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)
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)