so-called
Laplacian field is not a true vector field.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope, that your doubts will disappear after consideration of these well-known analogies which You can see in textbooks:
(5)
Here, - infinitesimal volume, - volume deformation, - infinitesimal displacement vector ( - any displacement vector), -velocity of volume deformation.
By analogy, the acceleration divergence probably can be written as ( - acceleration of volume deformation)
(6)
It is only a hypothesis on the basis of obvious analogy.
The acceleration of volume deformation can be transform so
. (7)
As you can see this equality is exact. Therefore our hypothesis is correct if (4) are satisfied
and, for example, such additional conditions are satisfied
(8)
These equalities satisfy (4). Therefore in this case formula (1) can be written as (2) also. I will specify a source of this counterexample later.
--
Alexandr (
talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sławomir Biały ! You have written:
1. «Well, I'm seeing a few fundamental errors in this. The first one is in equation (5)».
However equation (5) follows from comparison of the continuity equation
(9)
(10)
Therefore
Where you see first fundamental error?
2.«But the bottom line is that even if you did have a counterexample that would turn mathematics on its head, it's offtopic for the encyclopedia…».
This problem we will discuss later.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sławomir Biały !
Thanks for your comments!
1.“You haven't correctly taken a time derivative in going from the first equation in (5) to the second” The going from first equation in (5) to the second carried out differently. I wrote above - infinitesimal displacement vector ( - any displacement vector). As you can see we have different vectors. Therefore the time derivative is pointless.
2.“or in going from the second equation of (5) to equation (6)”
The second equation of (5) and equation (6) obtained independently.
However this discussion is from other field ( continuum mechanics).
Very important comment:
The velocity vector of Cartesian 3-space for a fix time can be represented as , . This representation is well known as a vector function of scalar argument (or vector-valued function). Then according to chain rule [Vygodsky M.J. (1977) Manual on Higher Mathematics (12th edition). http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ru/library/books/Vygodskij1977ru.djvu (Russian). ASIN: B001U5VF9O (English)]
. (11)
Formulas (11) can be written explicitly concerning . Therefore this common factor can be eliminated. As a result we have
(12)
In component form formulas (12) look like
(13)
Relations (13) can be written explicitly concerning . Therefore this common factor can be eliminated. Thus
.
We have the same result (8) !!!!!!!!! As we can see our conjecture about (8) is true. This conjecture has appeared after such transformation of counterexample (1)
(14)
-- Alexandr ( talk) 19:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
What do folks here think about the article Tau (2π)? Recall the AfD last year. In that AfD, the sources presented were news items in the mainstream press. Consensus seemed to be that an article could be spun out from those sources. But now I'm concerned that many of the works cited in that article are not reliable, but rather various wacky "manifestos" pushing the τ concept. Furthermore, parts of the article are not cited at all. What should be done? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared out at least the most blatant original research at that article. There is more, but it is going to require looking at sources. However, there seems to be a complete lack of reliable sources on this subject. I'm looking at the AfD debate, and there were a few news items mentioning tau, but pretty thin on details. Here are the "reliable" sources mentioned at the AfD: [11], [12], [13], broadcast, article,
I've looked through most of these, and it really doesn't seem like enough to base an article on. The only other reliably published source is Palais's op-ed in the Math Intelligencer http://www.math.utah.edu/%7Epalais/pi.pdf (and I think op-eds can only be used as primary sources for the opinions of their authors). If there really is nothing else, then this will be a very short article indeed. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the available reliable sources, they seem for the most part to be about "tau day", rather than documenting the constant itself or any supposed debate about it in a serious way. Any thoughts about rewriting the article to be about tau day instead from these sources, and then moving it to tau day? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning to merge tau (2π) into turn (geometry) since the tau article is a WP:POVFORK of the turn article. Any thoughts on this? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started started an RfC. Please comment. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
An IP insists on adding material on the history of algebra in the history of calculus page of calculus, claiming in the latest revert that there is "no need to discuss" the addition. see here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
Simple English Wikipedia is one of the smaller Wikipedia projects; it tries to explain topics using simpler language. The big challenge there is to not sacrifice accuracy while explaining the topic at hand. Today, I extended the System of linear equations article there; I added the information that such systems are commonly represented and solved using matrices. I also added a section describing the general process of solving such systems, and links to common methods. The problem I found was that most of these (even the common ones, like Gaussian elimination or Cramer's rule) do not have articles there. We are a small community, and none of us has a background in mathematics. I am aware that there may be some concurrency between English and Simple English, and that in the minds of some people Simple English Wikipedia has a bad reputation. We would therefore look forward to any topic-specific help you could provide. -- Eptalon ( talk) 12:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Should Inertia tensor of triangle merge to List of moment of inertia tensors? Please comment at Talk:Inertia tensor of triangle#Merge proposal. I'd also appreciate if someone in this project could actually complete the merger (assuming the wiki community supports it, of course) since I don't know the math here. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Restricted randomization has been nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Restricted_randomization.
Apparently everyone has ALREADY forgotten that in 2002 probably 10% of Wikipedia articles were just copied from either the US Geographic Names Data Base or a federal agency web site on telecommunications. An article would say,
It was crazy, but the policy was that we were to work on and improve them. Now this article is nominated for deletion only because its initial version is copied from a (non-copyrighted) federal government web site. The article needs work, but it's nowhere near as bad as lots of others that survive. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The question needs to be asked: why exactly is this article not considered a copyright violation? The original site [14] doesn't have a clearly visible copyright notice, but I also can't see any explicit waiver of copyright or any statement giving permission for the content to be reproduced elsewhere. (I agree that we should have an article on this topic; I just want to understand this issues fully before I comment at the deletion discussion.) Jowa fan ( talk) 06:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As a result of this CfD discussion, 37 articles have Category:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal on their talk page. That's fine, but it is awkward how the category is stuck at the bottom of the page, where it will inevitably cause confusion to those adding comments in the last section. For example, click "edit" for the last section at Talk:Golden ratio and see that if you were adding a new comment, you should insert it above the "Category" line. Perhaps the category should be included as an option in {{ Maths rating}}? Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we make fonts in class="texhtml" look similar to ones used by user:Nageh/mathJax? Currently an article intermixing <math> and {{ math}} formatting, e.g. Quaternions and spatial rotation, looks patchy. The letter x shows an especially ugly contrast between the (default browser) "italic" and cursive fonts used in both texvc PNGs and mathJax. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians,
A contributor has put a theorem of his own in an article ( Expander graph). He exhibits formulas that are not referenced in any academic source. Despite what he's saying, it requires much more than "routine calculations" to reach his result.
There was an interpretation mistake of one of the sources that led to a mistake in his formulas. This mistake stayed in the article during one year and a half. I did not succeed in convincing him that was the very illustration of the dangers of doing original work.
He "fixed" the formulas, but I'm still not perfectly convinced that the new version is correct. And no one can tell, since the result is not in the sources.
I also had him to remove a definition that was not in the sources (this time with success).
I would your need help to let him understand that, if something is not in the sources, it has nothing to do on wikipedia.
Discussion is here: Talk:Expander graph#"Original research" template.
Thanks in advance, -- MathsPoetry ( talk) 07:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I realize the subject is quite technical, so I have provided an outline of the proof of my contradictor on Talk:Expander graph#Ylloh's proof. This should enable you to judge whether it is an immediate corollary or not. I tried to make the presentation as neutral as possible, and I only did my remarks about possible problems after the demonstration. Best, -- MathsPoetry ( talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some user is repeatedly vandalizing angle trisection in an attempt to insert links to his own webpage. (He has successfully managed to get such links included on a variety of other, non-math, pages; this appears to be the only purpose of the account.) If someone with appropriate powers could do something to prevent this, it would be wonderful. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The concerned editor has been indefinitely blocked, see User talk:WIKI-1-PIDEA#March 2012. — D.Lazard ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The project members may be interested in the article about Robin Williams and Steve Martin at the USA's Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI), which features e.g. William's ad-libbing about a math geek wishing "I want to bisect her angle". [15] Or not.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The pseudonymous mathematicians John Rainwater and Peter Orno were approved for the 2012 April Fools DYK in April 2011. John Rainwater's DYK should appear in a few hours. Peter Orno's DYK has been delayed. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need help with math merging. There is consensus at Talk:Partially ordered ring to merge in the page Ordered ring, but I don't know the math and have no idea how to do it. I was hoping that one of your math whizzes here could do that for Wiki. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This picture has been nominated as a featured picture here it has been pointed out that the picture has little or no encyclopaedic value in describing symmetry to the reader. I am wondering is that correct ? Some editors in the discussion don't think so. Penyulap ☏ 04:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In the page inflexion point it is said (in other words) that it is a point where a curve has a contact of odd order with its tangent. The name of a contact of even order higher than two is not given. In French, it is "méplat", but the article Meplat does not give this meaning. What is the correct English word?.
By the way, "flex" is frequently used instead of "inflexion point" and this is not mentioned in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Given the importance of this article, and it hasn't really improved since last posted my own suggestions for improvement on the talk page (to which no one has responded to, or even at all since then, recently archived by myself), I intend to just re-write most of the first half of the article.
There is plenty of repetition and it just dribbles on and on. All that's really needed it the general definition and a couple of concrete examples, followed by the properties. By no means will remove anything referenced or the image already included, though the first half only has one reference, I (and surley many others) have access to loads (and if ordinary multiplication is such a trivial concept, why aren’t there more anyway??).
The "too technical" banner has been there a long time also... about time this was sorted out. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Coons surface is a really messy new article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to edit the article as it is completely outside my area of expertise, but the recently added section on Fraser Stewart's PhD thesis reads to me like a shameless (self?-)promotion of a topic of marginal importance for this introductory article. Can someone knowledgeable have a look at it?— Emil J. 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning on nominating the pi article soon for Featured Article status. I'm looking for math-knowledgable editors to review the article for accuracy & prose quality .... just post any comments or ideas for improvement on the article's Talk page. The criteria for FA are at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Thanks in advance for any help. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed at least two group theory templates. There is the one at Abelian group and the one at group theory. They both have their strong points. The one without the picture is easier to navigate, and I like the last two items. On the other hand, the one with the picture is pretty neat, and pretty much subsumes the one without the picture. Should we think about merging or do we just use them haphazardly? Rschwieb ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking for help here about Saccheri quadrilateral. :)-- Nickanc ( talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent discussions at Talk:twice pi suggest that it may be helpful to have an explicit guideline to the effect that youtube videos and yellow media reports are not considered to be reliable sources for math-related articles. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Obvious target candidate: 2π in popular culture. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were some concrete way to address the issue of "yellow media". This is not the first time this issue has arisen in science-related articles of the media running some story of dubious scientific merit, simply because some scientist somewhere had said something. My favorite example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett, which was picked up as a viral news story because upon posting his idiotic ramblings to YouTube, Jacob Barnett's mother contacted an MIT physicist who encouraged Barnett to continue studying math and physics. The media spun this as "Boy genius challenges all of modern physics" or other such ridiculousness. The point is, as a rule news media should not be allowed as a reliable source for this sort of thing. The news is a reliable source for news (e.g., what Russia is doing at the moment), less so for all the other stuff presented as a sideshow to the news. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any particular plan, but what does anyone think of dumping materials from Stacks project [16]? (Apparently, there is no Wikipedia article on the project.) On the one hand, this is the quickest way to increase our coverage of scheme theory, and even more reliable (more reliable than some random graduate student.) On the other hand, ah..., there might be an issue like quality for instance. (The project is licensed under GFDL, which is compatible with Wikipedia. I know some people like/enjoy actual writing. But I'm more interested in the ends than the means. -- Taku ( talk) 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the materials I have in mind are statements of theorems and examples. -- Taku ( talk) 12:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several articles which explain the meaning and use of this notation:
yet the specialized notations of commas, semicolons, sqaure/round brackets (e.x. ) seem to be dispersed, so readers will have to search them out (even if linked) which is not much help. It would be convenient to add a list of all the attributes just as a summary in one place (in an obviously titled article - like abstract index notation so people will look there and its easier for editors to remember that link), then linking to all of the main articles from there.
proposed summary: |
---|
|
Reference which includes all of these: Gravitation, MTW, 1972, p.85-86, §3.5 . If no-one objects I'll add it to the end of abstract index notation (an alternative place would be tensor but there is a section which links to abstract index notation anyway...). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 09:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Btw., the historical name is Ricci calculus , see Schouten (1924) Der Ricci-Kalkül.-- LutzL ( talk) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The article does create the impression that the phrase Einstein notation is synonymous with Einstein summation convention, but it also seems possible that it is a broader term to describe the use of superscripts, subscripts etc. to index coefficients, plus potentially all the twiddles in your proposed summary; if this is the case, the Einstein summation convention would be merely one facet thereof. I would not be surprised if this article focuses primarily on the summation convention as a result of a misconception amongst WP editors. I am having difficulty googling references that authoritatively support either view. I would appreciate input from people with experience on this point. — Quondum ☏ 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały: So called 'abstract index notation' is for people who want to use index notation (because it is by far the most convenient way to express the ideas) while still pretending that they are not using index notation to manipulate arrays of numbers but instead some abstract notion of tensors which requires the use of "" and such. So it allows people to do algebraic manipulations with indices, but if you dare to try to figure out what it means by substituting actual numbers, then you are violating the arbitrary rules of 'abstract index notation'. What a load of s--t. JRSpriggs ( talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any major problem with such articles, as the topic itself is quite confusing and (some time ago) even controversial. But I see a minor problem, that the
tensor article does not explain the hierarchy of notations, i.e. which notation is related to which and how exactly. I think, WP ought to explain the following points:
Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand what is being proposed at all. Here is what I suggest:
Best, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały: With what aspect of "the notation" do you think my allegedly imperious viewpoint betrays a lack of basic familiarity? And I am not trying to impose my view on anyone; just stating the facts as I see them. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone inform me on policies delineating how many publications it is reasonable to list in an article on a living person? David Hestenes currently has 47. That seems kind of gratuitous to me, but again, I have no idea what the policies suggest. Rschwieb ( talk) 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that all of the geometric algebra stuff is a bit on the fringes ( WP:FRINGE), and the GA viewpoint is often pushed in articles where it is not really helpful, nor does it typically conform to WP:WEIGHT. Hestenes is certainly one who has made quite a cult industry out of appropriating the works of others and rebranding them under the rubric of "geometric algebra", and for that he is certainly notable. But his notability as a legitimate physics researcher is dubious at best. I think the lack of secondary sources definitely bears this out. Indeed, as do the (exclusively primary) sources referenced in the article: for instance, the "long series of papers" referenced in the article includes many papers of dubious scientific merit (for instance those published in the American Journal of Physics, which is apparently not a research journal). I would suggest removing everything in that article that cannot be attributed to reliable secondary sources, including the long publication list of debatable worth. The most relevant policies here are WP:PSTS and WP:BLP, although if push comes to shove other policies are also relevant. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I think generally, a bio should contain no list of published papers. In almost all cases it is better to provide an external link to either: 1)a Bibliography by the author himself. 2)A search of any appropriate indexing service providing a list of all published works. The only reason to really deviate from this, is if the published work is in itself notable (but possibly not notable enough for its own article) or if the published work is important for establishing the notability of the subject. T R 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The pi article is in need of a peer reviewer at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pi/archive2. The reviewer should be someone familiar with FA criteria. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Viscous vortex domains method is a very new, quite short, article that needs might benefit from expansion after a quick look-over by someone vaguely familiar with mathematics & mechanics (or your local variant of such concepts...) and then the "new unreviewed article" template removing. I'm informed that it's half physics and half mathematics (don't they overlap still?) so I'll post at the Physics project as well if I get time. Many thanks! --
Demiurge1000 (
talk) 21:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
User 777sms ( talk · contribs) has been going through all our articles systematically changing the "planetmath" template to the "PlanetMath attribution" template. This introduces an implication that we have actually borrowed material in those articles from Planet Math where no such implication was previously present. While that may be appropriate in some cases, I suspect that there are many other cases where we have not borrowed from them, but merely wanted to make another source available to the user. What, if anything, should we do about this? JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Note [19]. This probably explains most of the edits, and is a good idea. (But this editor really has to use edit summaries to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. But he positively refuses to do so.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to make sure I've understood correctly: the old "Planetmath" template has been renamed to {{ PlanetMath attribution}}, and the other edits consist of pointing things to the renamed template? Jowa fan ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiliagon and give your opinions. Double sharp ( talk) 03:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This incident might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
— Wavelength ( talk) 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check out what I've said at Talk:Elliptic integral#possible error in formula for complete elliptic integral of the first kind at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_integral that I'm not making a complete something else thanks. It has long been a bit confused and it would be nice to fix it all up properly. Dmcq ( talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The notice above is being circulated to various WikiProjects, but AFAIK hasn't appeared here yet. What do people think of this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I went to the HighBeam web site, where I have no account, and I was able to do some searches, but the difference between having and not having an account was that I could read only the beginnings of the articles I found. I entered " Karlis Kaufmanis" and found a few things, but not much beyond what I'd already found elsewhere. (I created the article about him recently and have found a dearth of information to expand the article.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I got an account as well. It's overall use for math is somewhat limited but still it can be useful in particular for those who do not have access to journal archives like JSTOR or others. Afaik there are still account available since not all 1000 accounts were used up in the original application period.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit war with some IPs at vector space regarding the example of complex numbers. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Input would be helpful in the pi Talk page regarding how much mention, if any, should be made in the pi article about the proposed alternate constant tau = 2*pi. The discussion is at Talk:Pi#tau_material.3F. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I started editing these articles because of "orphaned article" message on the article " Budan's theorem" that my students and I have worked on for the past month. My function was to fine-tune the article at the end.
I am astonished that the author of the Sturm article claims that Sturm's method is available "in every computer algebra system". That is simply not true; he admits as much by claiming, in his other article on root finding algorithms, that maple uses the Vincent-Collins-Akritas method as the default method! Add to this Mathematica, which always had the VAS algorithm, (S works for Mathematica), Sage also, etc etc ... and you get the degree of accuracy of his statement.
Besides, Sturm's method is to be compared with other methods, like VCA and VAS; why does he not want this comparison? I believe that Lazard (whom I have never met or interacted with in the past) is the one who tries to impose HIS limited point of view on the readers. Besides, (assuming good intentions) his knowledge of English did not allow him to differentiate (in the article on root finding algorithms) between "Uspensky's method" and "modified Uspensky's method" and he used the first thinking the two expressions are interchangeable.
Also, on Sturm's theorem he talks about bounds and the only one that came to his mind was what he calls Cauchy's bound; Cauchy gave a bound ONLY on the positive roots and NOT on the absolute value of the roots. The mathematicians of the 19th century knew better. See Bourdon's algebra.
In summary, I have only ADDED material to the above mentioned articles and DID NOT ERASE anything Lazard wrote. I expect the same courtesy from him as well. He got his point of view and I have mine and I think both need to be taken into consideration. But we both have to write accuracies. So, I expect Sturm's method to be reverted to the previous version where I was saying that Sturm's method was used by "everybody until about 1980 --- when it was replaced by methods derived from Vincent's theorem", along with the supporting references.
And I close with the following: If Lazard does not like anything on the Budan article he should say so and explain the reason he does not like it. Saying that the article is "... entirely devoted to the personal views of Akritas on the history of mathematics" proves nothing; he should tell us his own views -- if he has any. My views have already been judged by peers.
Alkis Akritas2 ( talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Response to LutzL: Uspensky did not eliminate the "... continued fraction part for an easier complexity result". Both Vincent's method AND Uspensky's implementation of Vincent's theorem use continued fractions and are BOTH exponential in nature; in fact, Uspensky's is twice more exponential because he doubles the work done by Vincent. See Budan's thorem and Vincent's figure right above it to get a clear picture. What I did was to make Vincent's exponential method polynomial in time. To prove it, back in 1978, I had made some plausible assumption, but in 2008 Sharma proved it without any assumptions whatsoever. Akritas2 ( talk) 11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Theorems in Galois theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Akritas2 has recently edited Sturm's theorem and Root-finding algorithm in order to add references to his publications and introduce his personal point of view on the subject. I have reverted his edits per wp:COI, wp: NPOV wp:OR and lacking of secondary sources. He has reverted my reverts. I may not revert again, because, knowing personally the guy, I am sure this will lead immediately to an edit war. For the same reason, I cannot discuss constructively with him. Could someone look at this problem?
He has also created Budan's theorem, a page which deserve some attention.
D.Lazard ( talk) 15:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? Please comment here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well planet math is community wiki without any read editorial by noted experts but just by the community at large (like WP), hence it is normally not suited as a source. However it is still sometimes or even often well suited to listed under external links.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We have a persistent single-purpose account active on Double exponential function who has been adding material which is somewhat relevant but in (what I feel is) an unencyclopedic style that unbalances the article, and has shown no attempt to engage other editors on the subject. More eyes on it would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is just to inform you that MediaWiki version 1.20wmf1 has just been deployed, but its TeX output is broken, unfortunately. In particular, this means that you will see a lot of "Misplaced &" errors or spurious "&"s in MathJax. Nageh ( talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
When trying to get a quick overview of a topic in mathematics, a reader sometimes encounters a barrier with the inability to quickly determine what an operator symbol means. As a (maybe too easy) example, consider the following extracts from the article Chain rule:
Please note, I am not alleging that anything is wrong with the chain rule article. However, for someone who is not familiar with the use of to denote function composition, there might be three reasons for initial confusion:
If had been a word instead of a symbol, its initial use would have carried a link to an article about the symbol. But we do not (as far as I know) have a way to turn a symbol into a link, as in [[]], which does not work.
What is the best practice for an article-writer (or editor) to use when an operator definition is needed? Is there a nice way to add a footnote-style link to an operator?
Incidentally, the problem usually arises for symbols less familiar than . For example, what is the definition of . . . and how would I best make that definition available to a reader? Dratman ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please could a knowledgeable member of this project take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlitz exponential and let us know weather it is notable and accurate? I'm a mathematical dunce and would appreciate some expert input into this submission's suitability. Pol430 talk to me 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctica Journal of Mathematics. -- 202.124.74.240 ( talk) 11:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Kernel (mathematics) has been tagged as a disambiguation page, but it runs afoul of WP:INCOMPDAB and in accordance with that policy is likely to be merged/redirected into Kernel (disambiguation)#Mathematics; furthermore, in accordance with WP:MOSDAB, most of the information will be stripped, except for one blue link per line and the minimum amount of information needed to direct a searcher to the most appropriate article for a given meaning. Since the page has 60 incoming links, it is likely that dozens of disambiguators will be drawn to this page, and will edit it to implement those guidelines, either by drastically culling its content, or by redirecting it to the existing section at Kernel (disambiguation). However, it would be a shame to lose all the work that has been put into this page, so perhaps some other formulation can be arrived at where it is not tagged as a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Two-way analysis of variance is an article that needs a lot of work. Probably more than one person can do in one day. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone else having problems viewing maths text? All <math>...</math> strings are being displayed as $...$ with the LaTeX code being shown explicitly. — Fly by Night ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, when is Wikipedia finally going to switch to MathJax? It has been working for me flawlessly for quite some time now (except all the text art in italic and bold with html super/subscripts instead of math looks bad in comparison - as it should), but when I arrive to a Wikipedia link without being logged in, I still see the legacy math rendering as images. Jmath666 ( talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Per bugzilla:31406#c24, the experimental MathJax option is now available on your preferences. In case anyone find some other bug which was not reported yet (see this list), please report it directly on bugzilla. Helder 16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I added the following to the FAQ at the top of this page following what seemed to be a favorable discussion last month: "Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues? A.: Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable. Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided." This was promptly deleted by a tauist. It would be useful to put on the record a WPM opposition to such dubious sources. Tkuvho ( talk) 11:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The background for this dispute concerns the recent controversy over the article Talk:Tau (2π). In my opinion, Waldir and others were attempting to use mainstream media to establish the notability of the concept, and then attempting to use those same sources to write an article that purported to be about a serious mathematical phenomenon. It seems clear to me that if this kind of bait-and-switch can be construed as permitted under our policies, then someone needs to take a hard look at those policies and see where they need to be clarified. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that comments in this discussion still ignore the point that some YouTube videos are indeed reliable. As Kmhkmh said, YouTube is primarily a distribution channel, and we should probably do better than say "all content on YouTube is unreliable". For example, there was a minor claim at Raptor code, which I knew was true but was tagged with {{ dubious}}, and the only (but reliable) source I could find on this was a talk given by the primary inventor at a university, which recorded his talk and put it on YouTube. But maybe this is just an exception to the rule, not worthy of further mention? Nageh ( talk) 11:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Today, Wackywill1001 ( talk · contribs) created Category:E (mathematical constant) as a subcategory of Category:Mathematical constants. Yet it contains articles which are not about mathematical constants and only incidentally about e. JRSpriggs ( talk) 15:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled xdvi. It's still quite stubby. Have fun improving and extending it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the article Evaluating sums to see if I could improve it, but I think I've decided that it's hopeless: the title subject is so over-broad that there's no possible way to give a comprehensive encyclopedic treatment, while the article as written might be better titled methods of computing certain numerical series known to bright high school students. And, of course, all of the content is included in articles like arithmetic progression and Taylor series, where it has appropriate context. I don't care enough about this to learn how to go about proposing articles for deletion, but perhaps someone who agrees might go about it. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The section Computer program of the article Look-and-say sequence consists of code in Python and Javascript to generate the sequence that is the subject of the article. Is it usual practice to have such code in Wikipedia articles? (By the way, if anyone had any reliable sources for the section on "pea pattern", that would be wonderful.) -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 00:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a new List of things named after Charles Hermite. Work on it! Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Double sharp and I were discussing earlier about the coverage of uniform and pseudo-uniform polyhedra on Wikipedia. In fact, we've just started work on a few articles. (The main discussion is on my talk page, though I am not really that active in it.) Please help out!
Thanks,
Your old friend, "The Doctahedron" 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the Bachmann who wrote this paper Paul Gustav Heinrich Bachmann? My guess is yes, but I am not sure how to confirm it. The paper does not give his full name. I need to know this, because I want to wikilink him in an article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm good at math but not this good. The article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eilenberg-Ganea theorem was not moved to article space because of concerns with inline citations. While I agree that the concerns exist, the article appears to be ready for the article space as long as {{ More footnotes}} is added. Can someone who might actually know what they are talking about take a look at it to see if it is able to be moved? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Some aspects of the article pretty thoroughly violated WP:MOSMATH, and to a lesser extent WP:MOS, but I've fixed those. (Apparently someone thought everything in non- TeX math notation should be indiscriminately italicized, including even parentheses and digits, etc., and wrote \text{sup} instead of \sup, and various other things like that. In fact, some things on the same line where "\text{sup}" appeared didn't use \text where \text was appropriate and artificially added spacing between words.) There was also a mathematical thing that didn't make sense: "" appeared. Where appears, I expect "". Finally I thought what was probably meant was "" was probably meant, and I changed it to that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it appropriate in Portal:Logic/Selected article/3? It certainly is not appropriate in any of the articles to which Greg has added it over time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdy's Exchanger. Magdy's Exchanger appears to be original research by Ahmed Magdy Hosny ( talk · contribs). JRSpriggs ( talk) 23:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the reason for the Wikify tag on the article Electrodynamic tether. I have no idea how to do that, and I don't know if other editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify do either. Can someone here try to make those improvements? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Easy question to answer I'm sure, I just can't seem to find the answer. We prefer to write "[[homomorphic image]]s" to "[[homomorphic image|homomorphic images]]", right? I mean that we prefer to put the s outside the linking rather than require using the pipe. Rschwieb ( talk) 12:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Plurals and other derived names. When forming plurals, you can do so thus:
[[apple]]s
which includes the final "s" in the link like this: apples. This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text than[[apple|apples]]
. This works not just for "s", but for any words that consist of an article name and some additional letters. For details, see Help:Link. (This does not work for affixes beginning with hyphens, apostrophes, or capital letters.)
Piping and redirects. Per § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. For example, let's assume the page A Dirge for Sabis is a redirect to the page The Sword of Knowledge, and while you're editing some other article, you want to add a link to A Dirge for Sabis. You may be tempted to avoid the redirect by directly linking to it with a pipe like this:
[[The Sword of Knowledge|A Dirge for Sabis]]
. Instead, write simply[[A Dirge for Sabis]]
and let the system handle the rest. This has the added advantage that if an article is written later about the more specific subject (in this case, A Dirge for Sabis), fewer links will need to be changed to accommodate for the new article.
My recent edit in absolute value has been reverted and the summary of the reversion links to Wolfram research and Weisstein as source. I agree that sourcing to Weisstein is frequently easy. But it is a commercial ressource, which is not peer reviewed. Is it correct to use it as authoritative source? D.Lazard ( talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Additional eyes at absolute value are needed. There is an editor keen on adding several sections of original research, including the one sourced entirely to Wolfram Alpha. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
KlappCK (
talk ·
contribs)
insists that
some of his edits were valid. I am convinced that the sense of an article has higher priority than formatting, and (basic correctness of) formatting has a priority over tweaks such as replacement of \frac
with \tfrac
. If one apparently degrade the sense of an article, other users should not hesitate to summarily remove all tweaks to restore the correct sense. I do not object against KlappCK's formatting tweaks, although a user who easily disrupts a complicated content and
starts edit wars over an OR section cannot enjoy my personal trust.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 07:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please check the validity of this edit? — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The Kronecker delta article seems unsure of its subject's identity. Please discuss at Talk:Kronecker delta#Clarification: is the Kronecker delta a function, or "notational shorthand"?. -- TSchwenn ( talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Pantriagdiag magic cube ( AfD discussion) article is currently listed for deletion. Other articles in the same vein are diagonal magic cube, pantriagonal magic cube, pandiagonal magic cube, and perfect magic cube. I observe that we seem to have a bit of a problem with magic cube classification. I refer you to the second sentence of magic cube classes, whose boldface is in the article itself:
This new system is more precise in defining magic cubes.
The new system, it turns out, is the invention of Harvey Heinz ( talk · contribs), who put up his new system on two sets of WWW pages and in a self-published book (Harvey D. Heinz Publishing), and who came to Wikipedia and wrote all of these "-agonal" articles, the magic cube classes article, and also the perfect magic cube#An alternative definition section of the perfect magic cube article. Wikipedia seems to be presenting an acknowledged idiosyncratic and novel classification of this subject.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of scientific constants named after people includes a section on mathematical constants. The mathematical and physical parts should each be a hundred times as long as it is. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to resurrect Template:WikiProject Mathematics. It is no longer used. Template:Maths rating is used instead. I think it is nice to be consistent with other wikiprojects. Makes the housekeeping easier. Is there WP-wide guidelines on this sort of thing? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs)
I wonder what you guys think about this template deletion at Category:Logic. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Our coverage of power spectrum estimation ( spectral density estimation) seems very weak, with very little bringing together or contrasting the different methods, or giving historical perspective. Indeed, most articles looking for a signal processing treatment of the subject appear to have been being redirected to spectrum analyzer, about a hardware box with very little discussion of algorithms usually used in pure-software methods.
In particular, there is very little discussion of all-poles versus all-zeros methods. There appears to be nothing at all about John Parker Burg or the Burg algorithm. We have quite a detailed article on the Levinson recursion, but nothing to say that this is perhaps its most important application. Linear predictive coding appears to exist in a silo of its own, without even a link to ARMA modelling; while in turn the article on ARMA models doesn't appear to mention power spectrum estimation at all. Autoregressive model is a bit better, but doesn't give any sense how a pure AR fit is likely to compare to other fits.
It probably doesn't help that spectral analysis goes to a dab page, and the top link spectrum analysis that probably ought to be merged into spectroscopy.
This is very poor. Given the importance of this topic in signal processing and applications, we ought to be able to match at minimum the level of discussion in Numerical Recipes at least. But at the moment we're way short. Anybody out there willing to step up to the plate? Jheald ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The following footnote at Colin Maclaurin is sourced at a personal page at the university of rochester:
I wonder if it is the optimal source for the information. Tkuvho ( talk) 08:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The Canisius College link is broken 2013-05-01
The page Finitely generated projective module has been created recently. IMO, this is a redundant content fork and this page has to be merged into Projective module. I have started a discussion in Talk:Finitely generated projective module and the author of the article disagrees. Please comment there. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — (Links corrected after reading next post. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC) )
The article on Bell's theorem has been hijacked by crackpot Joy Christian and his cronies. Any attempt to remove references to Christian's discredited work (not published in any peer-reviewed journa, and shown o be fundamentally flawed by a long list of authorities in the fieldl) is immediately "undone" by Christian himself or his supporter Fred Diether. Conflict of Interest!
But if nobody cares about this article better to leave it to the crackpots. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Richard Gill called me “crackpot Joy Christian.” I wonder what his criterion of crackpot is. I let the readers judge for themselves. Here are my credentials: Dr. Joy Christian obtained his Ph.D. from Boston University in Foundations of Quantum Theory in 1991 under the supervision of the renowned philosopher and physicist Professor Abner Shimony (the “S” in Bell-CHSH-inequality). He then received a Research Fellowship from the Wolfson College of the University of Oxford, where he has remained affiliated both with the college and a number of departments of the university. He is an invited member of the prestigious Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi), and has been a Long Term Visitor of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada. He is well known for his contributions to the foundations of quantum and gravitational physics, including quantization of Newton-Cartan theory of gravity, generalization of Special Theory of Relativity to incorporate the objective passage of time, and elimination of non-locality from the foundations of quantum physics. A partial list of his publications can be found here: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Christian_Joy/0/1/0/all/0/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the paper in question, "Disproof of Bell's Theorem", http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v1.pdf , is published in my peer-reviewed book, http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599425645, and is widely discussed on the Internet. My work has also been cited in several *published* articles, at least two of them in the Physical Review (not to mention its citations in some lesser known journals). I have given invited talks about my work on several occasions during the past five years. The book itself is only just published, and citations to it will undoubtedly follow in due course. On the other hand ALL of Richard Gill’s misguided, erroneous, and unpublished arguments against my work have been comprehensively debunked, many times over, not only by me but also by several other knowledgeable people on the FQXi blogs. I myself have given a systematic refutation of his misguided arguments in the following two papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876 -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: My book IS peer-reviewed. My work IS cited and discussed in Physical Review and other journals, and NOT as negatively as you are trying to suggest. You have no proof of what you are claiming. You are clearly biased.
On a different note, I urge the Wikipedia community to remove Richard Gill’s slanderous name claiming from his post above. As you can judge from my qualifications I listed above, his name calling has no justification whatsoever. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk • contribs)
@Arthur Rubin: My book *IS* peer-reviewed. There are also people who call me a genius; so perhaps you should refer me as a “so-called genius.” -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Boris, I respectfully disagree (if I understand you correctly). Bell claimed that no functions of the form A(a, L) = +/-1 and B(b, L) = +/-1 can reproduce correlations of the form E(a, b) = -a.b. “This is the theorem” (his exact words). What Bell did not realize is that this claim is true if and only if the co-domain of the functions A(a, L) and B(b, L) is NOT a unit parallelized 3-sphere, S^3. My one-page paper shows an explicit construction of the fact that when the co-domain of A(a, L) and B(b, L) is taken to be S^3, the correlations are inevitably E(a, b) = -a.b. I urge you to have a look at this longer paper to see my compete argument: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775 . Thanks. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is clear that we should not cite Joy Christian's self-published work ( WP:SELFPUB). There has been a long tradition of criticism of Bell's theorem from the fringes of physics. If mention of this is to be included in the article, it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source documenting such criticism and the replies of the scientific mainstream ( WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS). Otherwise, including criticisms sourced to the primary literature is considered to be original research, and is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Bell's_theorem#Seeking_consensus_to_exclude_the_disproof_of_Bell.27s_theorem will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I urge the Wikipedia community to remove Richard Gill’s slanderous name claiming from his post above. As you can judge from my qualifications I listed above, his name calling has no justification whatsoever. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 06:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall http://betterexplained.com/archives/ being discussed in this space so I would like to raise the issue of whether this is a reliable source. Also, would it be appropriate to cite it in a footnote in the lede of an article. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a known issue, but there seem to be some inconsistencies in the way the Wikimedia parser processes TeX and MathJax. Consider <math>a<b</math>:
versus <math>a\lt b</math>
If MathJax is enabled, the first equation does not display correctly but the second one does. If "Render as PNG" is enabled the first equation displays correctly, and the second generates a parse error "Failed to parse (unknown function\lt)". This seems to be quite bad, since half of users will see one or the other of the two errors! Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the fact that MathJax is "still experimental", I don't think the preferences page should also say that it is "recommended for most browsers". These two directives seem to be incongruous. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray.
Is this person notable?
Are the news media's claims about him true or merely sensationalist exaggerations that help sell newspapers?
Opine at the page linked to above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised that we had no article on Lester Dubins. I've just created one. It needs further work, both within the article itself and in other articles that ought to link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The pi article has been nominated for Featured Article status. If successful, this will be the ninth Top-priority FA article for the Mathematics project. Editors familiar with the FA criteria are welcome to provide input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I would appreciate if a few people could lend their expertise over at the nomination page, even if it is just to confirm that one little section is not a piece of nonsense. I am just concerned about the little things, the off emphasis here, the obscure odd fact inserted there, that have a way of getting into even (or especially?) meticulously-researched articles, and that bespeak inexpertness. For example, detailed discussions of π's relationship to the Mandelbrot set fractal and the sinuosity of a meandering river (which are above my head) appear in the middle of other content, like a discussion of Euler's identity (the importance of which even I can understand) or the Fourier transform (which I have at least heard of). It just strikes me as a little fishy, though for all I know the article is perfectly well balanced. Which is why I'm asking for some help. Thanks! Leonxlin ( talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Pi has passed its nomination! Leonxlin ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Did I do something wrong/incomplete? I use Firefox 12.0 (enabled Java & Javascript) on Linux as my browser but sometimes/often mathematical formulae are not or are wrongly displayed. E. g. in the page [24] in the table-style of all these matrices there appears a literal "amp;" for the column separator, or in section "Classification", subsection "Elliptic transforms" the formula "0 \le \mbox{tr}^2\mathfrak{H} < 4.\," is not interpreted at all - it is displayed rawly! (This is the first formula in this article , several follow, but the formulae before seem to be displayed correctly). Thanks in advance for any useful help. Achim1999 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I added Poincare's original definition of a differentiable manifold at Manifold#Poincar.C3.A9.27s_original_definition. Poincare defined a manifold as a subset of euclidean space which is locally a graph (see details there). This definition is arguably more accessible to a general reader than the more abstract definition involving atlases, charts, and transition functions. The lede could profit from focusing on the subset-of-R^n definition instead of the abstract definition. However, another editor feels that the reader does not need the crutch of Euclidean space to understand the concept of a manifold, and my changes to the lede were repeatedly reverted. Which definition should the lede be based on? Tkuvho ( talk) 11:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not like the definition through graphs of functions, because it is less intuitive (at least for me) and it uses implicitly the implicit function theorem, which is far of being trivial (it is needed to show that a circle, defined as usual by its implicit equation, is a manifold). On the other hand, I do not like either the use of "scale" in the first sentence of the graph, because it appears in neither formal definition. Thus, I propose for the first sentence: "In mathematics (specifically in geometry and topology), a manifold is a mathematical object that, near each point of it, looks like Euclidean space". This has the advantage to be very close to the definition by charts (except that nothing is said on the transition maps, which are needed only for technical reasons). In fact the definition by charts and atlas is simply a formalization of this informal definition. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think the lead is perfect at present. In fact, it seems to be worse than the version from three years ago. I'd like to discuss possibly bringing back this earlier revision of the lead. In any event, I don't think it is a good idea to emphasize Poincare's original definition of manifold. Not many sources do this, and at least the motivational examples section of the article would need to be rewritten from this point of view. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
May I point out that this whole discussion should be taking place at talk:manifold, not here. T R 12:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The List of scientific constants named after people may not be notable, according to a recent tag put at the top of the article. Apparently what is needed is a literature citation showing that the topic of scientific concepts named after people has received attention from the authors of refereed publications. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I've cited a scholarly source and deleted the "notability" tag. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
After barely glancing at the new article titled Probabilistic-Complexity Theory, I'm already getting suspicious of it. Wikipedia-newbieisms are not a reason for suspicion of anything but Wikipedia-newbieism, but what is the state of mind of someone who writes a paragraph that starts like this?:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In the context in which I read the sentence, "As of now, research is still being done on this theory" seemed to mean that when research is no longer being done, it's perfect. As if the writer were unaware of the fact that fields in which research is being done are considered to be of greater interest than those in which it's not. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm Polynomiography is a valid, notable topic? The question arises after discussions at Talk:Fractal art#Dr. Bahman Kalantari about claims that Kalantari is the inventor of fractals not Benoît Mandelbrot. Input by mathematically minded individuals on the topic would be appreciated. - Shiftchange ( talk) 03:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See here. I have enough understanding to start this article, and did so for reasons in the link, but still no expert (yet) so if anyone who can add extend its scope - please do. You have my many thanks. =)
F =
q(E+v×B)
⇄ ∑ici 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
These templates are currently in the database as unused: for ⟨ see p.6 no 5579 and for ⟩ see p.9 no 8935. Recently after reworking them (and wasting a silly amount of time messing around with aligning things, which shouldn't have happened), I added them to ⟨|⟩.
Aesthetically they look ok (sort of), but the concern is they may cause spacing irritations, due to the glyphs in the template (but these are the closest ones matching angular brackets).
What do others think? Any objections to usage? WikiProject Physics has been notified. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Parity of zero explains why zero is even in an easy-to-read format that I just don't see in other articles, namely Riemann hypothesis. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The featured article has become subject to an (almost) edit war and imho some at partially questionable edits. Hence some 3rd opinions and watchful eyes are needed and appreciated.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
While we are at it, Diophantine approximation may also need a watchful eye. Achim has added a lot of interesting content, but it could do with some copy editing.— Emil J. 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
What do we think of http://www.jdabbs.com/brubeck/? The author is currently asking for feedback here: http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/v3y40/introducing_brubeck_an_open_searchable_database/
As a dedicated database, it supports capabilities that a general-purpose wiki like Wikipedia doesn't, including a kind of automated theorem proving. I'm thinking that our articles should link to matching Brubeck entries in the External links section. For example, Knaster–Kuratowski fan should link to http://www.jdabbs.com/brubeck/spaces/cantors-teepee/. But before I create a template in Category:Mathematics source templates and start adding it to articles, I wanted to ask: does anyone object? Melchoir ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have come across {{ Infobox conic section}}, and thought perhaps you folks might like it. The infobox is currently not used on any articles. If you don't want it, it can probably be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed there are very few references to literature in mathematics articles. Is this because mathematics can be easily checked for correctness without consulting literature? When should I consider adding references when adding new content? Lennartack ( talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the article Fermat's little theorem and saw an example of a pet peeve of mine: In the "generalizations" section is the formula
A lot of people who know what is intended by "divisible" have never been exposed to logical or set theory notation, much less have any idea what is supposed to mean. It is, IMO, much better to say "for any integer a ...." or even "for any integer a (positive, negative, or zero) ..."
Virginia-American ( talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have access to the book Prime Curios!: The Dictionary of Prime Number Trivia based on the prime curios website could you check it actually includes the coincidences mentioned in Talk:Mathematical coincidence#Prime curios please in the diff putting in 999779999159200499899 and some business about changing from bases 2 and 3 to base 10. Thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Some doubt has been cast over the validity of the redirect Zinbiel algebra. Views from experts would be welcome. South Jutland County ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that I will need help in a project I am about to undertake. Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance). What bothers me isn't that editors would use this word but that they react with hostility when I attempt to change it - some people feel like they "own the article".
The first resistance I met was in the Y2K article: [26]. One of them suggested that I use "exactly divisible" which is not preferred but I am prepared to compromise this way. I also got reverted on Fermat's Little Theorem [27]. This article relates to number theory so I will not compromise here. Since I am talking to other mathematicians (I hope), maybe some of you could weigh in on the edit wars I post here. Connor Behan ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, a good way to avoid any ambiguity could be to replace "be divisible by" by "be a multiple of". Personally, I find that "year multiple of 100" sounds better than "year divisible by 100", together with avoiding any ambiguity. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"Multiple of" has the same problem as "divisible"; a non-mathematician might think it could be a non-integer multiple. This could be a particular problem in calendar-related articles, because there are a lot of cranks running around in that subject area who are pushing some version of calendar reform, or pushing some calendar on religious grounds. Such cranks like to seize on ambiguities, both by making arguments within Wikipedia, and basing arguments in other fora on Wikipedia articles. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think D. Lazard's suggestion to use (integer) multiple is good. Another possiblity is a footnote that says *here, and generally in number theory, "divisible" means "divisible without a remainder".
I don't have a source in front of me, but IIRC Richard Feynmann said (paraphrasing) "of course, 5 is divisible by 2." If someone is unfamilar with number theory and its conventions, restricting numbers to be integers may take a bit of getting used to.
In the original post, Connor Behan said
... Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance).
I disagree. Calling 1 prime is unambiguously wrong (even though Gauss did so sometimes). Saying "exactly" or "evenly divisible", or "divisible without a remainder", or "an (integer) multiple" of is at worst a bit wordy, and may be clearer to Wikipedia's intended audience. Saying "exactly divisible" the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest to me.
Virginia-American ( talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "exactly divisible" is an improvement over "evenly divisible". A person who hasn't been trained to think that "divisible" applies the quotient of two integers is an integer may think "exactly divisible" means the result is a rational number as opposed to an irrational number.
Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four.
Input from editors who describe themselves as able to contribute to Wikipedia with an intermediate level of proficiency in English, like D.Lazard, is quite helpful. I hope there will be comments from editors who are native speakers of a few different varieties of English, and who attended elementary schools during different decades. Most of us learned such basic words in elementary schools, but those schools have a nasty habit of introducing new terminology to new generations. (I never heard of cursive writing while I was in school, even though I learned to do it. Now the converse is becoming true; they're taught the word "cursive" but not how to do it.)
As for the example "Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four", neither Julian nor Gregorian calendar years, whether common or leap, can be divided into four quarters each of which contains the same number of whole days. So I don't understand the purpose of the example. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I've started to organize the List of permutation topics into sections.
So far,
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's how the table of contents looks so far:
126 items are currently in the list, by my quick count. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember hearing that somewhere in the number that a whole bunch of 8s show up either together or in a pattern. If this is not a myth would it be worth adding to the Chronology of computation of π page?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Some more eyes on the current goings-on at Bell's theorem would be appreciated. An editor there is insistent on rewriting the nutshell version of the theorem in the lead to one that is, in my mind, much less clear than what used to be there. An attempt has been made to engage the editor on the discussion page, but it has failed to attract sufficient interest. The editor in question is (apparently) convinced that, since there are two editors on the discussion page defending the old (consensus) revision, and one editor (himself) defending the new edit, that gives him the mandate to implement his edit. I've reverted him several times already, with edit summaries indicating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, as well as menitioning these on the discussion page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 ( talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Our Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process article currently begins like this:
Does "friction" make sense? The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process is supposed to tend to return to its mean. Friction doesn't do that; it only retards motion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
People may think of " tensor calculus" as the content of tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but this is a redirect to the main article on tensors. I would prefer to redirect to tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but including both in a disambiguation page would also be ok (maybe better?). Opinions? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made the List of partition topics into a somewhat more organized article than it was. More work could be done. Possibly the section on set partitions could be further subdivided. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in Invariant interval and is easily contained within spacetime or (my rewrite of) Line element. If there are no objections - I will merge. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried to build up the article Diophantine approximation starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly User:D.Lazard sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-( I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in Golden ratio and Line (geometry).
IMO Diophantine approximation needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure WP:OR and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a due weight to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/b2 to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/b2+ε for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).
I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, that I am not willing to do alone. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This may already be common knowledge, but a fellow librarian drew my attention to the AMS's History of Mathematics: A Century of Mathematics in America set which they have made available free online -- could be a useful resource for referencing some of the history of math/mathematician articles! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits to mathematics pages by 32.173.153.198 are puzzling. They introduce some subtle errors; most of them have already been reverted. I'd like to assume good faith here, but I think it's important to watch any further edits from that address. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Check the edit I just reverted on Fundamental theorem of arithmetic by some guy calling himself Shrohaneinstein. I don't know if it's vandalism or stupidity, nor do I know if it's 32.173.153.198 or 24.18.247.140. - Virginia-American ( talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article Fernando Revilla has the interesting sentence "In this lecture [by Fernando Revilla], it is proven that dynamic processes assocciated with natural number characterize the Goldbach's conjecture, a characterization which is lost in an instant of time, obtaining a temporal singularity." This suggests that the article may need some attention. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is that article? Should it be trimmed and the non-obvious parts moved to bicomplex number. I know the article is old, but is there any evidence the term is actually used? I would rather not propose a merge tag before I understand what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was browsing WP:VITAL, and saw that Area is only start class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this most important mathematical article up to GA status?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning a backlog of old merge proposals, and one of the oldest was for this article: Talk:Gödel–Gentzen_negative_translation which was proposed to be merged with Glivenko's_theorem and renamed to Double-negation translation. The consensus was to merge, so I closed the discussion and asked the involved editors to perform the merge because my math skills are too rusty to safely do this merge; since they may no longer be active, I'm also asking here if someone who understands the math can do the merge correctly. Thanks. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been struggling with trying to understand the Hodge dual article for a while. To be honest, I didn't get anything from it at all. I found an on-line text that explained it in a, to me at least, much more natural way. (It actually motivated the definition!) I've added a section to the article: Hodge_dual#Explanation, to hopefully add that extra clarity which I found useful. But I'm no expert and would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Cheers. — Fly by Night ( talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Relying on Hodge dual#Derivatives in three dimensions which says
it seems to me that the coefficients are the components of a covariant vector and thus dx, dy, and dz are the basis of a covector space (the dual space of the tangent space (vectors) of the manifold at the relevant event). So it seems to me that the W of Hodge dual#Explanation should be a covector space rather than a vector space. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that the added explanation refers to dual spaces unnecessarily. Tevian Dray (1999) The Hodge Dual Operator has a very similar "abstract definition" (at least its symbol choice overlaps), and it makes no use of the dual space (not counting the metric) thoughout the paper. To avoid confusion, I too agree that the Hodge dual applies to any vector space (with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form). — Quondum ☏ 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding a very poorly conceived section to Fano plane; I've tried to engage User:Nicolae-boicu on the talk page on how to improve the section to make it acceptable, but the editor is being evasive. (Also, someone interested in this sort of procedural detail could probably find a WP:3RR violation there somewhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since two points determine a line, after labeling any two points in the Fano plane another point is settled. The relabeling liberty for the rest of the four remaining points is described by the Klein Group.
The Maple permutation group for Fano plane is 7T5.
The e.g.f. is
hence there are 30 ways to label the plane. Here 6 represents the six distinct ways of labeling the affine (Klein) corresponding plane.
Dear Ed, I have already answered to 5/7 "accusations" points. It remains the below two ones. Please be careful and read the talk before clicking an irreversible button. Thank you.
• it is poorly formatted (e.g., the use of "." instead of "\cdot" for multiplication in LaTeX, the unexplained bold text) • the language could use polishing
Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: where is this cryptic notation (Fano"=X.Klein etc) used? It's certainly not notable enough to be used in articles to explain things. Rschwieb ( talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I continued to work on my section following the expressed requierements. I have now a new form that I cannot imagine how to improve without kidnapp the subject. Thank you all for remarks and your time. The actual variant is on my page. Dear Matt, the argument regarding the redundancy is on my talk user page. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I didn't wrote it for you. Thanks for your comment, after all, you help me to get a better picture. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Watching edits on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, I have reverted edits by user:Nbarth, which were out of context and not directly related to the subject of the article. Looking on the article which were linked to by these edits, it appeared that the same user has also inserted inappropriate material in Commuting matrices and Spectral theory. I have reverted, or in some cases rewritten, these edits. There may be other articles that have been similarly edited by the same editor in a way that may be viewed as some kind of subtle vandalism. Attention of the project members is thus needed. I may add that I'll be away from the net for two weeks, and I will not be able to follow the question. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum of Mathematics, an article about two new journals published by Cambridge University Press, has been nominated for deletion. Here's its first paragraph:
An argument is that as a new journal it has not yet had time to achieve notability. Another is that it's getting mentioned in the new media in connection with the boycott and with the broader purposes of that movement and is therefore notable for other reasons.
Opine at this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Cox–Zucker machine suddenly showed up in our "new articles" list although it's several years old and hasn't been edited since June 30th of this year.
It is an orphan i.e. no other articles link to it.
Here's most of the article:
Two tasks:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Wikiproject Mathematics,
A new editor recently submitted a new article trough article's for creation on Nagao's theorem. The article itself looks fine, but mathematics is most definitely not a subject that i am to knowledgeable about, which means i have some difficulty reviewing it. On a sidenote i would mention that we did receive some bogus math article's as of late so i wondered if someone could glance over it and check two things:
If you are familiar with the article's for creation area, feel free to handle the entire page. If not, I'll happily take care of those matters. Also - Thanks in advance for the assistance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across another mathematics article, so i fear i have to ask the same as i did above. If anyone could glance over it I'd be grateful. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of mathematics related article's lately - at this rate i fear i am going to have to resort to asking assistance on a regular basis. The above article is another submission, and on first glance it looks very decent for a new article. Anyone spare a moment to confirm this? Thanks in advance, as usual. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master. As suggested there by Christopher Thomas, I am also notifying this project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We are informed that:
Is this professorship named after Alfred North Whitehead, or J. H. C. Whitehead, or someone else? The article about A. N. Whitehead doesn't mention his having a professorship named after him. Can the information be added to the articles with appropriate links among them? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of the 136th most viewed mathematics article is open for comment.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice the use of the term notion in a number of articles where I would have used the term concept. The former seems to have semantics of vagueness associated with it, apparently corroborated by several dictionary definitions, whereas the latter seems more appropriate for use in the mathematical context where the thing described is usually precise. Would there be any objections to me replacing notion with concept in articles when this seems to apply? — Quondum ☏ 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The terms notion and concept are synonymous. However, the preferred term among those who study them formally is " concept". Greg Bard ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the distinction is particularly important in the vast majority of our articles. For example, if I write about the notion of Lebesgue measure or the concept of Lebesgue measure I mean the same thing in either case, and if there is any philosophical distinction it will not matter for the subject of Lebesgue measure. I don't see a reason to go through replacing one with the other just for the sake of it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominant functor is a orphaned article (i.e. no others link to it) and lacks references. It's also very very short. Do what you can. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Böttcher equation begins like this:
I don't know if Fn means n-fold composition of functions, or n-fold multiplication of the value of the function. Also, if it's supposed to be evaluated at the same point h, it wouldn't hurt to be clear about that, and if it's not, then what is meant is not clear. Then it says "where h is an analytic function with[ . . . etc . . . ]". Does that mean for every analytic function with that property, or for some analytic function with that property, or does it mean for some special analytic function with that property? Does "with n ≥ 0" mean for some n ≥ 0 (so that as long as there is some such value of n, this is an instance of the Böttcher equation, or for every n ≥ 0, or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Property of equivalence in gaussian primes has been around for most of a year, but with a bad category that prevented it from showing up in our new article lists. It needs either a lot of help, or deletion, I'm not sure which. Please do what you can. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably makes sense to discuss with the author? (At least as far as the goal is to understand what the article is about.) I note that s/he failed twice to get this through Articles for Creation, without apparently improving it in the process. -- JBL ( talk) 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a slow-moving discussion at Talk:Club filter involving a series of merges. I was hoping some math folks could head over there and continue the discussion, and merge the article, as I know nothing of these topics. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Another reminder of the hazards of the word "any". This is from a new article titled Tsen rank:
Does this mean "[...]if there is any system of degrees that has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]", or does it mean "[...]if it is the case that _any_ such system, no matter which one, has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]"? A reasonable person might read it either way. In the first case, changing "any" to "some" would resolve the ambiguity; in the second case, changing "any" to "every" would do it. "Any" is sometimes a hazardous word. I've changed it to "every" in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The quantifier "any" lacks existence claims.
("Any" is often used where free-logic pussyfooting is not intended, and where "every" or "some" should have been specified. Thus Halmos thinks that "any" should be avoided by mathematicians writing it gooder.)
Jaakko Hintikka has a nice article on "any" and ordinary English.
I forget whether Charles Sanders Peirce and his students considered free logical quantification. I think Mitchell has a paper on quantification in the 1878 Johns Hopkins Studies. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ring structures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the Mathematics WikiProject are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Professor Griewank is one of the principal architects of automatic differentiation, a co-founder of the theory of partially separable functions (the usage of which is an important part of the success of AMPL's modeling language and the large-scale optimization packages Lancelot and Galahad), an initiate of the mysteries of semi-analytic geometry, and an amateur guitarist:
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |urn=
ignored (|id=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)His would be an interesting biography.
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! We're getting another drive-by deletion being pushed bynon-physicists of a physics topic. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 13#Category:Introductory physics. To express my frustration: the drive-by deletion process brings out the very worst in wikipedia behavior, and creates a huge amount of damage (remember the deletion of Category:Proof, carefully nurtured for years, here, and shot dead with only three votes?) Please help get these hooligans under control. linas ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Indefinite logarithm has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indefinite logarithm. -- Lambiam 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the bug fixes in MathJax implementation are now working so we can have less than signs and matrices .-- Salix ( talk): 07:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
With a bit of messing around the closes set of styles I've managed to come to is
span.texhtml { font-family: MathJax_Main, serif; font-size: 123%;}
span.texhtml var { font-family: MathJax_Math, serif;}
span.texhtml sup { font-size: 70.7%; }
span.texhtml sub { font-size: 70.7%; }
Using those styles in skin.css the following two are virtually indistinguishable.
{{math|3 sin(<var>x</var><sub>2<var>i</var></sub>) e<sup>3<var>t</var></sup>}}
MathJax uses a different font for variables, MathJax_Math, than for other content, MathJax_Main, and slightly different sizes 123% as opposed to 118%. The code is dynamically generated so it might be different in other browsers.-- Salix ( talk): 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
what happened to V. J. Havel (see too: S. L. Hakimi) - -- Rovnet ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (w:es)
I've un-deleted it for now. I'll try to notify interested parties. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thx . -- Rovnet ( talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What a mess! Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash, not a hyphen) are two separate articles, and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (with a hyphen) does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash) but to Arabic numerals, and Arabic numeral system does not redirect to Arabic numerals but to Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
Welcome to the earliest days of Wikipedia. In 2002 and 2003 this would be expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Hurwitz quaternion order and Hurwitz quaternion should be distinct article which don't even link to each other? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Udita fractional operator is at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, a function is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of if . There is no mention of this in the article. I'm assuming that this is a well known fact. Should we add something to the article? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've recently made what I consider to be a number of improvements throughout the article on Elementary algebra, and submitted it as a Good Article nominee (see the article Talk page template for details). -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article bearing this title is perhaps interesting. Some people implicitly believe that the concept of function that we know today is axiomatic and coeternal with the Father, but the true story is complicated and messy. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong in summarizing that the discussion we had at the Mizar system talk page raised two main concerns. The first is one of bias in favor of a particular formalized math system, in this case the Mizar system, violating WP:NPOV with respect to other competing systems. The second concern is that by granting permission to place these links we will be sanctioning en masse changes to almost all mathematical articles, which while may benefit a minority of readers, will probably not be of any benefit to the typical reader in the near future. One additional secondary concern was that if we want to expose the readers to formalized math it is better to develop it inside Wikimedia than sending the users to outside sources.
Before addressing these issues please allow me one personal note: I have an agenda. My agenda is to have formalized math accessible from Wikipedia mathematical articles. No more and no less. This is driven by a view that for some readers, like myself, reading code is more instructive than reading descriptive text. I am not here to write articles, but I am here to help build the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen.
I am not affiliated with any proof assistant and in fact my knowledge of Mizar is rather slim. My choice to promote the Mizar system was based on considerable groundwork I made in preparation for this initiative, but truth be told I like Coq much better. Without much understanding of how Wikipedia works, I made the judgment that the Mizar system is the one which is best suited to the task. I believe this choice can be defended on objective grounds, but seeking to avert single-purpose-account charges I will not attempt to do so here.
Next, the issues. Indeed, I realize now that Wikipedia cannot provide access to one particular formalized system, no matter its benefits, at the expense of other systems. Nor should it be in the business of picking winners. It must be either all in or all out. This does make the choice of inclusion much harder, but should not warrant, by itself, automatic submission to the deletion impulse. My answer to this concern is two-fold: yes, we will have to link to more than one system, and no, we cannot do so in the external links section. We will have to come up with some kind of infobox or an addition to an existing infobox that will accommodate these links and help keep the typical reader away from clicking them.
Second, clearly the initial scale of deployment is not to be left to individual decision making, but should result from the formation of consensus here, in the math project discussion forum. But consensus is built by discussion, so we will probably have to spend some time in deliberation. Thus, a measure of patience will be required and yes, a willingness to learn enough of a foreign formal language that it stops reading like gibberish. It is however not in the spirit of Wikipedia established policy to brush this initiative aside by not being willing to engage the other side.
Seeking compromise, I suggest that we limit the initial deployment to a small number of key non-trivial mathematical constructs, where access to a reference of formal definitions and properties can be most helpful to undergraduate math students who are working on problem sets. I further suggest that we try and measure take-up quantitatively and by field, by contacting professors and asking that they mention the links in class and ask students to make a note if they used them in the solution of a problem set. This experiment should be limited in time as well as scope, guaranteeing that the typical Wikipedia reader does not suffer too much.
Which brings us to the final concern of internal vs. external development of formal math structures. Frankly, I do not have much to say here. I wish I was in the position to help work on the developer side, but I am not. It does however seem odd to me to suggest that Wikimedia developers should put much efforts into something for which it is not clear if there is any need. First we need to establish that there is some demand for the product, then we go about building it. This seems common sense to me and provides additional impetus to running this experiment.
I thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy post and hope that I was able to address the main issues raised. Yaniv256 ( talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Formalization links | ||
---|---|---|
Structure | sigma-algebra | |
Definition in | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Proof of properties | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
See automated proof checking for more information. |
To make the discussion concrete I am posting a prototype for the purposed infobox. Currently only the Mizar links will work, the others will just send you to Google. Yaniv256 ( talk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's unclear to me exactly what is being proposed. Yaniv, are you suggesting that we add an infobox to lots of mathematics articles containing links to various proof assistants? I oppose this. The input to proof assistants is really not human readable, and adds nothing to the article. If you truly find it easier to read this kind of code than plain prose, and to understand its mathematical intent, then I applaud you. But that probably makes you one of a kind. Moreover, I should add that the consensus at Talk:Mizar system was decidedly against adding links to articles, largely because such links add nothing of value to the article. Now it is being proposed that a large infobox be added, taking up more valuable real estate with the same useless information. It seems most peculiar to me that you would think the consensus at Talk:Mizar system would support such an initiative. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe whats needed is a reference template like thouse at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Reference_resources#Citation templates?-- Salix ( talk): 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Formalization links | ||
---|---|---|
Structure | sigma-algebra | |
Definition in | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Proof of properties | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Please excuse me. I thought the matter of legal compliance with the external links guidelines was behind us. My answer to these claims was and still is here. I fail to see a meaningful response to my arguments in the discussion we had, but then again I may be missing something. Since if this proposal is to fall due to legal objections we are all just wasting our time discussing it, I suggest we stop here and assert if John's argument does have consensual support. Yaniv256 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of the article titled Real-valued function has been proposed on the grounds that it's been only a dictionary definition for several years and it's unclear what to redirect it to. A problem I see with this is that a large number of articles link to it. So: (1) Is there some appropriate redirect target; or (2) Can it be expanded so that it becomes a proper article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a "cross-reference page" (or should we call it by some other name?) that links to various pages that may be of interest to those who follow a link like this one? I.e. Someone clicks on real-valued function and they see a page that might look something like this:
If such a thing doesn't exist, should we invent it (along with a template for the footnote, a style manual for them, and mentions and links within the other appropriate style manuals)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
For now I've made the article into a multiple-cross-reference page and created this manual, which currently has "essay" status. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What about adding Random variable as another entry?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The phrase real-valued function appears to be nothing more than the sum of its parts: the two links real number and function (mathematics) should in effectively every case be sufficient. To allow articles, disambiguation pages, redirects or cross-reference pages for such phrases that have not acquired a distinct notable meaning seems to be inviting a proliferation of valueless pages. (I've also seen redirects for "common misspellings" that I feel should be removed.) I am not arguing against the concept of a Wikipedia:Multiple-cross-reference page, but to me it seems that real-valued function does not qualify. — Quondum ☏ 13:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
@Quondum : It's more than the sum of its parts in that (1) there are lots of existing links to the phrase; and (2) Someone who knows that "real" should redirect to "real number" and who also knows what a "value" of a function is might not know how locutions like "real-valued" are used, and "real-valued" is not a suitable article title.
When I create a new article, I always immediately create redirect pages from (1) alternative names, (2) alternative spellings and capitalizations, (3) common misspellings, (4) common misnomers. I also add hatnotes to other articles with similar names saying "This is about X. For Y, see [[Y]]." or the like.
@Kieffer : Of course I agree, except that "disambiguation page" isn't quite what this is, since links to it are appropriate and it's not about unrelated things bearing the same name. It more like a redirect but with multiple targets for the reader to choose among. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I created the article Fundamental theorem of ideal theory in number fields because this theorem is mentioned in Wieferich prime. Do others feel that this theorem should have an own article, or should I better include that information in Wieferich prime via a footnote? -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the "orphan" tag from Hermite's identity. Three articles link to it. But one of those is only a hatnote and otherwise the linking to it seems on the thin side. If someone can think of other articles that could appropriately link to it, could they add those links?
Also, it currently lacks references. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead for this article credits Raymond Smullyan with the invention of "this type of puzzle". Not knowing much about history of logic puzzles, and suspecting that the puzzle has been around a lot longer than Smullyan's books, I thought this sounded like a rather generous claim. Can anyone check into how important Smullyan's contribution to the topic is? He is pretty old, and my sense that this is a problem from antiquity could just be wrong. Rschwieb ( talk) 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a developing discussion at WP:NOR which might be of interest/importance for editors here. It is at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Original_mathematical_proofs_are_not_interpretations and in the next section as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Jitse's bot has done nothing in more than three days; the "current activities" page has not been updated. I don't see a lot of expression of alarm about that here. Is that because everyone else has directed their comments about it to Jitse Niesen, as I have, or could it be that I'm the only one who notices? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some new articles that do not (yet?) appear on the "current activities" page since Jitse's bot is down:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
....and now the page has been updated for the first time since August 5th. Here's the list of new articles:
(Some may be newly recategorized articles rather than actually new articles.) So see if they need further work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a notification to interested editors that the article Infinite monkey theorem has been put up for featured article review for referencing and prose issues. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batrachion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ at the top of the page, asks "Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?", and suggests that it is because "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook [..] and not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics".
To me, nearly every other subject in Wikipedia does read like a textbook summary. They all teach someone the basics of a subject. The one exception is maths, which despite my confidence to tertiary level, I find Wikipedia useless, because any attempt to include pedagogic examples are frowned upon.
Textbooks include 20 examples of a problem, and laboriously step through them. Surely this does not mean that we should exclude all examples? We readily include an image too illustrate a fact, but there can be no reason to exclude a stepped-through example, that also illustrates a fact.
Wikipedia is different to most other encyclopedias where space is not at a premium. I don't expect an article on, for example, Elementary algebra to be equal in length to a 500-page book. But I also don't expect it to exclude a couple of pages of examples, because a pedagogic approach is supposed to be bad. Maths articles are supposed to educate people, not exclude 95% of the readership who are expected to be able to learn something. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: this type of issue has been raised a few times before. For example: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_69#wikipedia_is_a_great_source_of_info_for_just_about_anything.2C_with_one_exception:_mathematics., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_70#Accessibility_of_WP:Math_.28or_.22No.2C_I_don.27t_have_Dyscalculia_but_WP:Math_is_just_facts_and_proofs..22.29, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_18#General_Comment_about_Math_articles_from_a_non-mathematician, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_16#Request_from_Non-math_Person. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and links. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, or I misinterpreted the guidelines which I took to mean that articles should mostly exclude material that is (a) pedagogic, (b) textbook-like. Maybe the guidelines could be improved to suggest how an article can (i) be accessible (ii) include examples, without becoming a textbook, POV etc. -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Gunther Schmidt has been proposed on the grounds of lack of references. Can someone improve the article to the point where that objection doesn't apply? Or is it not worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Two questions:
If so bit of further work might make it possible to restore it. Here's what the article said:
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. (August 2012) |
Gunther Schmidt (born 1939) is a German mathematician whose research ranges from informatics of mathematics to mathematical logic. After studying mathematics at the University of Göttingen and the University of Munich, [1] he worked from 1962 to 1988 at TU Munich (TUM) and 1988 until his retirement 2004 at Universität der Bundeswehr München.
Books
References
Weblinks
Category:German mathematicians Category:Living people Category:1939 births Category:University of Göttingen alumni Category:Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich alumni Category:Technical University Munich alumni Category:Bundeswehr University Munich alumni Category:German academics
I think that blpprod was the wrong reason to delete this article (almost certainly it could have been sourced adequately for verifiability) but the reason I didn't fight harder for it was that I was not certain he passed WP:PROF. Being a full professor with several books is suggestive but not conclusive. The strongest case for WP:PROF seems to be criterion #C1, significant impact within his discipline (as measured by citation counts, for instance) but in his case I was having a difficult time finding good citation counts because his name is so common. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Members of the concerned community, I request you to consider adding the following to the References part of < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx>:
Marx, Karl (1994)[1968], Yanovskaya, Sofya, ed.,Mathematical Manuscripts[complete English translation]together with a Special Supplement < http://cfcul.fc.ul.pt/varios/Karl_Marx_FINAL.pdf> Calcutta/Kolkata: Viswakos Parisad, I S B N 81-86210-00-8.
Regards. Pradip Baksi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.180.185.44 ( talk) 03:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was reviewing Elementary algebra and then I found that the editors used textbook language, such as "Let's" which would be changed to "Let us," but that means let me teach you. Article sounds a lot like a Wikiversity page. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Obtund Talk 04:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not an official part of this project (yet), but what you think of these SVG images I made based on MATLAB source code:
Exemplified in the Gaussian function article: New images:
Old images:
If you have any feedback (prefer the SVG or old versions) please let me know.
Zerodamage ( talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
width="100%" heignt="100%"
. Not so good in the context of Commons' web interface. Use concrete dimensions (such as 1050×787.5), please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The images are annoyingly tiny. It would be great if all of the whitespace were removed, and they were rotated by 45 degrees so that the corners would not poke out and take up space. Make the central item, the point of interest, as large as possible! linas ( talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet another link farm. -- Taku ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what is meant by calling it a "link farm", but in view of the content of the article titled reciprocity law, it's a duplicate that should redirect to the older article, as it now does. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Change the subject slightly, but I have been working on an article about Eisenstein Reciprocity, should be ready in a week or so. - Virginia-American ( talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any experience with movement of content between WPM and nLab? I notice that nLab has deeper/more extensive coverage of cat theory topics than WPM, and so I'm tempted to do some cut-n-paste effort from there to here, but am stymied slightly by the license, or rather lack there-of. The de facto license at nLab seems to be this, quoting from the home page: "Using content obtained from the nLab in your publications is free and encouraged if you acknowledge the source". That's it; I can find nothing more explicit. As far as I can tell, this hasn't been discussed on WPM before... Comments? linas ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've just created a template to help w/ ncatlab citations: so:
* {{nlab|id=simplex+category|title=Simplex category}}
will create the following text:
linas ( talk) 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I know enough algebra to know that there is no such thing as finitely generated ring (or every ring is finitely generated, namely by 1). Google search disagrees. I think people mean finitely generated k-algebras; so this should be redirected to finitely generated algebra in my opinion. But maybe someone knows better. -- Taku ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) has been working hard on improving our article on Stefan Banach. The coverage of his education, mentorship, and life is now much better than it was, but the coverage of his mathematical contributions is still weak. Perhaps some project members whose interests run towards that kind of mathematics could help? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
List of zero terms is also at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed your project was listed at User:AlexNewArtBot but was missing the ruleset, so the search was not carried out. I'ved added the rule (list all new articles with the string "math" in it, and hopefully that's all that was needed. If so, you should see this link turning blue soon, and then you may want to add it to your main page. See how we did it at our WP:SOCIOLOGY: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology#New_article_feed. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit. If one adopts the definition
then this is well defined even if y is not an integer, and I'd have guessed the whole identity would still hold then. Maybe when I'm feeling less lazy I'll check it.
A good edit? Or not? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Presumably the formula in question is taken from a reliable source? What is that source and what does it say? Deltahedron ( talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've written this somewhat hastily scrawled user-space draft. I have in mind that with some further work it can evolve into something to be moved into the article space under the title Behrens–Fisher distribution (currently a redirect). In its early stages that will be maybe two or three times as long as the present draft. I'll be back to do more work on it. In the mean time, maybe others can improve it as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's moved to the article space. For now, it's an "orphan". Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The whole thing with semi-simplicial sets is quite messy, so I'll start with a short history wrap-up
So, I think all this should be somehow incorporated into the Δ-Set article, though I'm not sure really sure what might be the best way to do so (and I don't know who coined which term originally). Moreover I'd say the article should be named after it's original name, i.e. Δ-Set should refer to semi-simplicial set, and not the other way round. And last but not least the article needs to be generally improved, e.g. by including the categorial definition (as a functor from Δ to Sets) for a semi-simplicial set. I'll might very well do that sometime, though. -- Roman3 ( talk) 12:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
See talk:outer product, Dyadic Product and talk:Dyadic product. Opinions? At least a merge of dyadic product into outer product seems sensible to me and a few others. Maschen ( talk) 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's summarize different merging possibilities:
Which one(s)?... By all means we can't fall into the trap of pulling everything into one article... Maschen ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to voice my agreement with those who think that not everything should be merged to tensor product on grounds of different levels of concreteness/different audiences. (Of course these articles should link each other prominently.) Options 2 and 3 both seem like fine ideas to me. -- JBL ( talk) 13:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As to DAB pages, please note: product (mathematics) already does the job; I don't see why we'd need another one. linas ( talk) 03:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Another summary:
Someone has to start the article someday and I just thought why not me today. I'm posting this since I don't mean to do it covertly. Right now, most of materials there overlap other elsewhere and it's not a balanced account, but I think it's not a good start, either.
About the title: "algebraic" is missing. It's because, in my real life, I never say "projective algebraic". The only concern would be ambiguity with "projective analytic". But by Chow's theorem this is actually not ambiguous. Right? -- Taku ( talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
To me, Algebraic geometry of projective spaces appears bizarre. What is it doing? Projective space seems like a natural space for the topic. Projective space shouldn't just focus on the topological and differential-geometric aspects, that's not balanced if more elementary and pedagogical. Some parts of it also overlap the Proj construction. Finally, the section "Morphisms to projective schemes" should move to projective variety. -- Taku ( talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Kernel (mathematics), Lie bracket, Adjoint representation, Generating set, and Covariant are currently among the disambiguation pages with the largest numbers of incoming links. Please help fix these. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Steiner point now redirects to Steiner point (disambiguation). Should the title of the disambiguation page be changed simply to Steiner point? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, next problem with this page: Which of the pages in the article space that link to it (other than redirects) are from hatnotes (so those links should remain intact) and which should get disambiguated? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Shing-TungYau.jpg is missing sourcing, and will be deleted soon. Does anyone know about this photo ? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 12:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move Euclidean algorithm to Euclid's algorithm at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Move?. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Please look at this discussion. User:Daviddaved appears to be a mathematician. He is totally clueless about Wikipedia conventions and possibly about Wikipedia's purposes. _Some_ of his new articles may be worth keeping after some cleanup. Some may have copyright problems. He doesn't seem to notice things people post on his user talk page. Members of this WikiProject may be able to figure out which of his pages are worth keeping after cleanup. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Isovolume problem is an "orphaned" article, i.e. no other articles link to it. If you know of other articles that ought to link to it, work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that Equidistribution theorem and Weyl's criterion could both be merged into Equidistributed sequence. I have just boldly merged Van der Corput theorem. Deltahedron ( talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Totally positive matrix is a surprisingly neglected article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Sep
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Oct
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Nov
Could we add something about Galilean transformations as a Lie group? For example, the Euclidean transformations, Euc(n,R) can be embedded as a Lie subgroup of GL(n+1,R), if I remember correctly, by
where X is a special orthogonal transformation and t is a translation. Could (or should) we add something similar for Galilean transformations? — Fly by Night ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not long ago, there was a discussion about links to Springer's Encyclopedia of Mathematics now being broken due to a restructuring of that website. I just noticed that many of the links are still broken. Is someone making a systematic effort to repair these, or are we supposed to do it on an ad hoc basis? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An incident is being discussed here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The page is being proposed for deletion even though there are suitable secondary sources there. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How many things wrong can be found here: Steven G. Krantz? Main thing I can see is that it seems to have been written (or at least contributed to) by himself. Also see some weasel words: "Krantz is widely considered to be a charismatic and galvanizing teacher. Many students consider him to be the best mathematics teacher that they have ever had." What do we do with pages like this? -- Matt Westwood 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just learned of {{
mvar}} through its installation on
Quaternion. It applies {{
math}} and additionally surrounds its argument in HTML <var>
tags.
Is this a good idea? I recall the discussion
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 2#Variable markup where consensus was that manually applying <var>
was undesirable. It seems to me that {{
mvar}} really isn't any better.
Ozob (
talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
<var>
is undesirable, but that individual editors have some freedom. It was also apparent that the semantic markup value in HTML was pretty much a lost cause in the math context, but that font formatting is necessary. The implementation of {{
mvar}} is not important (i.e. whether it uses <var>
or ''
to italicize), as this can be changed in principle in the template. The question then becomes whether use of {{mvar|x}}
in place of {{math|''x''}}
is to be discouraged - i.e. whether the template {{
mvar}} should be deprecated. I see no urgency in doing so. Its only real value is a shorthand for italic-serif. Its use does show up the continued shortcomings of the HTML output of <math>
, and the inconvenience of formatting both italic and serif in-line, resulting in the (IMO unfortunate) de facto use of sans-serif for math. —
Quondum
t
c 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
{{ MacTutor/sandbox}} now implements a suggestion of Daniele Tampieri: O'Connor & Robertson are downgraded to editors, and there are author fields (last, first, last2, ...) It seems to work on the examples that I have checked. I suggest to replace {{ MacTutor}} with this version.
Please criticise this suggestion (and the implementation) before it's too late.
Sasha ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi: I recently moved Double centralizer theorem and a related article on balanced modules into the mainspace. Feel free to take a look if you have spare time. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Real algebraic geometry#Edits by user:Estater need to be reverted which needs the intervention of other people. The subject of the dispute is edits unambiguously aimed to promote Selman Akbulut's work. Tentative to revert these edits has led to an edit war, which, for the moment, is won by the supporters of Akbulut (most probably Akbulut himself, with several login names). For non specialist people, I precise that Real algebraic geometry is a stub, almost reduced to an historical "guideline", which, before the edits, provided a good idea of the history of the area. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
More of a signal processing than a mathematical article you may think; and you should be right. But this is a needy article with a hefty chunk of mathematical notation, in need of: restructuring, rewriting, and admin attention, I hope in that order (but don't count on it - it has been briefly protected after heavy edit-warring). I'd regard it as a personal favour if people could weigh in and make it all make some sense. The page protection expires in the next few seconds ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add another article about the other Egorov's Theorem which I mention on the talk page of Egorov's Theorem and a disambiguation page (because the two theorems are really not related). Any guidance or input on how to do this? Holmansf ( talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
following a suggestion of Pym1507, I have added placed a "propose move" template at Talk:Sokhatsky–Weierstrass_theorem#Requested_move. Please comment.
Sasha ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So i have created the page Glossary of areas of mathematics which at the moment is more of a list with few annotations. i think it has potential and would compliment Areas of mathematics in the same way Outline of mathematics compliments mathematics. It would be useful to see thoughts on this page, and for any help completing it. Ultimately, should it be kept? (btw few entries may not be relevant but i figured it is easy to delete them) Brad7777 ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look at
Who would click on for example Category:mathematical comparisons?? or Category:mathematical examples? or Category:mathematical tables? Category:mathematics-related lists? these are apart of the outline of mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of the 12 pages already in this category,
Just to clarify, an index is just a list that is in alphabetical order? If so, should all the articles in this category called "list of ..." that are in alphabetical order be renamed to "index of ..."? And what are thoughts about the renaming of Category:Indexes of mathematics topics to Category:Mathematics-related indexes to include all the relevant indexes, as im assuming there will be more from the 230 pages currently in Category:Mathematics-related lists. Brad7777 ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Last month I put Catenary up for GA and have put a lot of work into it since in response to the reviewer's comments. If interested, see Talk:Catenary/GA1 for the discussion, especially if you'd like to help resolve the outstanding issues. For some reason this isn't showing up on the current activity page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The page The Method used to be a disambiguation page, one of the meanings being The Method of Mechanical Theorems of Archimedes. An editor redirected it to Method acting, claiming that the other meanings are rarely used. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Tricomplex number has been nominated for deletion. -- Lambiam 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the lead example involving John, being a bachelor, and being a man, is actually an example not of logical inconsequence as written, but of tautological inconsequence. That is, if Γ = {“John is a bachelor”}, S1 = “John is a bachelor” and S2 = “John is a man,” then S2 is not a tautological consequence of Γ. S2 is still, however, a logical consequence of Γ. And this is only the beginning of the article. It appears there is severe confusion between the concepts of logical consequence (which currently redirects to entailment) and tautological consequence. This article needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm worried that an article about Sine exists, but not one for Cosine. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions, and a draft for this article is available within my userspace.
Here are some excerpts from the discussion:
This user was for the move:
Sine can be treated independently [of the other trigonometric functions] and it's clearly useful to do so... it seems foolhardy to suggest you delete an article that's accessed 1000+ times a day, has hundreds of internal inbound links, and exists on 34 other language Wikipedias, just because you think people need to simultaneously learn cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, and cosecant. If someone wants to know about sine, let them learn about sine.
Try reading this article with the goal of finding a definition of "sine". First, you have to get to the second sentence of the second paragraph. And then you have to decipher a 443 word sentence. It's absolutely shockingly bad at defining sine, yet you want the hundreds of references to sine to redirect here?
All the same arguments apply equally for cosine. Cosine, although conceptually very similar to sine, has its own properties, some of which are trivial, and others are trivial for sine but more complex for cosine (e.g. fixed point). I really hope I don't have to argue this point further, and I hope no one else has to deal with deletionist trolls when it comes to basic mathematics articles.
— User:Pengo
This user was against the move:
In fact I'd get rid of the sine article and redirect to this article. It already has accumulated ridiculous cruft compared to this article. There is no sine topic, the topic is the trigonometrical functions. Sine is just one of those functions. A name is not the same as a topic.
— User:Dmcq
You may discuss here as well, but please check the simultaneous discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions and in my userspace before you say something someone else has already said.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not paper. I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the Cosine article. You may also edit my article as necessary, as long as you refrain from vandalism, trolling etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
The Doctahedron, 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i have came up with a theorem and this may sound crazy but stick with me. i would like to ask you all what you think the definition is of the word "negitive". to me, negitive is more than the absence but the inverted space. by this i believe that a simple problem, for example, -1*-1=1, may not be true because 1 can be described as a "ditto" number. anything times 1 is itself so for example, if x*1, it = x. but if we have a problem like x*-1 then then it gets rid of that number and ends up with zero. i would like to hear back about this idea. p.s. this is a 14 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.254.225 ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I happened to run across Baker's theorem and Linear forms in logarithms within a few days of each other. They look very closely related to me — do they really warrant being two separate articles, or should they be merged? — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals is being discussed here Tkuvho ( talk) 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The related Category:Mathematical comparisons has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Brad7777 ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The current votes:
Park test is a new article by a new user that is a mess. It definitely needs a look over from an expert from Mathematics or Statistics. I will also leave a note on the Statistics project page. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. User:Ab konst would like to contribute a new section at L'Hôpital's rule, but is having a little trouble getting the concepts across in English. Specifically, some undefined notions of "conversion" and "comparability" are involved, and a connection to Hardy fields. I'm unable to help (I don't know what the user is referring to) but I'm hoping someone else can. The subject matter is probably very straightforward to an analyst. See Talk:L'Hôpital's rule#Conversion. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently 'Homogeneous', 'Homogenous', 'Inhomogeneous', 'Homogeneous (mathematics)', 'Heterogenous', 'Homogenisation', 'Homogeneous equation', etc. redirect to Homogeneity and heterogeneity which, for the most part, concerns itself with the chemical definition of the terms, though there is an odd mathematical dab section within the article. Most of the mathematical meanings of Homogeneous have nothing to do with chemistry and there are several other cases where the meaning intended in the article has nothing to do with the chemical meaning. So I'm thinking that many of these redirects, and in particular the mathematical ones, should link to Homogeneity (disambiguation) instead and the the articles that link to them should be matched to the article with the intended meaning. I'm going to go ahead and start with the most obvious misplaced redirects, and if there are no objections or better suggestions merge the dab section of 'Homogeneity and heterogeneity' into the actual dab page.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also homogeneous equation was a redirect to homogeneity and heterogeneity which has nothing to do with equations. I have redirected it instead to homogeneous linear equation, and put a see also there to homogeneous differential equation. There seem to be some more math articles listed at [ [1]], if anyone wants to fix these. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We seem to have a little edit war going on (again) in Graph isomorphism problem. Can I find an uninvolved admin here to semiprotect it, or would RFPP be a better choice? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just linked to the Percentage page from the Sourdough page. The How to banner at the top of Percentage struck me, particularly the phrasing, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train", with the emphasis, "present facts, not ... train". The implication that training is not presenting facts seems odd. If one doesn't have facts, then one has non-facts. Non-facts might include beliefs. It just struck me as unusual any training would consist of Belief. The connection to Mathematics project was the banner on Percentage, and I don't have available time to debate, although if anyone has any clarity on the above implication, which I distill to training = belief ?, your thoughts would be appreciated. Gzuufy ( talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator could use some input. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created Category:Theorems in abstract algebra, please help fill it. Many articles can be found in Category:Theorems in algebra and Category:Abstract algebra. Thanks Brad7777 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that many of our math-related articles use the word "we", some of them quite often (i.e. "we find that...", "we can use [blank] to prove that...", if we take...", ect. Generally speaking, this is an unencyclopedic method of phrasing, and I usually don't to hesitste to change it in the rare cases that I find it elsewhere on Wikipedia. But as it seems to be so ubiquitous in math articles, I figured I had better check here before making multiple changes. Joefromrandb ( talk) 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Algebraic structure is an abomination. Is there a good tag for this sort of situation? Rschwieb ( talk) 15:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs related to the Digamma function. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody translate fr:Entier_de_Dirichlet from french into english please? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the footnote in the first sentence says the following: "While the mathematical content of this article is a usual part of the field of number theory, the term "Dirichlet integer" is not in common usage. The set of these integers is usually denoted OQ[√5] and they are often not given any name.". I, for one, have never heard this term and the only source for it given in the (quite detailed) French article is a blog. There's discussion on the talk page of the French article and on their Math WikiProject concerning the problems with this title. So, if we are to translate this, I think we should first come up with a better name. RobHar ( talk) 15:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but maybe real) suggestion for a title: The ring of quadratic integers of discriminant five. This is what the article would be about and it avoids using mathematical notation (which was the opposition to titles such "Q(√5)" that were suggested on French wiki). RobHar ( talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I expanded the article. Please, check for possible mistakes. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Integral value transformation is quite a badly written article, to say the least. Is it worth doing something with? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Debate at Talk:Definite bilinear form#Definite bilinear forms: symmetric only?. The question is whether the definition of definiteness is restricted to symmetric bilinear forms. Curiously, many but not all authors appear to restrict the definition to the symmetric case, although the restriction appears to be unnecessary and cumbersome. Also, the Properties seciton of the article needs checking and expansion (a few minutes by someone familar with the topic, particularly relating to eigenvalues and related properties). — Quondum ☏ ✎ 10:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
AfD for Smooth completion may be found here. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
[3] despite [4]. Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Another user (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2011/Sep#Digiarea links) has added a bunch more links to digi-area.com; the most recent one was added to Polar coordinate system. The purpose of the site/product is provide people with pre-made formulas that can be used in TeX or Mathematica. I think this falls under WP:ELNO and I'm going to undo the changes, assuming there are no valid objections, but I was wondering if requesting some help from XLinkBot would be appropriate at this point.-- RDBury ( talk) 12:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Brad7777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned, making thousands of changes to categorization of mathematics articles without any discussion. I thought we had a discussion here in which the overall tone was that Brad should stop what he is doing since many of his notions were somewhat controversial. At the time, I checked through the hundred or so mathematics category edits, and reverted the ones that didn't make any sense. But now he's using hotcat, and has done over a thousand such edits. He seems to be single-handedly attempting to redo all of the categories for mathematics articles based on his own personal opinion of what belongs in which category. This is disruptive and a waste of community resources to check all of this damage. What should be done about this? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask specifically, that Brad please stop adding categories to redirect pages like paracompactness, compactness (topology), and probably more. This is just one reason I think Brad should stop doing any more category edits. It is going to take hours if not days to clean up his mess. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Baroc has been adding photographs of mathematicians to our biographies (e.g. Colin McLarty and Robert Phelps), and deserves our thanks!
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I am currently having an argument about whether a "by calculus" proof of Euler's formula should appear in the article of the same subject. I'd like some additional opinions on the subject, and so if you're interested I'd appreciate it if you could go to the talk page there and comment. Thanks. Holmansf ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The page Mikhail Gromov went through several transformations and is currently redirected to his full name including the little-used middle name. The problem seems to be that there is an aviator of the same first and last name. I think a case can be made in favor of keeping the page at "Mikhail Gromov" with a hat sending the reader to the aviator. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This category currently has 214 articles in it, any suggestions for diffusing it? Brad7777 ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the article fiber bundle is in the following categories:
Whilst the category Category:Fiber bundles is in:
First, does Category:Fiber bundles need to be a subcat of Category:Topology? Should it be made subcat of Category:Algebraic topology and Category:Homotopy theory instead, or aswell? In which case, secondly, does the article Fiber bundle need to be in any other category except Category:Fiber bundles? Any other comments? Brad7777 ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is in the categories Category:Topological spaces and Category:General topology, whilst Category:Topological spaces is a subcat of Category:General topology. The topological space should be removed from Category:General topology, because this is overcategorization is it not? I also suggest Category:Topological spaces should be a subcat of Category:Topology aswell, as this could help defuse the category Category:Topology, any objections? Brad7777 ( talk) 23:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Opinions on the creation of this category? Category:Theorems in topology contains 49 articles. Category:Geometric topology contains 123 articles. Category:Theorems in geometric topology would possibly hold 13 articles and is likely to grow. Geometric topology already could do with diffusing, and is also likely to grow in the future. So i think this category will help. Articles for consideration: Grushko theorem, Rokhlin's theorem, Annulus theorem, Side-approximation theorem, Sphere theorem (3-manifolds), Bing's recognition theorem, Double suspension theorem, Blaschke selection theorem, Moise's theorem, Loop theorem, Gordon–Luecke theorem, Cyclic surgery theorem, Fary–Milnor theorem Brad7777 ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Are these two articles overcategorized? They only need to be in one category: Category:Manifolds surely? Brad7777 ( talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is, a problem in the categorization of manifolds, but surely not a problem of overcategorization. Analytic manifold, analytic variety, complex manifold are close and strongly related notions. One may add complex variety which redirects to algebraic variety, when analytic variety would be better suited. I have not found any category more specific than Category: Mathematics which contains all these pages. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
At the moment this category seems to be being abused. Many of the articles are on "topological spaces with properties". Strictly, this is like placing articles on triangles in a category called "properties of triangles" while there is a category called "triangles". What are your thoughts on categorizing redirected pages to this category instead where possible. For example, Connectedness (topology), categorized into Category:Properties of topological spaces, instead of Connected space being categorized into there? This would be a more proper use of the categories. It would require that the redirects are more specific where possible, but would reveal which articles do not have a section on the property they have when they could do with one (especially because of this category). I would also suggest that articles which don't have a relevant redirect to them are left in there, although these tend to be mainly stub articles. Comments? Brad7777 ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it:
If there are no large objections, I will go about fixing the category tree to reflect this. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Could those who agree with fixing the categories to match my comment of 18:47, 6 February 2012 please leave some sort of positive comment so I can gauge consensus? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The article paracompact space currently begins with the following sentence:
Not only is this a meaningless sentence, the link paracompactness redirects back to the same article! This seems to be due to a significant edit by Brad7777. I will work on fixing the article, but more eyes on it (and other edits by Brad7777) would be helpful. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The links Cofinite topology and Finite complement topology currently redirect to Cofiniteness#Cofinite topology, and I would like to add these redirects to Category:Topological spaces. However, given the discussion above concerning Category:Topological spaces and Category:Properties of topological spaces I thought I should ask before doing anything that might be seen as pouring oil into the fire. The article Cofiniteness itself is already in Category:General topology.
(There is an editing guideline at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects concerning the categorization of redirects, and I think categorizing a redirect to a subsection of a larger article is covered by the section Subtopic categorization.)
— Tobias Bergemann ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article on cycle index confuses or elides the distinction between groups generally and permutation groups. Since cycle indices are properties of permutation groups, not of abstract groups, this renders it confusing, and possibly incorrect. I have put a more detailed complaint on the talk page. I hope someone more skilled in algebraic terminology can clean it up. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends on whether we want to enlighten or to obfuscate (see Talk:Function (mathematics)). Tkuvho ( talk) 13:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The mathematics article fractal fraction is up for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal fraction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article horocycle was recently merged to horosphere. I've undone this merger, but was quickly reverted. I'd appreciate outside input at Talk:Horosphere. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across the page Correspondence (mathematics). As well as being completely unsourced, it strikes me as a collection of things that really don't belong together—each definition could better be placed on the page for the appropriate topic. Also, the first definition contradicts the definition given at relation (mathematics). Links such as those from the first sentence of function (mathematics) to correspondence (mathematics) only serve to muddy the waters further. Does anyone see this page as worth keeping? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) has proposed renaming Category:Triangulation to Category:Triangulation (geometry). Discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 14. The same discussion page also contains a proposal to delete Category:Polyhedra rest category and merge it into its parent category. And there are also quite a few renames of mathematical categories proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, e.g. Category:Logical symbols to Category:Logic symbols, Category:Tiling to Category:Tessellation, etc. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Charles Wells (mathematician) is up for deletion. -- Lambiam 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a small dispute as to whether certain links should be included in the External links section. Additional opinions at Talk:Tangram#EL links removed will be appreciated.-- RDBury ( talk) 04:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that covering set was another term for cover (topology). I was surprised that the covering set article is purely about a number-theoretic meaning. Now I'm not sure whether to add an xref. Can someone take a look? Thanks. 67.117.145.9 ( talk) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
At WP: Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic) I proposed to make a conceptdab article, but there was not any movement in this direction. Later, I asked help at WikiProject Logic, to be ignored. Now, at Conditional statement (logic) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) users Artur Rubin and History2007 try to redirect this to material conditional, which I consider as inappropriate. On the other hand, Hanlon1755 ( talk · contribs) pushes his own ideas about what is logical condition. Please, help to put the end to redirects' jumble and make a valid disambiguation of the term "conditional" in logic, programming and linguistics. Preferably, as a WP:CONCEPTDAB article. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The war progressed for another 5 days. Now I self-proclaimed a mediation at Talk:Conditional statement (logic)#Conditions for acceptable solution and ask the WikiProject for support. Please, provide an explicit output. Don't give just a silent agreement, because warriors can disrespect my self-imposed conditions. Please, express some will to end the edit war even if the cause and exact conditions seems not so important. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Manifold Destiny#Birman of Joan Birman's comments concerning Yau. My personal opinion is that the comment is not only incorrect but borders on slanderous, and should not be included. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to track down a reference for the article on Euler's criterion when I found this: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/
Is there a special convention or template for citing it?
Virginia-American ( talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There are four proposals to move categories in the logic department. I think some people who have actually done some study on the subject should take a look. Please do drop in. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
When I saw this Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#University research project on categories seeks interviewees I immediately thought of this project.Can't for the life of me say why ;-) Dmcq ( talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A known problematic editor has set his sights on matrix (mathematics). I have no intention of further engaging with this particular editor. It would be helpful if some project members could keep an eye. T R 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss and do the merge at Talk:Arithmetic complexity of the discrete Fourier transform. I don't understand this math at all and can't do it myself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw that there was an old thread about the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its new wiki form at http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org. Of the points raised, I'm much the most concerned about the broken links, at present. Do we have a plan of action for fixing them? And, if we can decide about how that could be sorted out, where are we on MathJax or indeed any long-term solution for formulae? Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we have a template for EoM?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The news from the External link finder is actually not that bad. Just now there were 368 hits: but I took out those not from actual articles, and the number came down to 178. And some of those are multiple uses of the same link. So this could get done, I suggest. Charles Matthews ( talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made a simple converter[ [6]] which can take the citation from the bottom of the springer page and produces the complete template with parameter for our reference. -- Salix ( talk): 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The page symbolic combinatorics contains several redlinks to labelled enumeration theorem. It looks like the latter page existed in 2009, since it has been copied at http://citizendia.org/Labelled_enumeration_theorem, but I can't find a deletion discussion for it. Does anyone know what happened here? Jowa fan ( talk) 03:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I restored the article so that everyone can look at the content. I recommend adding additional references if the article is kept, to demonstrate that the topic passes the inclusion/notability criteria. This is just a pro forma undeletion, I have no opinion about whether the article should be deleted again. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any of these "proofs" should be given, for the following reasons:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should have "proofs" of these rules. I would not object to a truth table in some cases, though. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The proofs should be allowed, with qualifying language. Any given proof isn't "the" proof but rather "a" proof. I do understand Rubin's points though. Even the transformation rules template gives a particular set of rules. However, that isn't intended to represent any particular system, but rather gives common rules used in various systems. At some point I think this kind of information (i.e. Dooot) is expected in a comprehensive encyclopedia article on particular rules of inference. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I came up on the page Projective range. It lacks of a formal definition that I can understand. Should it be expanded or deleted? D.Lazard ( talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The following "trivial" or "uninteresting" cases seem to have encyclopedic value at least inasmuch as they provide clarity for someone seeking to understand their status. Unlike a field with one element, they appear to be uncontrovertial:
I've come across another term in a few places and papers, enough to warrant a stub:
Any opinions on the creation of these stubs? — Quondum ☏ ✎ 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Jean-Claude Sikorav is a new article by Tkuvho, which will probably soon be listed on AfD. Comments/improvements are welcome. Sasha ( talk) 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there any suggestions of subcategories for this category in order to improve the usefulness of this category? At the moment there is around 80 articles in it which may be daunting to somebody looking through the theorems of number theory or maybe not. At the moment there are a few subcats; a couple which are more specific branches of number theory and another relating to the prime numbers, but perhaps there are more that could be added for ease of the user. Perhaps related - where does number theory and algebraic geometry intersect? Brad7777 ( talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a suggestion at Template talk:Maths rating to rename the template. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/119.154.67.223 notes disruptive editing by three neighboring IPs.
Blocks for disruptive editing are warranted, regardless of the SPI issue. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 12:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
template:Maths rating is under discussion, please see template talk:Maths rating
70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP has been straightening out all the italic "d"s in dy/dx at fundamental theorem of calculus. I had the impression the consensus in an earlier discussion was otherwise. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A help needed from experts in logic. I recently wrote a small article about the false (I complained about its absence since 2009, and nobody else made it), but I probably failed to explain a subtle difference between false and contradiction. We all understand the difference between logical truth and a theorem, and there should be the same on the dark side of the logic. So, it would be nice to clarify the terminology in "contradiction" and "principle of explosion". What is contradiction: an occurrence or use of the false in proofs? A proof-theoretical interpretation of the false distinguished for historical reasons from, say, truth-functional one? And what terminology ("false", "contradiction", both as synonyms, or distinction) to use in "principle of explosion"? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps something should be said about how classical logic can get away with treating all non-truths as equivalent to each other? JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the best answer is simply to delete
false (logic), given that it's ambiguous between the truth value "false" and the notion of "logical falsehood" (that is, logically necessary falsehood, which is very close to if not the same as contradiction). If it were actually a useful link, I suppose you could set up a disambig page, but I do not understand what is the rationale for having such a link at all. False (logic) is an unlikely search term and a bad internal link; having it around seems to do nothing but encourage overlinking. There is rarely if ever going to be any good reason to link the word false at all. --
Trovatore (
talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
<math>
tags, but I'll be happy to go with consensus. —
Quondum
☏
✎ 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Before the debate goes too far, I think it should be noted that this topic has been covered before (e.g. here), and it seems clear to me that consensus on this question will not emerge here. In particular, there is enough support for inline {{ math}} use that no recommendation to the contrary will be accepted. I think the inadequacy of the fonts in the context of math and browsers should be addressed as a broader WP issue, not at the template level. So I think the only principles that will emerge are already in place:
— Quondum ☏ ✎ 06:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should avoid using the {{ math}} template (and its cousins like {{ var}}, etc.) This makes the code more difficult to edit by hand, and it is looking very likely that MathJax will give a much better solution very soon. I think it's time we start to deprecate html (and these funny templates). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
span.texhtml {
font-family: 'DejaVu Serif', serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
See e.g. this edit for why sans-serif inline math is bad. If we can't distinguish the capital vowel I from the lowercase consonent l from the digit 1 from the vertical bar |, we have a problem. (In the font I use, the digit is clearly distinguishable from the other three, but obviously even that's not true for everyone.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
<math>
and MathJax, much as is done in professional texts. This would mean some override of the browser's default font choice for serif and sans-serif, and carries with it the pitfall that these may not be installed fonts for a large enough base. If serif is to be avoided due to display problems, and widely installed suitable matched serif and sans-serif fonts cannot be found, this problem is probably going to be around for longer than we'd like. —
Quondum
☏
✎ 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A mathematician may say "I have proved that the following products are both equal to 5:
If they're both equal to the same number, and a product is the value that results from multiplying, and these are both equal to 5, then these are not two products, but one. Our article titled product (mathematics) says:
The latter usage occurs in such expressions as the title of a book called Table of Integrals, Series, and Products or articles titled "Proof that a Product Considered by Schriemann Diverges to Zero". Yet it seems many sources say only that a product is the value of a multiplication operation. A non-logged-in user has been arguing on my talk page that we should therefore omit the "expression" characterization from the definition given in the article.
Opinions of this proposal? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Both usages are important. It is counterproductive to favor one over the other. Rschwieb ( talk) 17:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Seconding Tkuvho and Rschwieb. D.Lazard, your proposed alternative, whatever its advantages, will do much to make the article unimpenetrable for many readers. (One possible confusion that it will create: it appears to assert that $x \cdot y + z$ is a product.) The current wording is clear, correct, easy to understand, and should be kept as-is. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"Unimpenetrable"? Maybe impenetrable? Rschwieb ( talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that that way of using the word "leftmost" will be---um------"unimpenetrable" to almost everyone. I understood it here only because of the context of this present discussion. And I think other aspects of that proposed opening sentence are objectionable on grounds almost as cogent as that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello to all,
I am that non-logged-in user (but I learned how to log-in now!) who asked the question from Michael.
First let talk about the difference between multiplication and product in Natural numbers (ℕ). Multiplication in ℕis a binary operation which is a function from ℕ×ℕ to ℕ, so it gets two Natural numbers as input and the result or output of this function is another Natural number. The mathematical symbol for multiplication function is ×, so in function notation we can write: ×(3,4)= 12. In infix notation we can put the operation (here ×) between two operands (here factors) and use the notation 3×4=12. But we know a function is a set of single valued ordered pairs. In this point of view multiplication is a set like ×={((1,1), 1), ((1,2), 2), …} and one of its elements is ((3,4), 12) and the output or value or result 12 associated with the pair (3,4).
By the present definition, product refers just to the result (and result can be a number or an expression like Meriam Webster but still refers just to the result). The difference between product and multiplication is like as the difference between element and set.
There is another close example. When you say the function f(x)=x² actually you omit two important parts, domain and codomain. This function is not one-to-one from ℝ toℝ but it is one-to-one from ℕ to ℕ, so you can omit the details if there is no ambiguity.
I agree both usages of the product are important, so it seems we need to change the definition of the product, but how? By inserting in Wikipedia? I think this is not a good idea because a divergence will appear between Wikipedia and other references. It is better to think for a better way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sohrab.Rahbar (
talk •
contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSINTRO used to say "Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles." So in that state it wasn't really relevant to this project, since it was only about other articles. But in this edit a month ago, an editor (intending to broaden it to allow formulas in technical but non-mathematical articles such as Joule) changed it to instead say "Mathematical equations and formulas should only be used when absolutely necessary." Today this has led to an editor on golden ratio attempting to take all the math out of the lead section there, because math articles are no longer exempt and he didn't see why it was necessary. So anyway, this is just a heads up: discussion on the issue has started at Talk:Golden ratio for the specific editing concerns there, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section for what the MOS should actually say about this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There was a request to rearrange the redirect Lists of mathematics articles. Right now it points at Lists of mathematics topics but the request was to use Lists of mathematics articles to hold List of mathematics articles instead. I opened a thread here to discuss the best way to handle those confusing names. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote an essay how to improve standards for articles about mathematical logic. I hope, some day it will become an official guideline. Thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Projective resolutions and free resolutions is a new article. Projective resolution and Free resolution redirect elsewhere. Should the redirects be altered or should some articles get merged or what? No other articles linked to the new article until a moment ago when I added a cross-reference. If it is not merged into other articles, then some things should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just noted that resolution (algebra) contains another important class of resolutions, which generalizes all the other ones. I have tried to clarify the corresponding section which was not understandable, even with some background in homological algebra. I hope that the result is better and mathematically correct. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Factor theorem is up for deletion. -- Lambiam 02:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is one of our more interesting articles relating to the history of mathematics. I have been working it over to sort material, and remove some of the more obvious misunderstandings from old text. There are a couple of minor queries left on the Talk page. It could easily be 50% bigger, and as usual more inline referencing is needed (quite important here because Boole has been praised for the wrong things in the past).
Boole was famous in his own time for differential equations. His stuff looks like D-modules to me; that line of attack traces back to Thomas Gaskin and a notorious Tripos question (not as celebrated as the one which set the Stokes theorem, but that might be historical injustice in a way). Without OR rearing its ugly head, it appears that a better job of explaining what Boole actually did would be possible on the basis of some recent research papers that are still behind paywalls. Drop me a note if you come up with anything. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
In reply to question 3 above regarding {{ algebraic structures}}:
If abelian group is on there, then commutative ring should be too. The study of commutative rings is a huge discipline, and I don't see anything silly about having a link to it in the template. Personally I'd rather see the template expanded to include Unique factorization domain and Principal ideal domain and Euclidean domain, then the chain of inclusions on those pages could be replaced by the template.
Ideally the template would have collapsible sections along the same lines as {{ calculus}}. We could have one big division for types of rings, one for groups, one for modules (including vector spaces and Lie algebras), and one for magma, semigroup, monoid (not sure of a good collective name for those three). I don't have the necessary template super-powers to make this happen myself. Is anyone else game? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many articles on fields of mathematics, examples include algebra, geometry etc. There also exists a category Fields of mathematics. This category at the moment contains a few selected eponymous categories aswell a few articles related to the term "fields of mathematics". The category Fields of mathematics is a set category, i.e a category named after a class so I think it would be logical to include all articles that fit this class, i.e all fields of mathematics like algebra, geometry etc. I have brought this idea up before but as I was a new editor I was not able to explain it. I hope those who saw my previous effort now understand what I mean. I think not only this logical, it is also very practical for a user-browser of Wikipedia, particularly those with interests across the scope of mathematics, who do not necessarily want to have to dig deep through the subcats. Of course, this should't be done without consesus, so views? Brad7777 ( talk) 20:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We still need a short list of proposals of what fields you think should move. As I glance at it, quite a few of the broad fields are already there, and I can't immediately see what's missing. A good place to start would be to pick a subset of first level areas on Mathematics_Subject_Classification. I will suggest a few additions for comment: commutative algebra, algebraic geometry, field theory, category theory, universal algebra, differential equations, functional analysis, differential geometry, algebraic topology, probability theory, statistics, numerical analysis, information theory, mathematical physics, game theory. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
A new template, Template:Conic sections was recently added to the articles on conic sections. I'm not convinced this is an improvement and if not whether it can be made into one by tweaking the template. My main objection is that previously the lead images in Ellipse were an ellipse and a rather nice photo of Saturn, but now the lead image has all the conic sections, which makes it a bit unclear what the article is about, and Saturn has been pushed down "below the fold". Is it just me and if not what should be done?-- RDBury ( talk) 03:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm making good progress on integrating MathJax into the Math extension and hope to make it available as an experimental option shortly (it'll definitely be on an experimental wiki very soon!). Currently there are some problems with Chrome and with our JavaScript debug mode which I hope to resolve. list of all bug dependencies
After that it should be mostly testing to make sure things work, and then we'll see if we need to make fixes to upstream MathJax or additional customizations (eg custom latex commands that might not be translated yet). -- brion ( talk) 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
On this page on bugzilla.wikimedia.org, we find this comment from Brion Vibber:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I just tried to set my preferences, and I find:
But I see no third option. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The code needs a quick review before deployment to the 1.19 wikis; I think you guys are probably our best testers for math stuff so English Wikipedia will certainly be among those that get it soon. :) -- brion ( talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In principle, the former should contain only rules such as A ⊢ B, and the latter should not contain rules at all, only facts such as (axioms) ⊢ B. But after a mass addition of articles by Gregbard there is much confusion in the theorems' category. Modus ponens is not a propositional theorem by no means. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Arthur, we are engaging in some civil discourse here, and again I have seen the same pattern. You throw words around in a way that is so careless, as to affect your credibility. All theorems are tautologies so calling tautologies theorems is "misnamed?" Obviously that is not true at all. The same objects are called both in different contexts. However, "tautologies" as a category will surely place these articles in more philosophy category trees than mathematics categories. Your suggestion is inconsistent with the form of subcats in category "mathematical theorems." So you basically have a lot of explaining to do on that suggestion. Secondly, you are completely incorrect in saying that the given theorem called "modus ponens" can't be derived without a modus ponens inference rule. It certainly can be derived in a formal system that does not also contain the modus ponens inference rule. I am a little surprised at that mistake Art. You should know better. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A succession of anonymous/new editors have been editing divisor function and Riemann hypothesis, inserting what looks like a claim to have proved the result unconditionally, supported only by a preprint at vixra.org. More eyes on both articles would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Its still ongoing. Someone should protect Riemann hypothesis at least. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with English terminology, but something like it certainly should exist. A proposition is strong if it entails many other propositions. The proposition P is stronger than Q if P├ Q (provability/deducibility partial order relation) or P ⊧ Q (semantic partial order relation). Also, it may be generalized to theories. A theory is stronger if it has more theorems that another, which uses the same formal language. For example, classical propositional calculus is stronger than intuitionistic one, and an inconsistent theory is the strongest possible.
I could use titles strong and weak (logic) or strong and weak propositions, which is better? Also, which sources should I search for definitions? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 06:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
“ | Wizzle's theorem has a stronger antecedent and hence is weaker than Woozle's theorem. But Wizzle's theorem admits a generalization to bobjects in Poozle's spaces which cannot be obtained as a consequence of Woozle's theorem. Pizzle's conjecture for Poozle's spaces was stronger than both Wizzle's and Woozle's theorems, but Squizzle recently built a counterexample to it (and also to generalized Woozle's theorem) in a foo-dimensional Poozle's space. At Winnie-the-Pooh symposium it was discussed that in foo-dimensional case some weakened version of Woozle's theorem may be true, which is not equivalent to Wizzle's theorem. But for all known bobjects the corresponding statement is a really a consequence of either the foo-dimensional Wizzle's theorem or this theorem in some degenerate space. | ” |
Do we really need two separate articles for a basically one single topic: localization in commutative algebra (or algebraic geometry)? For one thing, the constructions are the same. For another, it's simpler to have one article to discuss basic facts like local property. For example, "noetherian" is not local property. But if localization of a module has a section on local property, it probably should have a mention of this. -- Taku ( talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for a fun diversion, bringing mathematical fallacy into decent shape looks like a project with collaboration potential. See my comment at Talk:Mathematical fallacy. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently in a discussion (see my talk page) with another editor on the meaning of the phrase "the first 5 Fibonacci numbers". My interpretation is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, but the other editor, based on conventions used in computer languages such as C and Python, thinks it would be 0, 1, 1, 2, 3. The other interpretation has some merit in that most authors start the sequence with 0, so it comes down to whether you consider 0 the 0th number or the 1st number in the sequence. My preferred solution is to avoid the issue altogether my rewording the phrase, but we've been back and forth several times now so I thought it was time to raise the issue in a larger forum.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's link to the section being discussed: Fibonacci_number#Combinatorial_identities. I agree that there's a lot of potential for confusion. To my mind, if we have a sequence beginning F0, F1, F2,..., then F0 is the first element, F1 the second element and so on. But it's liable to be interpreted differently by different people. What is the reason for writing out all the formulae in words as well as in symbols? Perhaps the nineteenth-century charm of the prose style is enjoyable, but in this case it causes more trouble that it's worth. Why not just delete all the verbal descriptions, and then there's no argument about the meaning of nth? Jowa fan ( talk) 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
After I felt like Algebraic structures was in recovery, I reexamined restoring the outline version to usefulness. It has many problems, some of which might have been caused by the whole outline/list fiasco. I've proposed some changes on the talk page, and I hope a few other WP:Math members are willing to check it out from time to time. Among the recommendations: organize it more like Algebraic structure, include a section on the usual order of learning things in intro, decrease total number of mentioned structures, remove example list. I'm awaiting response from WP:Outlines concerning if they want to help. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Check your preferences: with MW 1.9 the math rendering options are down to two: always PNG and display TeX. See the RfC here: [7]. Renders some of the Math MOS redundant, such as MOS:MATH#Forcing output to be an image and MOS:MATH#Very simple formulae. Probably the whole section needs rewriting. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
At some point soon (i.e. maybe during 2012), mathJax should become the default for everyone. Developers are working on it. Does this latest roll-out have anything to do with progress in that direction? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I missed something with MathJax. Does anybody use it to browse articles in English Wikipedia and is it really functioning? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The new article titled Iteration of mathematical curves is at best currently a mess, and possibly a violation of WP:OR. Further opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This does highlight the messy state of out articles on curves. We have
all of which overlap somewhat, none of which are particularly complete. What sees to be missing is an article on parametric curve the closest there being Parametric equation.-- Salix ( talk): 08:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Boodlepounce believes these articles are nonsense. Can anyone at the project refute Boodlepounce's assessment by verification from reliable sources? Boodlepounce ( talk) 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion on disambiguation. Please have a look. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In their infinite wisdom a number of editors have decided it would be a good idea to delete {{ expert-subject}}. This means Category:Mathematics articles needing expert attention will soon be empty. Is anyone interested in preserving this list of articles somewhere (or taking the template to WP:DRV)? — Ruud 13:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Expert-subject. — Ruud 16:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've created a mathematics specific version {{ expert-maths}} as an experiment. It has an additional reason parameter to indicate what the problem is.-- Salix ( talk): 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ expert-subject}} has been relisted for TfD discussion. Nageh ( talk) 10:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with the picture of „intuitive explanation“. Which one is better/„not too false“? a,b or c? In my opinion a) is the worst one, but it is back in the article.
-- Svebert ( talk) 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Lebesgue partitioned the y-axis, not the x-axis. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reference again: Bernd Siegfried Walter Schröder (12 November 2007). Mathematical analysis: a concise introduction. John Wiley & Sons. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-470-10796-6. Retrieved 19 March 2012.. You are right, Lebesgue partitioned the y-axis and Riemann the x-axis. But what figure a) shows definitively doesn't happen in Lebesgue integration. The Lebesgue integral is defined as follows:
here is the simple function, which is essentially a sum of characeristic functions on some sets . These sets are parts of the x-axis in the shown pictures. The integral now, „looks up“ the bigness of every and scales it with the appropriate factor of the simple function.
Please explain to me, where are horizontal slices shown in figure a) in the definition? Figure a) is totally misleading because it shows that some parts of the x-axis (some ) are added several times to obtain the integral. But in the definition every is considered exactly 1 time in the sum.
The idea of lebesgue integration is reflected much more precise with figure b) and c): One partitions the y-Axis in say N equal parts with length . So one can assign for every such y-interval an interval on the x-axis (in general disjoint /scatterd). Each such interval on the x-axis is now one set . The lebesgue integration now measures the bigness of every only one time and scales this bigness with the appropriate factor . In both figures b) and c) exactly this is shown. The measure of the sets are the x-axis parts of rectangles with same color.
This is what Henry Lebesgue said: Lebesgue integration is that what a careful businessman does. If he has to count his money than Riemann would just count the coins as they come: 1,1,4,4,5,4,3,1. The careful businessman would order the coins after there value: 3*1+3+3*4+5. (Here ).-- Svebert ( talk) 09:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The figure (b) has now been substantially improved, especially with the addition of the horizontal rulings. While I don't think it adequately conveys the fundamental difference between the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals, I think it should be given by itself as an independent illustration of the "simple function" definition of the Lebesgue integral. Could this be separated from the Riemann integral?
One doesn't actually need to know anything about simple functions to have an intuitive grasp of the meaning of the Lebesgue integral, and this probably points to an overall fault in our article. Probably the simplest definition I know for a nonnegative measurable function f, the Lebesgue integral is simply
where
and the integral on the right is an ordinary (improper) Riemann integral. The idea implicit here is that, intuitively speaking, we can rearrange the function values by sliding all of the horizontal slabs to the left in the picture (a). You'll note that this integral agrees with the limit in my earlier comment
-- Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been working through all the pages that have links to the disambiguation page Conjugation, but I have been unable to resolve those listed here. I am hoping that an expert from this project will be able to fix these. Thanks. Trace identity, SL2(R), David Spiegelhalter, Complete group. Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear members of world mathematical community!
The Fundamental theorem of vector calculus, (
Helmholtz decomposition) states that any sufficiently smooth, rapidly decaying vector field in three dimensions can be constructed with the sum of an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field (scalar potential and a vector potential )
(1*)
However, the gradient of scalar function does not form the
vector field. As well known from textbook [1, p. 15] « … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector »: hence the theory requiring (1) must be false. The next unpleasant things we can see for such well-known classical rules. In mathematics and physics the rot (or
curl) is an operation which takes the vector field and produces another vector field . However it is well-known that is an Antisymmetric Tensor . Therefore under co-ordinate change the tensor transforms differently from a true vector. For elimination of these contradictions the Fundamental theorem of vector calculus can be written as follows:
. (2*)
This formula completely corresponds to transformed
Navier–Stokes equations(NSE) for incompressible fluids ()
(3*)
Here,
Equations (3) and (2) are consistent. Hence there is no reason to say that the theory requiring (2) must be false. As we can see from NSE the sum - forms the vector field.
Note that we will receive the formula (2) also after similar transformation of the Navier–Stokes for a compressible fluid and after transformation of the Lame equations for an elastic media.
From this brief note follows that Helmholtz decomposition is wrong and demands major revision. This follows from comparison of two articles in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition ).
Therefore let's try to formulate the text for editing of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition .
1. B. A.; Fomenko, A. T.; Novikov, Sergeĭ Petrovich (1992). Modern Geometry--methods and Applications: The geometry of surfaces, transformation groups, and fields] (2nd ed.) . Springer. (p. 15). ISBN 0387976639.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The vector potential in the invariant version of the Helmholtz decomposition is a pseudovector. However most sources do not make this distinction, so I don't think our article should either. If someone is bothered by it, then we can add a remark about it somewhere. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is precisely the same notion as that in category theory, provided that a vector or a covector is defined to be a functor that associates a list of numbers to a frame, where both frames and lists of numbers carry the structure of a GL(n)-torsor. But it is not the same in the category of manifolds and mappings between them. However, I much rather prefer to think of the vector as existing independently of how it is described in coordinates (that is invariant under passive diffeomorphism), so calling a vector "contravariant" because of how its components transform seems to put the cart before the horse. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Participants of discussion!
Many thanks for your professional comments. Please, pay attention to addition in my message (Notation 1). However I ask (if it is possible) not talk this problem outside of rectangular Cartesian co-ordinates. It can be made later (after consensus for rectangular Cartesian co-ordinates). I ask to apply only short phrase without difficultly translated words. Remember that your comments are reading all over the world by means of computer translators.
Notation 1.
The vector fields cannot be constructed out of scalar fields using the gradient operator. Therefore so-called Laplacian field is not a true vector field. Thus, the requirements are inconsistent for true vector fields.
This result confirms the proof about impossibility of irrotational velocity field in this old university textbook [10]p. 100-101. 2. Other unpleasant things we can see for many well-known classical equations in Wikipedia. For example the Euler equations (fluid dynamics) can be written as follows
Note that such equations have no sense as exact vector equations because
is not the true vector.
Here Helmholtz_decomposition we can read: “This theorem is of great importance in electrostatics, since Maxwell's equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the static case are of exactly this type.[2]” Thus Maxwell's equations have no sense as exact vector equations. We can to continue a list of similar incorrect mathematical physics equations in Wikipedia.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 12:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały. I have formulated my conclusion on the basis of this university textbook;
1.B. A.; Fomenko, A. T.; Novikov, Sergeĭ Petrovich (1992). Modern Geometry--methods and Applications: The geometry of surfaces, transformation groups, and fields] (2nd ed.) . Springer. (p. 15).
ISBN
0387976639. Authors of this textbook – authoritative mathematicians:
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?&personid=8368&option_lang=eng
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?option_lang=eng&personid=4537
http://www.mathnet.ru/php/person.phtml?option_lang=eng&personid=21899
As well known from this textbook « … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector ». Therefore the gradient of scalar function does not form the vector field. Thus, your objections «You seem to be very confused…. » concern first of all these authors.
I can present other and newer arguments that gradient of scalar function does not form the vector field.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Participants of discussion!
The assumption “vector fields can be constructed out of scalar fields using the gradient operator and so-called Laplacian field is a true vector field” is 100 years old. This assumption have many “Strict proofs”, covered in hundreds of textbooks, and taught each year to many thousands of students. It is difficult to believe that all “Strict proofs” are wrong. Therefore has changed nothing after edition in 1979 of the textbook Modern Geometry in which it is written '« … under co-ordinate change the gradient of function transforms differently from a vector » The convincing counterexample is necessary. Such counterexample I bring to your attention. This counterexample kills mentioned “Strict proofs”. I will specify a source of this counterexample later.
Counterexample. As we well know the divergence of any vector field on Euclidean space is a scalar field. Therefore as an example let's calculate the divergence of an acceleration vector . The acceleration vector components can be written as
After taking an operator div we have
(1)
As we can see this formula can be written as
(2)
if and only if such equality is true
The realization of (3) require such equality:
(4)
Note that equality (3) can make sense only for
In the case
all terms in brackets of (3) are positive and is impossible. Thus the requirements
for vector field are inconsistent. As we well know
, if . Therefore the
vector fields cannot be constructed out of
scalar fields using the
gradient operator and so-called
Laplacian field is not a true vector field.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope, that your doubts will disappear after consideration of these well-known analogies which You can see in textbooks:
(5)
Here, - infinitesimal volume, - volume deformation, - infinitesimal displacement vector ( - any displacement vector), -velocity of volume deformation.
By analogy, the acceleration divergence probably can be written as ( - acceleration of volume deformation)
(6)
It is only a hypothesis on the basis of obvious analogy.
The acceleration of volume deformation can be transform so
. (7)
As you can see this equality is exact. Therefore our hypothesis is correct if (4) are satisfied
and, for example, such additional conditions are satisfied
(8)
These equalities satisfy (4). Therefore in this case formula (1) can be written as (2) also. I will specify a source of this counterexample later.
--
Alexandr (
talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sławomir Biały ! You have written:
1. «Well, I'm seeing a few fundamental errors in this. The first one is in equation (5)».
However equation (5) follows from comparison of the continuity equation
(9)
(10)
Therefore
Where you see first fundamental error?
2.«But the bottom line is that even if you did have a counterexample that would turn mathematics on its head, it's offtopic for the encyclopedia…».
This problem we will discuss later.
-- Alexandr ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sławomir Biały !
Thanks for your comments!
1.“You haven't correctly taken a time derivative in going from the first equation in (5) to the second” The going from first equation in (5) to the second carried out differently. I wrote above - infinitesimal displacement vector ( - any displacement vector). As you can see we have different vectors. Therefore the time derivative is pointless.
2.“or in going from the second equation of (5) to equation (6)”
The second equation of (5) and equation (6) obtained independently.
However this discussion is from other field ( continuum mechanics).
Very important comment:
The velocity vector of Cartesian 3-space for a fix time can be represented as , . This representation is well known as a vector function of scalar argument (or vector-valued function). Then according to chain rule [Vygodsky M.J. (1977) Manual on Higher Mathematics (12th edition). http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ru/library/books/Vygodskij1977ru.djvu (Russian). ASIN: B001U5VF9O (English)]
. (11)
Formulas (11) can be written explicitly concerning . Therefore this common factor can be eliminated. As a result we have
(12)
In component form formulas (12) look like
(13)
Relations (13) can be written explicitly concerning . Therefore this common factor can be eliminated. Thus
.
We have the same result (8) !!!!!!!!! As we can see our conjecture about (8) is true. This conjecture has appeared after such transformation of counterexample (1)
(14)
-- Alexandr ( talk) 19:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
What do folks here think about the article Tau (2π)? Recall the AfD last year. In that AfD, the sources presented were news items in the mainstream press. Consensus seemed to be that an article could be spun out from those sources. But now I'm concerned that many of the works cited in that article are not reliable, but rather various wacky "manifestos" pushing the τ concept. Furthermore, parts of the article are not cited at all. What should be done? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared out at least the most blatant original research at that article. There is more, but it is going to require looking at sources. However, there seems to be a complete lack of reliable sources on this subject. I'm looking at the AfD debate, and there were a few news items mentioning tau, but pretty thin on details. Here are the "reliable" sources mentioned at the AfD: [11], [12], [13], broadcast, article,
I've looked through most of these, and it really doesn't seem like enough to base an article on. The only other reliably published source is Palais's op-ed in the Math Intelligencer http://www.math.utah.edu/%7Epalais/pi.pdf (and I think op-eds can only be used as primary sources for the opinions of their authors). If there really is nothing else, then this will be a very short article indeed. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the available reliable sources, they seem for the most part to be about "tau day", rather than documenting the constant itself or any supposed debate about it in a serious way. Any thoughts about rewriting the article to be about tau day instead from these sources, and then moving it to tau day? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning to merge tau (2π) into turn (geometry) since the tau article is a WP:POVFORK of the turn article. Any thoughts on this? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started started an RfC. Please comment. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
An IP insists on adding material on the history of algebra in the history of calculus page of calculus, claiming in the latest revert that there is "no need to discuss" the addition. see here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
Simple English Wikipedia is one of the smaller Wikipedia projects; it tries to explain topics using simpler language. The big challenge there is to not sacrifice accuracy while explaining the topic at hand. Today, I extended the System of linear equations article there; I added the information that such systems are commonly represented and solved using matrices. I also added a section describing the general process of solving such systems, and links to common methods. The problem I found was that most of these (even the common ones, like Gaussian elimination or Cramer's rule) do not have articles there. We are a small community, and none of us has a background in mathematics. I am aware that there may be some concurrency between English and Simple English, and that in the minds of some people Simple English Wikipedia has a bad reputation. We would therefore look forward to any topic-specific help you could provide. -- Eptalon ( talk) 12:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Should Inertia tensor of triangle merge to List of moment of inertia tensors? Please comment at Talk:Inertia tensor of triangle#Merge proposal. I'd also appreciate if someone in this project could actually complete the merger (assuming the wiki community supports it, of course) since I don't know the math here. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Restricted randomization has been nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Restricted_randomization.
Apparently everyone has ALREADY forgotten that in 2002 probably 10% of Wikipedia articles were just copied from either the US Geographic Names Data Base or a federal agency web site on telecommunications. An article would say,
It was crazy, but the policy was that we were to work on and improve them. Now this article is nominated for deletion only because its initial version is copied from a (non-copyrighted) federal government web site. The article needs work, but it's nowhere near as bad as lots of others that survive. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The question needs to be asked: why exactly is this article not considered a copyright violation? The original site [14] doesn't have a clearly visible copyright notice, but I also can't see any explicit waiver of copyright or any statement giving permission for the content to be reproduced elsewhere. (I agree that we should have an article on this topic; I just want to understand this issues fully before I comment at the deletion discussion.) Jowa fan ( talk) 06:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As a result of this CfD discussion, 37 articles have Category:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal on their talk page. That's fine, but it is awkward how the category is stuck at the bottom of the page, where it will inevitably cause confusion to those adding comments in the last section. For example, click "edit" for the last section at Talk:Golden ratio and see that if you were adding a new comment, you should insert it above the "Category" line. Perhaps the category should be included as an option in {{ Maths rating}}? Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we make fonts in class="texhtml" look similar to ones used by user:Nageh/mathJax? Currently an article intermixing <math> and {{ math}} formatting, e.g. Quaternions and spatial rotation, looks patchy. The letter x shows an especially ugly contrast between the (default browser) "italic" and cursive fonts used in both texvc PNGs and mathJax. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians,
A contributor has put a theorem of his own in an article ( Expander graph). He exhibits formulas that are not referenced in any academic source. Despite what he's saying, it requires much more than "routine calculations" to reach his result.
There was an interpretation mistake of one of the sources that led to a mistake in his formulas. This mistake stayed in the article during one year and a half. I did not succeed in convincing him that was the very illustration of the dangers of doing original work.
He "fixed" the formulas, but I'm still not perfectly convinced that the new version is correct. And no one can tell, since the result is not in the sources.
I also had him to remove a definition that was not in the sources (this time with success).
I would your need help to let him understand that, if something is not in the sources, it has nothing to do on wikipedia.
Discussion is here: Talk:Expander graph#"Original research" template.
Thanks in advance, -- MathsPoetry ( talk) 07:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I realize the subject is quite technical, so I have provided an outline of the proof of my contradictor on Talk:Expander graph#Ylloh's proof. This should enable you to judge whether it is an immediate corollary or not. I tried to make the presentation as neutral as possible, and I only did my remarks about possible problems after the demonstration. Best, -- MathsPoetry ( talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some user is repeatedly vandalizing angle trisection in an attempt to insert links to his own webpage. (He has successfully managed to get such links included on a variety of other, non-math, pages; this appears to be the only purpose of the account.) If someone with appropriate powers could do something to prevent this, it would be wonderful. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The concerned editor has been indefinitely blocked, see User talk:WIKI-1-PIDEA#March 2012. — D.Lazard ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The project members may be interested in the article about Robin Williams and Steve Martin at the USA's Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI), which features e.g. William's ad-libbing about a math geek wishing "I want to bisect her angle". [15] Or not.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The pseudonymous mathematicians John Rainwater and Peter Orno were approved for the 2012 April Fools DYK in April 2011. John Rainwater's DYK should appear in a few hours. Peter Orno's DYK has been delayed. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need help with math merging. There is consensus at Talk:Partially ordered ring to merge in the page Ordered ring, but I don't know the math and have no idea how to do it. I was hoping that one of your math whizzes here could do that for Wiki. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This picture has been nominated as a featured picture here it has been pointed out that the picture has little or no encyclopaedic value in describing symmetry to the reader. I am wondering is that correct ? Some editors in the discussion don't think so. Penyulap ☏ 04:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In the page inflexion point it is said (in other words) that it is a point where a curve has a contact of odd order with its tangent. The name of a contact of even order higher than two is not given. In French, it is "méplat", but the article Meplat does not give this meaning. What is the correct English word?.
By the way, "flex" is frequently used instead of "inflexion point" and this is not mentioned in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Given the importance of this article, and it hasn't really improved since last posted my own suggestions for improvement on the talk page (to which no one has responded to, or even at all since then, recently archived by myself), I intend to just re-write most of the first half of the article.
There is plenty of repetition and it just dribbles on and on. All that's really needed it the general definition and a couple of concrete examples, followed by the properties. By no means will remove anything referenced or the image already included, though the first half only has one reference, I (and surley many others) have access to loads (and if ordinary multiplication is such a trivial concept, why aren’t there more anyway??).
The "too technical" banner has been there a long time also... about time this was sorted out. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Coons surface is a really messy new article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to edit the article as it is completely outside my area of expertise, but the recently added section on Fraser Stewart's PhD thesis reads to me like a shameless (self?-)promotion of a topic of marginal importance for this introductory article. Can someone knowledgeable have a look at it?— Emil J. 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning on nominating the pi article soon for Featured Article status. I'm looking for math-knowledgable editors to review the article for accuracy & prose quality .... just post any comments or ideas for improvement on the article's Talk page. The criteria for FA are at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Thanks in advance for any help. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed at least two group theory templates. There is the one at Abelian group and the one at group theory. They both have their strong points. The one without the picture is easier to navigate, and I like the last two items. On the other hand, the one with the picture is pretty neat, and pretty much subsumes the one without the picture. Should we think about merging or do we just use them haphazardly? Rschwieb ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking for help here about Saccheri quadrilateral. :)-- Nickanc ( talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent discussions at Talk:twice pi suggest that it may be helpful to have an explicit guideline to the effect that youtube videos and yellow media reports are not considered to be reliable sources for math-related articles. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Obvious target candidate: 2π in popular culture. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were some concrete way to address the issue of "yellow media". This is not the first time this issue has arisen in science-related articles of the media running some story of dubious scientific merit, simply because some scientist somewhere had said something. My favorite example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett, which was picked up as a viral news story because upon posting his idiotic ramblings to YouTube, Jacob Barnett's mother contacted an MIT physicist who encouraged Barnett to continue studying math and physics. The media spun this as "Boy genius challenges all of modern physics" or other such ridiculousness. The point is, as a rule news media should not be allowed as a reliable source for this sort of thing. The news is a reliable source for news (e.g., what Russia is doing at the moment), less so for all the other stuff presented as a sideshow to the news. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any particular plan, but what does anyone think of dumping materials from Stacks project [16]? (Apparently, there is no Wikipedia article on the project.) On the one hand, this is the quickest way to increase our coverage of scheme theory, and even more reliable (more reliable than some random graduate student.) On the other hand, ah..., there might be an issue like quality for instance. (The project is licensed under GFDL, which is compatible with Wikipedia. I know some people like/enjoy actual writing. But I'm more interested in the ends than the means. -- Taku ( talk) 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the materials I have in mind are statements of theorems and examples. -- Taku ( talk) 12:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several articles which explain the meaning and use of this notation:
yet the specialized notations of commas, semicolons, sqaure/round brackets (e.x. ) seem to be dispersed, so readers will have to search them out (even if linked) which is not much help. It would be convenient to add a list of all the attributes just as a summary in one place (in an obviously titled article - like abstract index notation so people will look there and its easier for editors to remember that link), then linking to all of the main articles from there.
proposed summary: |
---|
|
Reference which includes all of these: Gravitation, MTW, 1972, p.85-86, §3.5 . If no-one objects I'll add it to the end of abstract index notation (an alternative place would be tensor but there is a section which links to abstract index notation anyway...). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 09:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Btw., the historical name is Ricci calculus , see Schouten (1924) Der Ricci-Kalkül.-- LutzL ( talk) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The article does create the impression that the phrase Einstein notation is synonymous with Einstein summation convention, but it also seems possible that it is a broader term to describe the use of superscripts, subscripts etc. to index coefficients, plus potentially all the twiddles in your proposed summary; if this is the case, the Einstein summation convention would be merely one facet thereof. I would not be surprised if this article focuses primarily on the summation convention as a result of a misconception amongst WP editors. I am having difficulty googling references that authoritatively support either view. I would appreciate input from people with experience on this point. — Quondum ☏ 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały: So called 'abstract index notation' is for people who want to use index notation (because it is by far the most convenient way to express the ideas) while still pretending that they are not using index notation to manipulate arrays of numbers but instead some abstract notion of tensors which requires the use of "" and such. So it allows people to do algebraic manipulations with indices, but if you dare to try to figure out what it means by substituting actual numbers, then you are violating the arbitrary rules of 'abstract index notation'. What a load of s--t. JRSpriggs ( talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any major problem with such articles, as the topic itself is quite confusing and (some time ago) even controversial. But I see a minor problem, that the
tensor article does not explain the hierarchy of notations, i.e. which notation is related to which and how exactly. I think, WP ought to explain the following points:
Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand what is being proposed at all. Here is what I suggest:
Best, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
To Sławomir Biały: With what aspect of "the notation" do you think my allegedly imperious viewpoint betrays a lack of basic familiarity? And I am not trying to impose my view on anyone; just stating the facts as I see them. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone inform me on policies delineating how many publications it is reasonable to list in an article on a living person? David Hestenes currently has 47. That seems kind of gratuitous to me, but again, I have no idea what the policies suggest. Rschwieb ( talk) 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that all of the geometric algebra stuff is a bit on the fringes ( WP:FRINGE), and the GA viewpoint is often pushed in articles where it is not really helpful, nor does it typically conform to WP:WEIGHT. Hestenes is certainly one who has made quite a cult industry out of appropriating the works of others and rebranding them under the rubric of "geometric algebra", and for that he is certainly notable. But his notability as a legitimate physics researcher is dubious at best. I think the lack of secondary sources definitely bears this out. Indeed, as do the (exclusively primary) sources referenced in the article: for instance, the "long series of papers" referenced in the article includes many papers of dubious scientific merit (for instance those published in the American Journal of Physics, which is apparently not a research journal). I would suggest removing everything in that article that cannot be attributed to reliable secondary sources, including the long publication list of debatable worth. The most relevant policies here are WP:PSTS and WP:BLP, although if push comes to shove other policies are also relevant. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I think generally, a bio should contain no list of published papers. In almost all cases it is better to provide an external link to either: 1)a Bibliography by the author himself. 2)A search of any appropriate indexing service providing a list of all published works. The only reason to really deviate from this, is if the published work is in itself notable (but possibly not notable enough for its own article) or if the published work is important for establishing the notability of the subject. T R 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The pi article is in need of a peer reviewer at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pi/archive2. The reviewer should be someone familiar with FA criteria. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Viscous vortex domains method is a very new, quite short, article that needs might benefit from expansion after a quick look-over by someone vaguely familiar with mathematics & mechanics (or your local variant of such concepts...) and then the "new unreviewed article" template removing. I'm informed that it's half physics and half mathematics (don't they overlap still?) so I'll post at the Physics project as well if I get time. Many thanks! --
Demiurge1000 (
talk) 21:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
User 777sms ( talk · contribs) has been going through all our articles systematically changing the "planetmath" template to the "PlanetMath attribution" template. This introduces an implication that we have actually borrowed material in those articles from Planet Math where no such implication was previously present. While that may be appropriate in some cases, I suspect that there are many other cases where we have not borrowed from them, but merely wanted to make another source available to the user. What, if anything, should we do about this? JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Note [19]. This probably explains most of the edits, and is a good idea. (But this editor really has to use edit summaries to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. But he positively refuses to do so.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to make sure I've understood correctly: the old "Planetmath" template has been renamed to {{ PlanetMath attribution}}, and the other edits consist of pointing things to the renamed template? Jowa fan ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiliagon and give your opinions. Double sharp ( talk) 03:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This incident might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
— Wavelength ( talk) 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check out what I've said at Talk:Elliptic integral#possible error in formula for complete elliptic integral of the first kind at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_integral that I'm not making a complete something else thanks. It has long been a bit confused and it would be nice to fix it all up properly. Dmcq ( talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The notice above is being circulated to various WikiProjects, but AFAIK hasn't appeared here yet. What do people think of this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I went to the HighBeam web site, where I have no account, and I was able to do some searches, but the difference between having and not having an account was that I could read only the beginnings of the articles I found. I entered " Karlis Kaufmanis" and found a few things, but not much beyond what I'd already found elsewhere. (I created the article about him recently and have found a dearth of information to expand the article.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I got an account as well. It's overall use for math is somewhat limited but still it can be useful in particular for those who do not have access to journal archives like JSTOR or others. Afaik there are still account available since not all 1000 accounts were used up in the original application period.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit war with some IPs at vector space regarding the example of complex numbers. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Input would be helpful in the pi Talk page regarding how much mention, if any, should be made in the pi article about the proposed alternate constant tau = 2*pi. The discussion is at Talk:Pi#tau_material.3F. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I started editing these articles because of "orphaned article" message on the article " Budan's theorem" that my students and I have worked on for the past month. My function was to fine-tune the article at the end.
I am astonished that the author of the Sturm article claims that Sturm's method is available "in every computer algebra system". That is simply not true; he admits as much by claiming, in his other article on root finding algorithms, that maple uses the Vincent-Collins-Akritas method as the default method! Add to this Mathematica, which always had the VAS algorithm, (S works for Mathematica), Sage also, etc etc ... and you get the degree of accuracy of his statement.
Besides, Sturm's method is to be compared with other methods, like VCA and VAS; why does he not want this comparison? I believe that Lazard (whom I have never met or interacted with in the past) is the one who tries to impose HIS limited point of view on the readers. Besides, (assuming good intentions) his knowledge of English did not allow him to differentiate (in the article on root finding algorithms) between "Uspensky's method" and "modified Uspensky's method" and he used the first thinking the two expressions are interchangeable.
Also, on Sturm's theorem he talks about bounds and the only one that came to his mind was what he calls Cauchy's bound; Cauchy gave a bound ONLY on the positive roots and NOT on the absolute value of the roots. The mathematicians of the 19th century knew better. See Bourdon's algebra.
In summary, I have only ADDED material to the above mentioned articles and DID NOT ERASE anything Lazard wrote. I expect the same courtesy from him as well. He got his point of view and I have mine and I think both need to be taken into consideration. But we both have to write accuracies. So, I expect Sturm's method to be reverted to the previous version where I was saying that Sturm's method was used by "everybody until about 1980 --- when it was replaced by methods derived from Vincent's theorem", along with the supporting references.
And I close with the following: If Lazard does not like anything on the Budan article he should say so and explain the reason he does not like it. Saying that the article is "... entirely devoted to the personal views of Akritas on the history of mathematics" proves nothing; he should tell us his own views -- if he has any. My views have already been judged by peers.
Alkis Akritas2 ( talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Response to LutzL: Uspensky did not eliminate the "... continued fraction part for an easier complexity result". Both Vincent's method AND Uspensky's implementation of Vincent's theorem use continued fractions and are BOTH exponential in nature; in fact, Uspensky's is twice more exponential because he doubles the work done by Vincent. See Budan's thorem and Vincent's figure right above it to get a clear picture. What I did was to make Vincent's exponential method polynomial in time. To prove it, back in 1978, I had made some plausible assumption, but in 2008 Sharma proved it without any assumptions whatsoever. Akritas2 ( talk) 11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Theorems in Galois theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Akritas2 has recently edited Sturm's theorem and Root-finding algorithm in order to add references to his publications and introduce his personal point of view on the subject. I have reverted his edits per wp:COI, wp: NPOV wp:OR and lacking of secondary sources. He has reverted my reverts. I may not revert again, because, knowing personally the guy, I am sure this will lead immediately to an edit war. For the same reason, I cannot discuss constructively with him. Could someone look at this problem?
He has also created Budan's theorem, a page which deserve some attention.
D.Lazard ( talk) 15:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? Please comment here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well planet math is community wiki without any read editorial by noted experts but just by the community at large (like WP), hence it is normally not suited as a source. However it is still sometimes or even often well suited to listed under external links.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We have a persistent single-purpose account active on Double exponential function who has been adding material which is somewhat relevant but in (what I feel is) an unencyclopedic style that unbalances the article, and has shown no attempt to engage other editors on the subject. More eyes on it would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is just to inform you that MediaWiki version 1.20wmf1 has just been deployed, but its TeX output is broken, unfortunately. In particular, this means that you will see a lot of "Misplaced &" errors or spurious "&"s in MathJax. Nageh ( talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
When trying to get a quick overview of a topic in mathematics, a reader sometimes encounters a barrier with the inability to quickly determine what an operator symbol means. As a (maybe too easy) example, consider the following extracts from the article Chain rule:
Please note, I am not alleging that anything is wrong with the chain rule article. However, for someone who is not familiar with the use of to denote function composition, there might be three reasons for initial confusion:
If had been a word instead of a symbol, its initial use would have carried a link to an article about the symbol. But we do not (as far as I know) have a way to turn a symbol into a link, as in [[]], which does not work.
What is the best practice for an article-writer (or editor) to use when an operator definition is needed? Is there a nice way to add a footnote-style link to an operator?
Incidentally, the problem usually arises for symbols less familiar than . For example, what is the definition of . . . and how would I best make that definition available to a reader? Dratman ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please could a knowledgeable member of this project take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlitz exponential and let us know weather it is notable and accurate? I'm a mathematical dunce and would appreciate some expert input into this submission's suitability. Pol430 talk to me 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctica Journal of Mathematics. -- 202.124.74.240 ( talk) 11:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Kernel (mathematics) has been tagged as a disambiguation page, but it runs afoul of WP:INCOMPDAB and in accordance with that policy is likely to be merged/redirected into Kernel (disambiguation)#Mathematics; furthermore, in accordance with WP:MOSDAB, most of the information will be stripped, except for one blue link per line and the minimum amount of information needed to direct a searcher to the most appropriate article for a given meaning. Since the page has 60 incoming links, it is likely that dozens of disambiguators will be drawn to this page, and will edit it to implement those guidelines, either by drastically culling its content, or by redirecting it to the existing section at Kernel (disambiguation). However, it would be a shame to lose all the work that has been put into this page, so perhaps some other formulation can be arrived at where it is not tagged as a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Two-way analysis of variance is an article that needs a lot of work. Probably more than one person can do in one day. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone else having problems viewing maths text? All <math>...</math> strings are being displayed as $...$ with the LaTeX code being shown explicitly. — Fly by Night ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, when is Wikipedia finally going to switch to MathJax? It has been working for me flawlessly for quite some time now (except all the text art in italic and bold with html super/subscripts instead of math looks bad in comparison - as it should), but when I arrive to a Wikipedia link without being logged in, I still see the legacy math rendering as images. Jmath666 ( talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Per bugzilla:31406#c24, the experimental MathJax option is now available on your preferences. In case anyone find some other bug which was not reported yet (see this list), please report it directly on bugzilla. Helder 16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I added the following to the FAQ at the top of this page following what seemed to be a favorable discussion last month: "Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues? A.: Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable. Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided." This was promptly deleted by a tauist. It would be useful to put on the record a WPM opposition to such dubious sources. Tkuvho ( talk) 11:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The background for this dispute concerns the recent controversy over the article Talk:Tau (2π). In my opinion, Waldir and others were attempting to use mainstream media to establish the notability of the concept, and then attempting to use those same sources to write an article that purported to be about a serious mathematical phenomenon. It seems clear to me that if this kind of bait-and-switch can be construed as permitted under our policies, then someone needs to take a hard look at those policies and see where they need to be clarified. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that comments in this discussion still ignore the point that some YouTube videos are indeed reliable. As Kmhkmh said, YouTube is primarily a distribution channel, and we should probably do better than say "all content on YouTube is unreliable". For example, there was a minor claim at Raptor code, which I knew was true but was tagged with {{ dubious}}, and the only (but reliable) source I could find on this was a talk given by the primary inventor at a university, which recorded his talk and put it on YouTube. But maybe this is just an exception to the rule, not worthy of further mention? Nageh ( talk) 11:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Today, Wackywill1001 ( talk · contribs) created Category:E (mathematical constant) as a subcategory of Category:Mathematical constants. Yet it contains articles which are not about mathematical constants and only incidentally about e. JRSpriggs ( talk) 15:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled xdvi. It's still quite stubby. Have fun improving and extending it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the article Evaluating sums to see if I could improve it, but I think I've decided that it's hopeless: the title subject is so over-broad that there's no possible way to give a comprehensive encyclopedic treatment, while the article as written might be better titled methods of computing certain numerical series known to bright high school students. And, of course, all of the content is included in articles like arithmetic progression and Taylor series, where it has appropriate context. I don't care enough about this to learn how to go about proposing articles for deletion, but perhaps someone who agrees might go about it. -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The section Computer program of the article Look-and-say sequence consists of code in Python and Javascript to generate the sequence that is the subject of the article. Is it usual practice to have such code in Wikipedia articles? (By the way, if anyone had any reliable sources for the section on "pea pattern", that would be wonderful.) -- Joel B. Lewis ( talk) 00:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a new List of things named after Charles Hermite. Work on it! Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Double sharp and I were discussing earlier about the coverage of uniform and pseudo-uniform polyhedra on Wikipedia. In fact, we've just started work on a few articles. (The main discussion is on my talk page, though I am not really that active in it.) Please help out!
Thanks,
Your old friend, "The Doctahedron" 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the Bachmann who wrote this paper Paul Gustav Heinrich Bachmann? My guess is yes, but I am not sure how to confirm it. The paper does not give his full name. I need to know this, because I want to wikilink him in an article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm good at math but not this good. The article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eilenberg-Ganea theorem was not moved to article space because of concerns with inline citations. While I agree that the concerns exist, the article appears to be ready for the article space as long as {{ More footnotes}} is added. Can someone who might actually know what they are talking about take a look at it to see if it is able to be moved? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Some aspects of the article pretty thoroughly violated WP:MOSMATH, and to a lesser extent WP:MOS, but I've fixed those. (Apparently someone thought everything in non- TeX math notation should be indiscriminately italicized, including even parentheses and digits, etc., and wrote \text{sup} instead of \sup, and various other things like that. In fact, some things on the same line where "\text{sup}" appeared didn't use \text where \text was appropriate and artificially added spacing between words.) There was also a mathematical thing that didn't make sense: "" appeared. Where appears, I expect "". Finally I thought what was probably meant was "" was probably meant, and I changed it to that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it appropriate in Portal:Logic/Selected article/3? It certainly is not appropriate in any of the articles to which Greg has added it over time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdy's Exchanger. Magdy's Exchanger appears to be original research by Ahmed Magdy Hosny ( talk · contribs). JRSpriggs ( talk) 23:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the reason for the Wikify tag on the article Electrodynamic tether. I have no idea how to do that, and I don't know if other editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify do either. Can someone here try to make those improvements? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Easy question to answer I'm sure, I just can't seem to find the answer. We prefer to write "[[homomorphic image]]s" to "[[homomorphic image|homomorphic images]]", right? I mean that we prefer to put the s outside the linking rather than require using the pipe. Rschwieb ( talk) 12:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Plurals and other derived names. When forming plurals, you can do so thus:
[[apple]]s
which includes the final "s" in the link like this: apples. This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text than[[apple|apples]]
. This works not just for "s", but for any words that consist of an article name and some additional letters. For details, see Help:Link. (This does not work for affixes beginning with hyphens, apostrophes, or capital letters.)
Piping and redirects. Per § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. For example, let's assume the page A Dirge for Sabis is a redirect to the page The Sword of Knowledge, and while you're editing some other article, you want to add a link to A Dirge for Sabis. You may be tempted to avoid the redirect by directly linking to it with a pipe like this:
[[The Sword of Knowledge|A Dirge for Sabis]]
. Instead, write simply[[A Dirge for Sabis]]
and let the system handle the rest. This has the added advantage that if an article is written later about the more specific subject (in this case, A Dirge for Sabis), fewer links will need to be changed to accommodate for the new article.
My recent edit in absolute value has been reverted and the summary of the reversion links to Wolfram research and Weisstein as source. I agree that sourcing to Weisstein is frequently easy. But it is a commercial ressource, which is not peer reviewed. Is it correct to use it as authoritative source? D.Lazard ( talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Additional eyes at absolute value are needed. There is an editor keen on adding several sections of original research, including the one sourced entirely to Wolfram Alpha. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
KlappCK (
talk ·
contribs)
insists that
some of his edits were valid. I am convinced that the sense of an article has higher priority than formatting, and (basic correctness of) formatting has a priority over tweaks such as replacement of \frac
with \tfrac
. If one apparently degrade the sense of an article, other users should not hesitate to summarily remove all tweaks to restore the correct sense. I do not object against KlappCK's formatting tweaks, although a user who easily disrupts a complicated content and
starts edit wars over an OR section cannot enjoy my personal trust.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 07:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please check the validity of this edit? — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The Kronecker delta article seems unsure of its subject's identity. Please discuss at Talk:Kronecker delta#Clarification: is the Kronecker delta a function, or "notational shorthand"?. -- TSchwenn ( talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Pantriagdiag magic cube ( AfD discussion) article is currently listed for deletion. Other articles in the same vein are diagonal magic cube, pantriagonal magic cube, pandiagonal magic cube, and perfect magic cube. I observe that we seem to have a bit of a problem with magic cube classification. I refer you to the second sentence of magic cube classes, whose boldface is in the article itself:
This new system is more precise in defining magic cubes.
The new system, it turns out, is the invention of Harvey Heinz ( talk · contribs), who put up his new system on two sets of WWW pages and in a self-published book (Harvey D. Heinz Publishing), and who came to Wikipedia and wrote all of these "-agonal" articles, the magic cube classes article, and also the perfect magic cube#An alternative definition section of the perfect magic cube article. Wikipedia seems to be presenting an acknowledged idiosyncratic and novel classification of this subject.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of scientific constants named after people includes a section on mathematical constants. The mathematical and physical parts should each be a hundred times as long as it is. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to resurrect Template:WikiProject Mathematics. It is no longer used. Template:Maths rating is used instead. I think it is nice to be consistent with other wikiprojects. Makes the housekeeping easier. Is there WP-wide guidelines on this sort of thing? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs)
I wonder what you guys think about this template deletion at Category:Logic. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Our coverage of power spectrum estimation ( spectral density estimation) seems very weak, with very little bringing together or contrasting the different methods, or giving historical perspective. Indeed, most articles looking for a signal processing treatment of the subject appear to have been being redirected to spectrum analyzer, about a hardware box with very little discussion of algorithms usually used in pure-software methods.
In particular, there is very little discussion of all-poles versus all-zeros methods. There appears to be nothing at all about John Parker Burg or the Burg algorithm. We have quite a detailed article on the Levinson recursion, but nothing to say that this is perhaps its most important application. Linear predictive coding appears to exist in a silo of its own, without even a link to ARMA modelling; while in turn the article on ARMA models doesn't appear to mention power spectrum estimation at all. Autoregressive model is a bit better, but doesn't give any sense how a pure AR fit is likely to compare to other fits.
It probably doesn't help that spectral analysis goes to a dab page, and the top link spectrum analysis that probably ought to be merged into spectroscopy.
This is very poor. Given the importance of this topic in signal processing and applications, we ought to be able to match at minimum the level of discussion in Numerical Recipes at least. But at the moment we're way short. Anybody out there willing to step up to the plate? Jheald ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The following footnote at Colin Maclaurin is sourced at a personal page at the university of rochester:
I wonder if it is the optimal source for the information. Tkuvho ( talk) 08:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The Canisius College link is broken 2013-05-01
The page Finitely generated projective module has been created recently. IMO, this is a redundant content fork and this page has to be merged into Projective module. I have started a discussion in Talk:Finitely generated projective module and the author of the article disagrees. Please comment there. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — (Links corrected after reading next post. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC) )
The article on Bell's theorem has been hijacked by crackpot Joy Christian and his cronies. Any attempt to remove references to Christian's discredited work (not published in any peer-reviewed journa, and shown o be fundamentally flawed by a long list of authorities in the fieldl) is immediately "undone" by Christian himself or his supporter Fred Diether. Conflict of Interest!
But if nobody cares about this article better to leave it to the crackpots. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Richard Gill called me “crackpot Joy Christian.” I wonder what his criterion of crackpot is. I let the readers judge for themselves. Here are my credentials: Dr. Joy Christian obtained his Ph.D. from Boston University in Foundations of Quantum Theory in 1991 under the supervision of the renowned philosopher and physicist Professor Abner Shimony (the “S” in Bell-CHSH-inequality). He then received a Research Fellowship from the Wolfson College of the University of Oxford, where he has remained affiliated both with the college and a number of departments of the university. He is an invited member of the prestigious Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi), and has been a Long Term Visitor of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada. He is well known for his contributions to the foundations of quantum and gravitational physics, including quantization of Newton-Cartan theory of gravity, generalization of Special Theory of Relativity to incorporate the objective passage of time, and elimination of non-locality from the foundations of quantum physics. A partial list of his publications can be found here: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Christian_Joy/0/1/0/all/0/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the paper in question, "Disproof of Bell's Theorem", http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v1.pdf , is published in my peer-reviewed book, http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599425645, and is widely discussed on the Internet. My work has also been cited in several *published* articles, at least two of them in the Physical Review (not to mention its citations in some lesser known journals). I have given invited talks about my work on several occasions during the past five years. The book itself is only just published, and citations to it will undoubtedly follow in due course. On the other hand ALL of Richard Gill’s misguided, erroneous, and unpublished arguments against my work have been comprehensively debunked, many times over, not only by me but also by several other knowledgeable people on the FQXi blogs. I myself have given a systematic refutation of his misguided arguments in the following two papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876 -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: My book IS peer-reviewed. My work IS cited and discussed in Physical Review and other journals, and NOT as negatively as you are trying to suggest. You have no proof of what you are claiming. You are clearly biased.
On a different note, I urge the Wikipedia community to remove Richard Gill’s slanderous name claiming from his post above. As you can judge from my qualifications I listed above, his name calling has no justification whatsoever. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk • contribs)
@Arthur Rubin: My book *IS* peer-reviewed. There are also people who call me a genius; so perhaps you should refer me as a “so-called genius.” -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Boris, I respectfully disagree (if I understand you correctly). Bell claimed that no functions of the form A(a, L) = +/-1 and B(b, L) = +/-1 can reproduce correlations of the form E(a, b) = -a.b. “This is the theorem” (his exact words). What Bell did not realize is that this claim is true if and only if the co-domain of the functions A(a, L) and B(b, L) is NOT a unit parallelized 3-sphere, S^3. My one-page paper shows an explicit construction of the fact that when the co-domain of A(a, L) and B(b, L) is taken to be S^3, the correlations are inevitably E(a, b) = -a.b. I urge you to have a look at this longer paper to see my compete argument: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775 . Thanks. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is clear that we should not cite Joy Christian's self-published work ( WP:SELFPUB). There has been a long tradition of criticism of Bell's theorem from the fringes of physics. If mention of this is to be included in the article, it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source documenting such criticism and the replies of the scientific mainstream ( WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS). Otherwise, including criticisms sourced to the primary literature is considered to be original research, and is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Bell's_theorem#Seeking_consensus_to_exclude_the_disproof_of_Bell.27s_theorem will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I urge the Wikipedia community to remove Richard Gill’s slanderous name claiming from his post above. As you can judge from my qualifications I listed above, his name calling has no justification whatsoever. -- Joy Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.6.36 ( talk) 06:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall http://betterexplained.com/archives/ being discussed in this space so I would like to raise the issue of whether this is a reliable source. Also, would it be appropriate to cite it in a footnote in the lede of an article. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a known issue, but there seem to be some inconsistencies in the way the Wikimedia parser processes TeX and MathJax. Consider <math>a<b</math>:
versus <math>a\lt b</math>
If MathJax is enabled, the first equation does not display correctly but the second one does. If "Render as PNG" is enabled the first equation displays correctly, and the second generates a parse error "Failed to parse (unknown function\lt)". This seems to be quite bad, since half of users will see one or the other of the two errors! Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the fact that MathJax is "still experimental", I don't think the preferences page should also say that it is "recommended for most browsers". These two directives seem to be incongruous. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray.
Is this person notable?
Are the news media's claims about him true or merely sensationalist exaggerations that help sell newspapers?
Opine at the page linked to above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised that we had no article on Lester Dubins. I've just created one. It needs further work, both within the article itself and in other articles that ought to link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The pi article has been nominated for Featured Article status. If successful, this will be the ninth Top-priority FA article for the Mathematics project. Editors familiar with the FA criteria are welcome to provide input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I would appreciate if a few people could lend their expertise over at the nomination page, even if it is just to confirm that one little section is not a piece of nonsense. I am just concerned about the little things, the off emphasis here, the obscure odd fact inserted there, that have a way of getting into even (or especially?) meticulously-researched articles, and that bespeak inexpertness. For example, detailed discussions of π's relationship to the Mandelbrot set fractal and the sinuosity of a meandering river (which are above my head) appear in the middle of other content, like a discussion of Euler's identity (the importance of which even I can understand) or the Fourier transform (which I have at least heard of). It just strikes me as a little fishy, though for all I know the article is perfectly well balanced. Which is why I'm asking for some help. Thanks! Leonxlin ( talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Pi has passed its nomination! Leonxlin ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Did I do something wrong/incomplete? I use Firefox 12.0 (enabled Java & Javascript) on Linux as my browser but sometimes/often mathematical formulae are not or are wrongly displayed. E. g. in the page [24] in the table-style of all these matrices there appears a literal "amp;" for the column separator, or in section "Classification", subsection "Elliptic transforms" the formula "0 \le \mbox{tr}^2\mathfrak{H} < 4.\," is not interpreted at all - it is displayed rawly! (This is the first formula in this article , several follow, but the formulae before seem to be displayed correctly). Thanks in advance for any useful help. Achim1999 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I added Poincare's original definition of a differentiable manifold at Manifold#Poincar.C3.A9.27s_original_definition. Poincare defined a manifold as a subset of euclidean space which is locally a graph (see details there). This definition is arguably more accessible to a general reader than the more abstract definition involving atlases, charts, and transition functions. The lede could profit from focusing on the subset-of-R^n definition instead of the abstract definition. However, another editor feels that the reader does not need the crutch of Euclidean space to understand the concept of a manifold, and my changes to the lede were repeatedly reverted. Which definition should the lede be based on? Tkuvho ( talk) 11:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not like the definition through graphs of functions, because it is less intuitive (at least for me) and it uses implicitly the implicit function theorem, which is far of being trivial (it is needed to show that a circle, defined as usual by its implicit equation, is a manifold). On the other hand, I do not like either the use of "scale" in the first sentence of the graph, because it appears in neither formal definition. Thus, I propose for the first sentence: "In mathematics (specifically in geometry and topology), a manifold is a mathematical object that, near each point of it, looks like Euclidean space". This has the advantage to be very close to the definition by charts (except that nothing is said on the transition maps, which are needed only for technical reasons). In fact the definition by charts and atlas is simply a formalization of this informal definition. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think the lead is perfect at present. In fact, it seems to be worse than the version from three years ago. I'd like to discuss possibly bringing back this earlier revision of the lead. In any event, I don't think it is a good idea to emphasize Poincare's original definition of manifold. Not many sources do this, and at least the motivational examples section of the article would need to be rewritten from this point of view. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
May I point out that this whole discussion should be taking place at talk:manifold, not here. T R 12:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The List of scientific constants named after people may not be notable, according to a recent tag put at the top of the article. Apparently what is needed is a literature citation showing that the topic of scientific concepts named after people has received attention from the authors of refereed publications. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I've cited a scholarly source and deleted the "notability" tag. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
After barely glancing at the new article titled Probabilistic-Complexity Theory, I'm already getting suspicious of it. Wikipedia-newbieisms are not a reason for suspicion of anything but Wikipedia-newbieism, but what is the state of mind of someone who writes a paragraph that starts like this?:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In the context in which I read the sentence, "As of now, research is still being done on this theory" seemed to mean that when research is no longer being done, it's perfect. As if the writer were unaware of the fact that fields in which research is being done are considered to be of greater interest than those in which it's not. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm Polynomiography is a valid, notable topic? The question arises after discussions at Talk:Fractal art#Dr. Bahman Kalantari about claims that Kalantari is the inventor of fractals not Benoît Mandelbrot. Input by mathematically minded individuals on the topic would be appreciated. - Shiftchange ( talk) 03:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See here. I have enough understanding to start this article, and did so for reasons in the link, but still no expert (yet) so if anyone who can add extend its scope - please do. You have my many thanks. =)
F =
q(E+v×B)
⇄ ∑ici 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
These templates are currently in the database as unused: for ⟨ see p.6 no 5579 and for ⟩ see p.9 no 8935. Recently after reworking them (and wasting a silly amount of time messing around with aligning things, which shouldn't have happened), I added them to ⟨|⟩.
Aesthetically they look ok (sort of), but the concern is they may cause spacing irritations, due to the glyphs in the template (but these are the closest ones matching angular brackets).
What do others think? Any objections to usage? WikiProject Physics has been notified. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Parity of zero explains why zero is even in an easy-to-read format that I just don't see in other articles, namely Riemann hypothesis. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The featured article has become subject to an (almost) edit war and imho some at partially questionable edits. Hence some 3rd opinions and watchful eyes are needed and appreciated.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
While we are at it, Diophantine approximation may also need a watchful eye. Achim has added a lot of interesting content, but it could do with some copy editing.— Emil J. 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
What do we think of http://www.jdabbs.com/brubeck/? The author is currently asking for feedback here: http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/v3y40/introducing_brubeck_an_open_searchable_database/
As a dedicated database, it supports capabilities that a general-purpose wiki like Wikipedia doesn't, including a kind of automated theorem proving. I'm thinking that our articles should link to matching Brubeck entries in the External links section. For example, Knaster–Kuratowski fan should link to http://www.jdabbs.com/brubeck/spaces/cantors-teepee/. But before I create a template in Category:Mathematics source templates and start adding it to articles, I wanted to ask: does anyone object? Melchoir ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have come across {{ Infobox conic section}}, and thought perhaps you folks might like it. The infobox is currently not used on any articles. If you don't want it, it can probably be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed there are very few references to literature in mathematics articles. Is this because mathematics can be easily checked for correctness without consulting literature? When should I consider adding references when adding new content? Lennartack ( talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the article Fermat's little theorem and saw an example of a pet peeve of mine: In the "generalizations" section is the formula
A lot of people who know what is intended by "divisible" have never been exposed to logical or set theory notation, much less have any idea what is supposed to mean. It is, IMO, much better to say "for any integer a ...." or even "for any integer a (positive, negative, or zero) ..."
Virginia-American ( talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have access to the book Prime Curios!: The Dictionary of Prime Number Trivia based on the prime curios website could you check it actually includes the coincidences mentioned in Talk:Mathematical coincidence#Prime curios please in the diff putting in 999779999159200499899 and some business about changing from bases 2 and 3 to base 10. Thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Some doubt has been cast over the validity of the redirect Zinbiel algebra. Views from experts would be welcome. South Jutland County ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that I will need help in a project I am about to undertake. Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance). What bothers me isn't that editors would use this word but that they react with hostility when I attempt to change it - some people feel like they "own the article".
The first resistance I met was in the Y2K article: [26]. One of them suggested that I use "exactly divisible" which is not preferred but I am prepared to compromise this way. I also got reverted on Fermat's Little Theorem [27]. This article relates to number theory so I will not compromise here. Since I am talking to other mathematicians (I hope), maybe some of you could weigh in on the edit wars I post here. Connor Behan ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, a good way to avoid any ambiguity could be to replace "be divisible by" by "be a multiple of". Personally, I find that "year multiple of 100" sounds better than "year divisible by 100", together with avoiding any ambiguity. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"Multiple of" has the same problem as "divisible"; a non-mathematician might think it could be a non-integer multiple. This could be a particular problem in calendar-related articles, because there are a lot of cranks running around in that subject area who are pushing some version of calendar reform, or pushing some calendar on religious grounds. Such cranks like to seize on ambiguities, both by making arguments within Wikipedia, and basing arguments in other fora on Wikipedia articles. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think D. Lazard's suggestion to use (integer) multiple is good. Another possiblity is a footnote that says *here, and generally in number theory, "divisible" means "divisible without a remainder".
I don't have a source in front of me, but IIRC Richard Feynmann said (paraphrasing) "of course, 5 is divisible by 2." If someone is unfamilar with number theory and its conventions, restricting numbers to be integers may take a bit of getting used to.
In the original post, Connor Behan said
... Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance).
I disagree. Calling 1 prime is unambiguously wrong (even though Gauss did so sometimes). Saying "exactly" or "evenly divisible", or "divisible without a remainder", or "an (integer) multiple" of is at worst a bit wordy, and may be clearer to Wikipedia's intended audience. Saying "exactly divisible" the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest to me.
Virginia-American ( talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "exactly divisible" is an improvement over "evenly divisible". A person who hasn't been trained to think that "divisible" applies the quotient of two integers is an integer may think "exactly divisible" means the result is a rational number as opposed to an irrational number.
Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four.
Input from editors who describe themselves as able to contribute to Wikipedia with an intermediate level of proficiency in English, like D.Lazard, is quite helpful. I hope there will be comments from editors who are native speakers of a few different varieties of English, and who attended elementary schools during different decades. Most of us learned such basic words in elementary schools, but those schools have a nasty habit of introducing new terminology to new generations. (I never heard of cursive writing while I was in school, even though I learned to do it. Now the converse is becoming true; they're taught the word "cursive" but not how to do it.)
As for the example "Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four", neither Julian nor Gregorian calendar years, whether common or leap, can be divided into four quarters each of which contains the same number of whole days. So I don't understand the purpose of the example. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I've started to organize the List of permutation topics into sections.
So far,
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's how the table of contents looks so far:
126 items are currently in the list, by my quick count. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember hearing that somewhere in the number that a whole bunch of 8s show up either together or in a pattern. If this is not a myth would it be worth adding to the Chronology of computation of π page?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Some more eyes on the current goings-on at Bell's theorem would be appreciated. An editor there is insistent on rewriting the nutshell version of the theorem in the lead to one that is, in my mind, much less clear than what used to be there. An attempt has been made to engage the editor on the discussion page, but it has failed to attract sufficient interest. The editor in question is (apparently) convinced that, since there are two editors on the discussion page defending the old (consensus) revision, and one editor (himself) defending the new edit, that gives him the mandate to implement his edit. I've reverted him several times already, with edit summaries indicating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, as well as menitioning these on the discussion page. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 ( talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Our Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process article currently begins like this:
Does "friction" make sense? The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process is supposed to tend to return to its mean. Friction doesn't do that; it only retards motion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
People may think of " tensor calculus" as the content of tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but this is a redirect to the main article on tensors. I would prefer to redirect to tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but including both in a disambiguation page would also be ok (maybe better?). Opinions? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made the List of partition topics into a somewhat more organized article than it was. More work could be done. Possibly the section on set partitions could be further subdivided. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in Invariant interval and is easily contained within spacetime or (my rewrite of) Line element. If there are no objections - I will merge. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried to build up the article Diophantine approximation starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly User:D.Lazard sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-( I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in Golden ratio and Line (geometry).
IMO Diophantine approximation needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure WP:OR and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a due weight to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/b2 to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/b2+ε for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).
I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, that I am not willing to do alone. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This may already be common knowledge, but a fellow librarian drew my attention to the AMS's History of Mathematics: A Century of Mathematics in America set which they have made available free online -- could be a useful resource for referencing some of the history of math/mathematician articles! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits to mathematics pages by 32.173.153.198 are puzzling. They introduce some subtle errors; most of them have already been reverted. I'd like to assume good faith here, but I think it's important to watch any further edits from that address. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Check the edit I just reverted on Fundamental theorem of arithmetic by some guy calling himself Shrohaneinstein. I don't know if it's vandalism or stupidity, nor do I know if it's 32.173.153.198 or 24.18.247.140. - Virginia-American ( talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article Fernando Revilla has the interesting sentence "In this lecture [by Fernando Revilla], it is proven that dynamic processes assocciated with natural number characterize the Goldbach's conjecture, a characterization which is lost in an instant of time, obtaining a temporal singularity." This suggests that the article may need some attention. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is that article? Should it be trimmed and the non-obvious parts moved to bicomplex number. I know the article is old, but is there any evidence the term is actually used? I would rather not propose a merge tag before I understand what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was browsing WP:VITAL, and saw that Area is only start class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this most important mathematical article up to GA status?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning a backlog of old merge proposals, and one of the oldest was for this article: Talk:Gödel–Gentzen_negative_translation which was proposed to be merged with Glivenko's_theorem and renamed to Double-negation translation. The consensus was to merge, so I closed the discussion and asked the involved editors to perform the merge because my math skills are too rusty to safely do this merge; since they may no longer be active, I'm also asking here if someone who understands the math can do the merge correctly. Thanks. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been struggling with trying to understand the Hodge dual article for a while. To be honest, I didn't get anything from it at all. I found an on-line text that explained it in a, to me at least, much more natural way. (It actually motivated the definition!) I've added a section to the article: Hodge_dual#Explanation, to hopefully add that extra clarity which I found useful. But I'm no expert and would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Cheers. — Fly by Night ( talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Relying on Hodge dual#Derivatives in three dimensions which says
it seems to me that the coefficients are the components of a covariant vector and thus dx, dy, and dz are the basis of a covector space (the dual space of the tangent space (vectors) of the manifold at the relevant event). So it seems to me that the W of Hodge dual#Explanation should be a covector space rather than a vector space. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that the added explanation refers to dual spaces unnecessarily. Tevian Dray (1999) The Hodge Dual Operator has a very similar "abstract definition" (at least its symbol choice overlaps), and it makes no use of the dual space (not counting the metric) thoughout the paper. To avoid confusion, I too agree that the Hodge dual applies to any vector space (with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form). — Quondum ☏ 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding a very poorly conceived section to Fano plane; I've tried to engage User:Nicolae-boicu on the talk page on how to improve the section to make it acceptable, but the editor is being evasive. (Also, someone interested in this sort of procedural detail could probably find a WP:3RR violation there somewhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since two points determine a line, after labeling any two points in the Fano plane another point is settled. The relabeling liberty for the rest of the four remaining points is described by the Klein Group.
The Maple permutation group for Fano plane is 7T5.
The e.g.f. is
hence there are 30 ways to label the plane. Here 6 represents the six distinct ways of labeling the affine (Klein) corresponding plane.
Dear Ed, I have already answered to 5/7 "accusations" points. It remains the below two ones. Please be careful and read the talk before clicking an irreversible button. Thank you.
• it is poorly formatted (e.g., the use of "." instead of "\cdot" for multiplication in LaTeX, the unexplained bold text) • the language could use polishing
Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: where is this cryptic notation (Fano"=X.Klein etc) used? It's certainly not notable enough to be used in articles to explain things. Rschwieb ( talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I continued to work on my section following the expressed requierements. I have now a new form that I cannot imagine how to improve without kidnapp the subject. Thank you all for remarks and your time. The actual variant is on my page. Dear Matt, the argument regarding the redundancy is on my talk user page. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I didn't wrote it for you. Thanks for your comment, after all, you help me to get a better picture. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Watching edits on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, I have reverted edits by user:Nbarth, which were out of context and not directly related to the subject of the article. Looking on the article which were linked to by these edits, it appeared that the same user has also inserted inappropriate material in Commuting matrices and Spectral theory. I have reverted, or in some cases rewritten, these edits. There may be other articles that have been similarly edited by the same editor in a way that may be viewed as some kind of subtle vandalism. Attention of the project members is thus needed. I may add that I'll be away from the net for two weeks, and I will not be able to follow the question. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum of Mathematics, an article about two new journals published by Cambridge University Press, has been nominated for deletion. Here's its first paragraph:
An argument is that as a new journal it has not yet had time to achieve notability. Another is that it's getting mentioned in the new media in connection with the boycott and with the broader purposes of that movement and is therefore notable for other reasons.
Opine at this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Cox–Zucker machine suddenly showed up in our "new articles" list although it's several years old and hasn't been edited since June 30th of this year.
It is an orphan i.e. no other articles link to it.
Here's most of the article:
Two tasks:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Wikiproject Mathematics,
A new editor recently submitted a new article trough article's for creation on Nagao's theorem. The article itself looks fine, but mathematics is most definitely not a subject that i am to knowledgeable about, which means i have some difficulty reviewing it. On a sidenote i would mention that we did receive some bogus math article's as of late so i wondered if someone could glance over it and check two things:
If you are familiar with the article's for creation area, feel free to handle the entire page. If not, I'll happily take care of those matters. Also - Thanks in advance for the assistance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across another mathematics article, so i fear i have to ask the same as i did above. If anyone could glance over it I'd be grateful. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of mathematics related article's lately - at this rate i fear i am going to have to resort to asking assistance on a regular basis. The above article is another submission, and on first glance it looks very decent for a new article. Anyone spare a moment to confirm this? Thanks in advance, as usual. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master. As suggested there by Christopher Thomas, I am also notifying this project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We are informed that:
Is this professorship named after Alfred North Whitehead, or J. H. C. Whitehead, or someone else? The article about A. N. Whitehead doesn't mention his having a professorship named after him. Can the information be added to the articles with appropriate links among them? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of the 136th most viewed mathematics article is open for comment.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice the use of the term notion in a number of articles where I would have used the term concept. The former seems to have semantics of vagueness associated with it, apparently corroborated by several dictionary definitions, whereas the latter seems more appropriate for use in the mathematical context where the thing described is usually precise. Would there be any objections to me replacing notion with concept in articles when this seems to apply? — Quondum ☏ 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The terms notion and concept are synonymous. However, the preferred term among those who study them formally is " concept". Greg Bard ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the distinction is particularly important in the vast majority of our articles. For example, if I write about the notion of Lebesgue measure or the concept of Lebesgue measure I mean the same thing in either case, and if there is any philosophical distinction it will not matter for the subject of Lebesgue measure. I don't see a reason to go through replacing one with the other just for the sake of it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominant functor is a orphaned article (i.e. no others link to it) and lacks references. It's also very very short. Do what you can. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Böttcher equation begins like this:
I don't know if Fn means n-fold composition of functions, or n-fold multiplication of the value of the function. Also, if it's supposed to be evaluated at the same point h, it wouldn't hurt to be clear about that, and if it's not, then what is meant is not clear. Then it says "where h is an analytic function with[ . . . etc . . . ]". Does that mean for every analytic function with that property, or for some analytic function with that property, or does it mean for some special analytic function with that property? Does "with n ≥ 0" mean for some n ≥ 0 (so that as long as there is some such value of n, this is an instance of the Böttcher equation, or for every n ≥ 0, or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Property of equivalence in gaussian primes has been around for most of a year, but with a bad category that prevented it from showing up in our new article lists. It needs either a lot of help, or deletion, I'm not sure which. Please do what you can. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably makes sense to discuss with the author? (At least as far as the goal is to understand what the article is about.) I note that s/he failed twice to get this through Articles for Creation, without apparently improving it in the process. -- JBL ( talk) 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a slow-moving discussion at Talk:Club filter involving a series of merges. I was hoping some math folks could head over there and continue the discussion, and merge the article, as I know nothing of these topics. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Another reminder of the hazards of the word "any". This is from a new article titled Tsen rank:
Does this mean "[...]if there is any system of degrees that has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]", or does it mean "[...]if it is the case that _any_ such system, no matter which one, has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]"? A reasonable person might read it either way. In the first case, changing "any" to "some" would resolve the ambiguity; in the second case, changing "any" to "every" would do it. "Any" is sometimes a hazardous word. I've changed it to "every" in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The quantifier "any" lacks existence claims.
("Any" is often used where free-logic pussyfooting is not intended, and where "every" or "some" should have been specified. Thus Halmos thinks that "any" should be avoided by mathematicians writing it gooder.)
Jaakko Hintikka has a nice article on "any" and ordinary English.
I forget whether Charles Sanders Peirce and his students considered free logical quantification. I think Mitchell has a paper on quantification in the 1878 Johns Hopkins Studies. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ring structures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the Mathematics WikiProject are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Professor Griewank is one of the principal architects of automatic differentiation, a co-founder of the theory of partially separable functions (the usage of which is an important part of the success of AMPL's modeling language and the large-scale optimization packages Lancelot and Galahad), an initiate of the mysteries of semi-analytic geometry, and an amateur guitarist:
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |urn=
ignored (|id=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)His would be an interesting biography.
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! We're getting another drive-by deletion being pushed bynon-physicists of a physics topic. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 13#Category:Introductory physics. To express my frustration: the drive-by deletion process brings out the very worst in wikipedia behavior, and creates a huge amount of damage (remember the deletion of Category:Proof, carefully nurtured for years, here, and shot dead with only three votes?) Please help get these hooligans under control. linas ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Indefinite logarithm has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indefinite logarithm. -- Lambiam 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the bug fixes in MathJax implementation are now working so we can have less than signs and matrices .-- Salix ( talk): 07:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
With a bit of messing around the closes set of styles I've managed to come to is
span.texhtml { font-family: MathJax_Main, serif; font-size: 123%;}
span.texhtml var { font-family: MathJax_Math, serif;}
span.texhtml sup { font-size: 70.7%; }
span.texhtml sub { font-size: 70.7%; }
Using those styles in skin.css the following two are virtually indistinguishable.
{{math|3 sin(<var>x</var><sub>2<var>i</var></sub>) e<sup>3<var>t</var></sup>}}
MathJax uses a different font for variables, MathJax_Math, than for other content, MathJax_Main, and slightly different sizes 123% as opposed to 118%. The code is dynamically generated so it might be different in other browsers.-- Salix ( talk): 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
what happened to V. J. Havel (see too: S. L. Hakimi) - -- Rovnet ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (w:es)
I've un-deleted it for now. I'll try to notify interested parties. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thx . -- Rovnet ( talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What a mess! Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash, not a hyphen) are two separate articles, and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (with a hyphen) does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash) but to Arabic numerals, and Arabic numeral system does not redirect to Arabic numerals but to Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
Welcome to the earliest days of Wikipedia. In 2002 and 2003 this would be expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Hurwitz quaternion order and Hurwitz quaternion should be distinct article which don't even link to each other? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Udita fractional operator is at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, a function is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of if . There is no mention of this in the article. I'm assuming that this is a well known fact. Should we add something to the article? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've recently made what I consider to be a number of improvements throughout the article on Elementary algebra, and submitted it as a Good Article nominee (see the article Talk page template for details). -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article bearing this title is perhaps interesting. Some people implicitly believe that the concept of function that we know today is axiomatic and coeternal with the Father, but the true story is complicated and messy. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong in summarizing that the discussion we had at the Mizar system talk page raised two main concerns. The first is one of bias in favor of a particular formalized math system, in this case the Mizar system, violating WP:NPOV with respect to other competing systems. The second concern is that by granting permission to place these links we will be sanctioning en masse changes to almost all mathematical articles, which while may benefit a minority of readers, will probably not be of any benefit to the typical reader in the near future. One additional secondary concern was that if we want to expose the readers to formalized math it is better to develop it inside Wikimedia than sending the users to outside sources.
Before addressing these issues please allow me one personal note: I have an agenda. My agenda is to have formalized math accessible from Wikipedia mathematical articles. No more and no less. This is driven by a view that for some readers, like myself, reading code is more instructive than reading descriptive text. I am not here to write articles, but I am here to help build the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen.
I am not affiliated with any proof assistant and in fact my knowledge of Mizar is rather slim. My choice to promote the Mizar system was based on considerable groundwork I made in preparation for this initiative, but truth be told I like Coq much better. Without much understanding of how Wikipedia works, I made the judgment that the Mizar system is the one which is best suited to the task. I believe this choice can be defended on objective grounds, but seeking to avert single-purpose-account charges I will not attempt to do so here.
Next, the issues. Indeed, I realize now that Wikipedia cannot provide access to one particular formalized system, no matter its benefits, at the expense of other systems. Nor should it be in the business of picking winners. It must be either all in or all out. This does make the choice of inclusion much harder, but should not warrant, by itself, automatic submission to the deletion impulse. My answer to this concern is two-fold: yes, we will have to link to more than one system, and no, we cannot do so in the external links section. We will have to come up with some kind of infobox or an addition to an existing infobox that will accommodate these links and help keep the typical reader away from clicking them.
Second, clearly the initial scale of deployment is not to be left to individual decision making, but should result from the formation of consensus here, in the math project discussion forum. But consensus is built by discussion, so we will probably have to spend some time in deliberation. Thus, a measure of patience will be required and yes, a willingness to learn enough of a foreign formal language that it stops reading like gibberish. It is however not in the spirit of Wikipedia established policy to brush this initiative aside by not being willing to engage the other side.
Seeking compromise, I suggest that we limit the initial deployment to a small number of key non-trivial mathematical constructs, where access to a reference of formal definitions and properties can be most helpful to undergraduate math students who are working on problem sets. I further suggest that we try and measure take-up quantitatively and by field, by contacting professors and asking that they mention the links in class and ask students to make a note if they used them in the solution of a problem set. This experiment should be limited in time as well as scope, guaranteeing that the typical Wikipedia reader does not suffer too much.
Which brings us to the final concern of internal vs. external development of formal math structures. Frankly, I do not have much to say here. I wish I was in the position to help work on the developer side, but I am not. It does however seem odd to me to suggest that Wikimedia developers should put much efforts into something for which it is not clear if there is any need. First we need to establish that there is some demand for the product, then we go about building it. This seems common sense to me and provides additional impetus to running this experiment.
I thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy post and hope that I was able to address the main issues raised. Yaniv256 ( talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Formalization links | ||
---|---|---|
Structure | sigma-algebra | |
Definition in | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Proof of properties | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
See automated proof checking for more information. |
To make the discussion concrete I am posting a prototype for the purposed infobox. Currently only the Mizar links will work, the others will just send you to Google. Yaniv256 ( talk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's unclear to me exactly what is being proposed. Yaniv, are you suggesting that we add an infobox to lots of mathematics articles containing links to various proof assistants? I oppose this. The input to proof assistants is really not human readable, and adds nothing to the article. If you truly find it easier to read this kind of code than plain prose, and to understand its mathematical intent, then I applaud you. But that probably makes you one of a kind. Moreover, I should add that the consensus at Talk:Mizar system was decidedly against adding links to articles, largely because such links add nothing of value to the article. Now it is being proposed that a large infobox be added, taking up more valuable real estate with the same useless information. It seems most peculiar to me that you would think the consensus at Talk:Mizar system would support such an initiative. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe whats needed is a reference template like thouse at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Reference_resources#Citation templates?-- Salix ( talk): 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Formalization links | ||
---|---|---|
Structure | sigma-algebra | |
Definition in | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Proof of properties | ||
Metamath | Coq | Mizar |
Please excuse me. I thought the matter of legal compliance with the external links guidelines was behind us. My answer to these claims was and still is here. I fail to see a meaningful response to my arguments in the discussion we had, but then again I may be missing something. Since if this proposal is to fall due to legal objections we are all just wasting our time discussing it, I suggest we stop here and assert if John's argument does have consensual support. Yaniv256 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of the article titled Real-valued function has been proposed on the grounds that it's been only a dictionary definition for several years and it's unclear what to redirect it to. A problem I see with this is that a large number of articles link to it. So: (1) Is there some appropriate redirect target; or (2) Can it be expanded so that it becomes a proper article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a "cross-reference page" (or should we call it by some other name?) that links to various pages that may be of interest to those who follow a link like this one? I.e. Someone clicks on real-valued function and they see a page that might look something like this:
If such a thing doesn't exist, should we invent it (along with a template for the footnote, a style manual for them, and mentions and links within the other appropriate style manuals)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
For now I've made the article into a multiple-cross-reference page and created this manual, which currently has "essay" status. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What about adding Random variable as another entry?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The phrase real-valued function appears to be nothing more than the sum of its parts: the two links real number and function (mathematics) should in effectively every case be sufficient. To allow articles, disambiguation pages, redirects or cross-reference pages for such phrases that have not acquired a distinct notable meaning seems to be inviting a proliferation of valueless pages. (I've also seen redirects for "common misspellings" that I feel should be removed.) I am not arguing against the concept of a Wikipedia:Multiple-cross-reference page, but to me it seems that real-valued function does not qualify. — Quondum ☏ 13:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
@Quondum : It's more than the sum of its parts in that (1) there are lots of existing links to the phrase; and (2) Someone who knows that "real" should redirect to "real number" and who also knows what a "value" of a function is might not know how locutions like "real-valued" are used, and "real-valued" is not a suitable article title.
When I create a new article, I always immediately create redirect pages from (1) alternative names, (2) alternative spellings and capitalizations, (3) common misspellings, (4) common misnomers. I also add hatnotes to other articles with similar names saying "This is about X. For Y, see [[Y]]." or the like.
@Kieffer : Of course I agree, except that "disambiguation page" isn't quite what this is, since links to it are appropriate and it's not about unrelated things bearing the same name. It more like a redirect but with multiple targets for the reader to choose among. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I created the article Fundamental theorem of ideal theory in number fields because this theorem is mentioned in Wieferich prime. Do others feel that this theorem should have an own article, or should I better include that information in Wieferich prime via a footnote? -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the "orphan" tag from Hermite's identity. Three articles link to it. But one of those is only a hatnote and otherwise the linking to it seems on the thin side. If someone can think of other articles that could appropriately link to it, could they add those links?
Also, it currently lacks references. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead for this article credits Raymond Smullyan with the invention of "this type of puzzle". Not knowing much about history of logic puzzles, and suspecting that the puzzle has been around a lot longer than Smullyan's books, I thought this sounded like a rather generous claim. Can anyone check into how important Smullyan's contribution to the topic is? He is pretty old, and my sense that this is a problem from antiquity could just be wrong. Rschwieb ( talk) 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a developing discussion at WP:NOR which might be of interest/importance for editors here. It is at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Original_mathematical_proofs_are_not_interpretations and in the next section as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Jitse's bot has done nothing in more than three days; the "current activities" page has not been updated. I don't see a lot of expression of alarm about that here. Is that because everyone else has directed their comments about it to Jitse Niesen, as I have, or could it be that I'm the only one who notices? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some new articles that do not (yet?) appear on the "current activities" page since Jitse's bot is down:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
....and now the page has been updated for the first time since August 5th. Here's the list of new articles:
(Some may be newly recategorized articles rather than actually new articles.) So see if they need further work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a notification to interested editors that the article Infinite monkey theorem has been put up for featured article review for referencing and prose issues. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batrachion. Gandalf61 ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ at the top of the page, asks "Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?", and suggests that it is because "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook [..] and not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics".
To me, nearly every other subject in Wikipedia does read like a textbook summary. They all teach someone the basics of a subject. The one exception is maths, which despite my confidence to tertiary level, I find Wikipedia useless, because any attempt to include pedagogic examples are frowned upon.
Textbooks include 20 examples of a problem, and laboriously step through them. Surely this does not mean that we should exclude all examples? We readily include an image too illustrate a fact, but there can be no reason to exclude a stepped-through example, that also illustrates a fact.
Wikipedia is different to most other encyclopedias where space is not at a premium. I don't expect an article on, for example, Elementary algebra to be equal in length to a 500-page book. But I also don't expect it to exclude a couple of pages of examples, because a pedagogic approach is supposed to be bad. Maths articles are supposed to educate people, not exclude 95% of the readership who are expected to be able to learn something. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: this type of issue has been raised a few times before. For example: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_69#wikipedia_is_a_great_source_of_info_for_just_about_anything.2C_with_one_exception:_mathematics., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_70#Accessibility_of_WP:Math_.28or_.22No.2C_I_don.27t_have_Dyscalculia_but_WP:Math_is_just_facts_and_proofs..22.29, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_18#General_Comment_about_Math_articles_from_a_non-mathematician, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_16#Request_from_Non-math_Person. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and links. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, or I misinterpreted the guidelines which I took to mean that articles should mostly exclude material that is (a) pedagogic, (b) textbook-like. Maybe the guidelines could be improved to suggest how an article can (i) be accessible (ii) include examples, without becoming a textbook, POV etc. -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Gunther Schmidt has been proposed on the grounds of lack of references. Can someone improve the article to the point where that objection doesn't apply? Or is it not worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Two questions:
If so bit of further work might make it possible to restore it. Here's what the article said:
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. (August 2012) |
Gunther Schmidt (born 1939) is a German mathematician whose research ranges from informatics of mathematics to mathematical logic. After studying mathematics at the University of Göttingen and the University of Munich, [1] he worked from 1962 to 1988 at TU Munich (TUM) and 1988 until his retirement 2004 at Universität der Bundeswehr München.
Books
References
Weblinks
Category:German mathematicians Category:Living people Category:1939 births Category:University of Göttingen alumni Category:Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich alumni Category:Technical University Munich alumni Category:Bundeswehr University Munich alumni Category:German academics
I think that blpprod was the wrong reason to delete this article (almost certainly it could have been sourced adequately for verifiability) but the reason I didn't fight harder for it was that I was not certain he passed WP:PROF. Being a full professor with several books is suggestive but not conclusive. The strongest case for WP:PROF seems to be criterion #C1, significant impact within his discipline (as measured by citation counts, for instance) but in his case I was having a difficult time finding good citation counts because his name is so common. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Members of the concerned community, I request you to consider adding the following to the References part of < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx>:
Marx, Karl (1994)[1968], Yanovskaya, Sofya, ed.,Mathematical Manuscripts[complete English translation]together with a Special Supplement < http://cfcul.fc.ul.pt/varios/Karl_Marx_FINAL.pdf> Calcutta/Kolkata: Viswakos Parisad, I S B N 81-86210-00-8.
Regards. Pradip Baksi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.180.185.44 ( talk) 03:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was reviewing Elementary algebra and then I found that the editors used textbook language, such as "Let's" which would be changed to "Let us," but that means let me teach you. Article sounds a lot like a Wikiversity page. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Obtund Talk 04:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not an official part of this project (yet), but what you think of these SVG images I made based on MATLAB source code:
Exemplified in the Gaussian function article: New images:
Old images:
If you have any feedback (prefer the SVG or old versions) please let me know.
Zerodamage ( talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
width="100%" heignt="100%"
. Not so good in the context of Commons' web interface. Use concrete dimensions (such as 1050×787.5), please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The images are annoyingly tiny. It would be great if all of the whitespace were removed, and they were rotated by 45 degrees so that the corners would not poke out and take up space. Make the central item, the point of interest, as large as possible! linas ( talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet another link farm. -- Taku ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what is meant by calling it a "link farm", but in view of the content of the article titled reciprocity law, it's a duplicate that should redirect to the older article, as it now does. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Change the subject slightly, but I have been working on an article about Eisenstein Reciprocity, should be ready in a week or so. - Virginia-American ( talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any experience with movement of content between WPM and nLab? I notice that nLab has deeper/more extensive coverage of cat theory topics than WPM, and so I'm tempted to do some cut-n-paste effort from there to here, but am stymied slightly by the license, or rather lack there-of. The de facto license at nLab seems to be this, quoting from the home page: "Using content obtained from the nLab in your publications is free and encouraged if you acknowledge the source". That's it; I can find nothing more explicit. As far as I can tell, this hasn't been discussed on WPM before... Comments? linas ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've just created a template to help w/ ncatlab citations: so:
* {{nlab|id=simplex+category|title=Simplex category}}
will create the following text:
linas ( talk) 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I know enough algebra to know that there is no such thing as finitely generated ring (or every ring is finitely generated, namely by 1). Google search disagrees. I think people mean finitely generated k-algebras; so this should be redirected to finitely generated algebra in my opinion. But maybe someone knows better. -- Taku ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) has been working hard on improving our article on Stefan Banach. The coverage of his education, mentorship, and life is now much better than it was, but the coverage of his mathematical contributions is still weak. Perhaps some project members whose interests run towards that kind of mathematics could help? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
List of zero terms is also at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed your project was listed at User:AlexNewArtBot but was missing the ruleset, so the search was not carried out. I'ved added the rule (list all new articles with the string "math" in it, and hopefully that's all that was needed. If so, you should see this link turning blue soon, and then you may want to add it to your main page. See how we did it at our WP:SOCIOLOGY: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology#New_article_feed. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit. If one adopts the definition
then this is well defined even if y is not an integer, and I'd have guessed the whole identity would still hold then. Maybe when I'm feeling less lazy I'll check it.
A good edit? Or not? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Presumably the formula in question is taken from a reliable source? What is that source and what does it say? Deltahedron ( talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've written this somewhat hastily scrawled user-space draft. I have in mind that with some further work it can evolve into something to be moved into the article space under the title Behrens–Fisher distribution (currently a redirect). In its early stages that will be maybe two or three times as long as the present draft. I'll be back to do more work on it. In the mean time, maybe others can improve it as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's moved to the article space. For now, it's an "orphan". Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The whole thing with semi-simplicial sets is quite messy, so I'll start with a short history wrap-up
So, I think all this should be somehow incorporated into the Δ-Set article, though I'm not sure really sure what might be the best way to do so (and I don't know who coined which term originally). Moreover I'd say the article should be named after it's original name, i.e. Δ-Set should refer to semi-simplicial set, and not the other way round. And last but not least the article needs to be generally improved, e.g. by including the categorial definition (as a functor from Δ to Sets) for a semi-simplicial set. I'll might very well do that sometime, though. -- Roman3 ( talk) 12:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
See talk:outer product, Dyadic Product and talk:Dyadic product. Opinions? At least a merge of dyadic product into outer product seems sensible to me and a few others. Maschen ( talk) 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's summarize different merging possibilities:
Which one(s)?... By all means we can't fall into the trap of pulling everything into one article... Maschen ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to voice my agreement with those who think that not everything should be merged to tensor product on grounds of different levels of concreteness/different audiences. (Of course these articles should link each other prominently.) Options 2 and 3 both seem like fine ideas to me. -- JBL ( talk) 13:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As to DAB pages, please note: product (mathematics) already does the job; I don't see why we'd need another one. linas ( talk) 03:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Another summary:
Someone has to start the article someday and I just thought why not me today. I'm posting this since I don't mean to do it covertly. Right now, most of materials there overlap other elsewhere and it's not a balanced account, but I think it's not a good start, either.
About the title: "algebraic" is missing. It's because, in my real life, I never say "projective algebraic". The only concern would be ambiguity with "projective analytic". But by Chow's theorem this is actually not ambiguous. Right? -- Taku ( talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
To me, Algebraic geometry of projective spaces appears bizarre. What is it doing? Projective space seems like a natural space for the topic. Projective space shouldn't just focus on the topological and differential-geometric aspects, that's not balanced if more elementary and pedagogical. Some parts of it also overlap the Proj construction. Finally, the section "Morphisms to projective schemes" should move to projective variety. -- Taku ( talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Kernel (mathematics), Lie bracket, Adjoint representation, Generating set, and Covariant are currently among the disambiguation pages with the largest numbers of incoming links. Please help fix these. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Steiner point now redirects to Steiner point (disambiguation). Should the title of the disambiguation page be changed simply to Steiner point? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, next problem with this page: Which of the pages in the article space that link to it (other than redirects) are from hatnotes (so those links should remain intact) and which should get disambiguated? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Shing-TungYau.jpg is missing sourcing, and will be deleted soon. Does anyone know about this photo ? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 12:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move Euclidean algorithm to Euclid's algorithm at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Move?. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Please look at this discussion. User:Daviddaved appears to be a mathematician. He is totally clueless about Wikipedia conventions and possibly about Wikipedia's purposes. _Some_ of his new articles may be worth keeping after some cleanup. Some may have copyright problems. He doesn't seem to notice things people post on his user talk page. Members of this WikiProject may be able to figure out which of his pages are worth keeping after cleanup. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Isovolume problem is an "orphaned" article, i.e. no other articles link to it. If you know of other articles that ought to link to it, work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that Equidistribution theorem and Weyl's criterion could both be merged into Equidistributed sequence. I have just boldly merged Van der Corput theorem. Deltahedron ( talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Totally positive matrix is a surprisingly neglected article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Sep
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Oct
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Nov