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". [1] 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 [2]? (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 [5]. 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)
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". [1] 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 [2]? (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 [5]. 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)