Could we add something about Galilean transformations as a Lie group? For example, the Euclidean transformations, Euc(n,R) can be embedded as a Lie subgroup of GL(n+1,R), if I remember correctly, by
where X is a special orthogonal transformation and t is a translation. Could (or should) we add something similar for Galilean transformations? — Fly by Night ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not long ago, there was a discussion about links to Springer's Encyclopedia of Mathematics now being broken due to a restructuring of that website. I just noticed that many of the links are still broken. Is someone making a systematic effort to repair these, or are we supposed to do it on an ad hoc basis? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An incident is being discussed here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The page is being proposed for deletion even though there are suitable secondary sources there. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How many things wrong can be found here: Steven G. Krantz? Main thing I can see is that it seems to have been written (or at least contributed to) by himself. Also see some weasel words: "Krantz is widely considered to be a charismatic and galvanizing teacher. Many students consider him to be the best mathematics teacher that they have ever had." What do we do with pages like this? -- Matt Westwood 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just learned of {{
mvar}} through its installation on
Quaternion. It applies {{
math}} and additionally surrounds its argument in HTML <var>
tags.
Is this a good idea? I recall the discussion
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 2#Variable markup where consensus was that manually applying <var>
was undesirable. It seems to me that {{
mvar}} really isn't any better.
Ozob (
talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
<var>
is undesirable, but that individual editors have some freedom. It was also apparent that the semantic markup value in HTML was pretty much a lost cause in the math context, but that font formatting is necessary. The implementation of {{
mvar}} is not important (i.e. whether it uses <var>
or ''
to italicize), as this can be changed in principle in the template. The question then becomes whether use of {{mvar|x}}
in place of {{math|''x''}}
is to be discouraged - i.e. whether the template {{
mvar}} should be deprecated. I see no urgency in doing so. Its only real value is a shorthand for italic-serif. Its use does show up the continued shortcomings of the HTML output of <math>
, and the inconvenience of formatting both italic and serif in-line, resulting in the (IMO unfortunate) de facto use of sans-serif for math. —
Quondum
t
c 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
{{ MacTutor/sandbox}} now implements a suggestion of Daniele Tampieri: O'Connor & Robertson are downgraded to editors, and there are author fields (last, first, last2, ...) It seems to work on the examples that I have checked. I suggest to replace {{ MacTutor}} with this version.
Please criticise this suggestion (and the implementation) before it's too late.
Sasha ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi: I recently moved Double centralizer theorem and a related article on balanced modules into the mainspace. Feel free to take a look if you have spare time. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Real algebraic geometry#Edits by user:Estater need to be reverted which needs the intervention of other people. The subject of the dispute is edits unambiguously aimed to promote Selman Akbulut's work. Tentative to revert these edits has led to an edit war, which, for the moment, is won by the supporters of Akbulut (most probably Akbulut himself, with several login names). For non specialist people, I precise that Real algebraic geometry is a stub, almost reduced to an historical "guideline", which, before the edits, provided a good idea of the history of the area. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
More of a signal processing than a mathematical article you may think; and you should be right. But this is a needy article with a hefty chunk of mathematical notation, in need of: restructuring, rewriting, and admin attention, I hope in that order (but don't count on it - it has been briefly protected after heavy edit-warring). I'd regard it as a personal favour if people could weigh in and make it all make some sense. The page protection expires in the next few seconds ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add another article about the other Egorov's Theorem which I mention on the talk page of Egorov's Theorem and a disambiguation page (because the two theorems are really not related). Any guidance or input on how to do this? Holmansf ( talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
following a suggestion of Pym1507, I have added placed a "propose move" template at Talk:Sokhatsky–Weierstrass_theorem#Requested_move. Please comment.
Sasha ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So i have created the page Glossary of areas of mathematics which at the moment is more of a list with few annotations. i think it has potential and would compliment Areas of mathematics in the same way Outline of mathematics compliments mathematics. It would be useful to see thoughts on this page, and for any help completing it. Ultimately, should it be kept? (btw few entries may not be relevant but i figured it is easy to delete them) Brad7777 ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look at
Who would click on for example Category:mathematical comparisons?? or Category:mathematical examples? or Category:mathematical tables? Category:mathematics-related lists? these are apart of the outline of mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of the 12 pages already in this category,
Just to clarify, an index is just a list that is in alphabetical order? If so, should all the articles in this category called "list of ..." that are in alphabetical order be renamed to "index of ..."? And what are thoughts about the renaming of Category:Indexes of mathematics topics to Category:Mathematics-related indexes to include all the relevant indexes, as im assuming there will be more from the 230 pages currently in Category:Mathematics-related lists. Brad7777 ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Last month I put Catenary up for GA and have put a lot of work into it since in response to the reviewer's comments. If interested, see Talk:Catenary/GA1 for the discussion, especially if you'd like to help resolve the outstanding issues. For some reason this isn't showing up on the current activity page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The page The Method used to be a disambiguation page, one of the meanings being The Method of Mechanical Theorems of Archimedes. An editor redirected it to Method acting, claiming that the other meanings are rarely used. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Tricomplex number has been nominated for deletion. -- Lambiam 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the lead example involving John, being a bachelor, and being a man, is actually an example not of logical inconsequence as written, but of tautological inconsequence. That is, if Γ = {“John is a bachelor”}, S1 = “John is a bachelor” and S2 = “John is a man,” then S2 is not a tautological consequence of Γ. S2 is still, however, a logical consequence of Γ. And this is only the beginning of the article. It appears there is severe confusion between the concepts of logical consequence (which currently redirects to entailment) and tautological consequence. This article needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm worried that an article about Sine exists, but not one for Cosine. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions, and a draft for this article is available within my userspace.
Here are some excerpts from the discussion:
This user was for the move:
Sine can be treated independently [of the other trigonometric functions] and it's clearly useful to do so... it seems foolhardy to suggest you delete an article that's accessed 1000+ times a day, has hundreds of internal inbound links, and exists on 34 other language Wikipedias, just because you think people need to simultaneously learn cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, and cosecant. If someone wants to know about sine, let them learn about sine.
Try reading this article with the goal of finding a definition of "sine". First, you have to get to the second sentence of the second paragraph. And then you have to decipher a 443 word sentence. It's absolutely shockingly bad at defining sine, yet you want the hundreds of references to sine to redirect here?
All the same arguments apply equally for cosine. Cosine, although conceptually very similar to sine, has its own properties, some of which are trivial, and others are trivial for sine but more complex for cosine (e.g. fixed point). I really hope I don't have to argue this point further, and I hope no one else has to deal with deletionist trolls when it comes to basic mathematics articles.
— User:Pengo
This user was against the move:
In fact I'd get rid of the sine article and redirect to this article. It already has accumulated ridiculous cruft compared to this article. There is no sine topic, the topic is the trigonometrical functions. Sine is just one of those functions. A name is not the same as a topic.
— User:Dmcq
You may discuss here as well, but please check the simultaneous discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions and in my userspace before you say something someone else has already said.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not paper. I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the Cosine article. You may also edit my article as necessary, as long as you refrain from vandalism, trolling etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
The Doctahedron, 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i have came up with a theorem and this may sound crazy but stick with me. i would like to ask you all what you think the definition is of the word "negitive". to me, negitive is more than the absence but the inverted space. by this i believe that a simple problem, for example, -1*-1=1, may not be true because 1 can be described as a "ditto" number. anything times 1 is itself so for example, if x*1, it = x. but if we have a problem like x*-1 then then it gets rid of that number and ends up with zero. i would like to hear back about this idea. p.s. this is a 14 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.254.225 ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I happened to run across Baker's theorem and Linear forms in logarithms within a few days of each other. They look very closely related to me — do they really warrant being two separate articles, or should they be merged? — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals is being discussed here Tkuvho ( talk) 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The related Category:Mathematical comparisons has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Brad7777 ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The current votes:
Park test is a new article by a new user that is a mess. It definitely needs a look over from an expert from Mathematics or Statistics. I will also leave a note on the Statistics project page. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. User:Ab konst would like to contribute a new section at L'Hôpital's rule, but is having a little trouble getting the concepts across in English. Specifically, some undefined notions of "conversion" and "comparability" are involved, and a connection to Hardy fields. I'm unable to help (I don't know what the user is referring to) but I'm hoping someone else can. The subject matter is probably very straightforward to an analyst. See Talk:L'Hôpital's rule#Conversion. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently 'Homogeneous', 'Homogenous', 'Inhomogeneous', 'Homogeneous (mathematics)', 'Heterogenous', 'Homogenisation', 'Homogeneous equation', etc. redirect to Homogeneity and heterogeneity which, for the most part, concerns itself with the chemical definition of the terms, though there is an odd mathematical dab section within the article. Most of the mathematical meanings of Homogeneous have nothing to do with chemistry and there are several other cases where the meaning intended in the article has nothing to do with the chemical meaning. So I'm thinking that many of these redirects, and in particular the mathematical ones, should link to Homogeneity (disambiguation) instead and the the articles that link to them should be matched to the article with the intended meaning. I'm going to go ahead and start with the most obvious misplaced redirects, and if there are no objections or better suggestions merge the dab section of 'Homogeneity and heterogeneity' into the actual dab page.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also homogeneous equation was a redirect to homogeneity and heterogeneity which has nothing to do with equations. I have redirected it instead to homogeneous linear equation, and put a see also there to homogeneous differential equation. There seem to be some more math articles listed at [ [1]], if anyone wants to fix these. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We seem to have a little edit war going on (again) in Graph isomorphism problem. Can I find an uninvolved admin here to semiprotect it, or would RFPP be a better choice? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just linked to the Percentage page from the Sourdough page. The How to banner at the top of Percentage struck me, particularly the phrasing, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train", with the emphasis, "present facts, not ... train". The implication that training is not presenting facts seems odd. If one doesn't have facts, then one has non-facts. Non-facts might include beliefs. It just struck me as unusual any training would consist of Belief. The connection to Mathematics project was the banner on Percentage, and I don't have available time to debate, although if anyone has any clarity on the above implication, which I distill to training = belief ?, your thoughts would be appreciated. Gzuufy ( talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator could use some input. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created Category:Theorems in abstract algebra, please help fill it. Many articles can be found in Category:Theorems in algebra and Category:Abstract algebra. Thanks Brad7777 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we add something about Galilean transformations as a Lie group? For example, the Euclidean transformations, Euc(n,R) can be embedded as a Lie subgroup of GL(n+1,R), if I remember correctly, by
where X is a special orthogonal transformation and t is a translation. Could (or should) we add something similar for Galilean transformations? — Fly by Night ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not long ago, there was a discussion about links to Springer's Encyclopedia of Mathematics now being broken due to a restructuring of that website. I just noticed that many of the links are still broken. Is someone making a systematic effort to repair these, or are we supposed to do it on an ad hoc basis? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An incident is being discussed here. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The page is being proposed for deletion even though there are suitable secondary sources there. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How many things wrong can be found here: Steven G. Krantz? Main thing I can see is that it seems to have been written (or at least contributed to) by himself. Also see some weasel words: "Krantz is widely considered to be a charismatic and galvanizing teacher. Many students consider him to be the best mathematics teacher that they have ever had." What do we do with pages like this? -- Matt Westwood 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just learned of {{
mvar}} through its installation on
Quaternion. It applies {{
math}} and additionally surrounds its argument in HTML <var>
tags.
Is this a good idea? I recall the discussion
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 2#Variable markup where consensus was that manually applying <var>
was undesirable. It seems to me that {{
mvar}} really isn't any better.
Ozob (
talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
<var>
is undesirable, but that individual editors have some freedom. It was also apparent that the semantic markup value in HTML was pretty much a lost cause in the math context, but that font formatting is necessary. The implementation of {{
mvar}} is not important (i.e. whether it uses <var>
or ''
to italicize), as this can be changed in principle in the template. The question then becomes whether use of {{mvar|x}}
in place of {{math|''x''}}
is to be discouraged - i.e. whether the template {{
mvar}} should be deprecated. I see no urgency in doing so. Its only real value is a shorthand for italic-serif. Its use does show up the continued shortcomings of the HTML output of <math>
, and the inconvenience of formatting both italic and serif in-line, resulting in the (IMO unfortunate) de facto use of sans-serif for math. —
Quondum
t
c 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
{{ MacTutor/sandbox}} now implements a suggestion of Daniele Tampieri: O'Connor & Robertson are downgraded to editors, and there are author fields (last, first, last2, ...) It seems to work on the examples that I have checked. I suggest to replace {{ MacTutor}} with this version.
Please criticise this suggestion (and the implementation) before it's too late.
Sasha ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi: I recently moved Double centralizer theorem and a related article on balanced modules into the mainspace. Feel free to take a look if you have spare time. Thanks! Rschwieb ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Real algebraic geometry#Edits by user:Estater need to be reverted which needs the intervention of other people. The subject of the dispute is edits unambiguously aimed to promote Selman Akbulut's work. Tentative to revert these edits has led to an edit war, which, for the moment, is won by the supporters of Akbulut (most probably Akbulut himself, with several login names). For non specialist people, I precise that Real algebraic geometry is a stub, almost reduced to an historical "guideline", which, before the edits, provided a good idea of the history of the area. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
More of a signal processing than a mathematical article you may think; and you should be right. But this is a needy article with a hefty chunk of mathematical notation, in need of: restructuring, rewriting, and admin attention, I hope in that order (but don't count on it - it has been briefly protected after heavy edit-warring). I'd regard it as a personal favour if people could weigh in and make it all make some sense. The page protection expires in the next few seconds ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add another article about the other Egorov's Theorem which I mention on the talk page of Egorov's Theorem and a disambiguation page (because the two theorems are really not related). Any guidance or input on how to do this? Holmansf ( talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello colleagues,
following a suggestion of Pym1507, I have added placed a "propose move" template at Talk:Sokhatsky–Weierstrass_theorem#Requested_move. Please comment.
Sasha ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So i have created the page Glossary of areas of mathematics which at the moment is more of a list with few annotations. i think it has potential and would compliment Areas of mathematics in the same way Outline of mathematics compliments mathematics. It would be useful to see thoughts on this page, and for any help completing it. Ultimately, should it be kept? (btw few entries may not be relevant but i figured it is easy to delete them) Brad7777 ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look at
Who would click on for example Category:mathematical comparisons?? or Category:mathematical examples? or Category:mathematical tables? Category:mathematics-related lists? these are apart of the outline of mathematics? Brad7777 ( talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of the 12 pages already in this category,
Just to clarify, an index is just a list that is in alphabetical order? If so, should all the articles in this category called "list of ..." that are in alphabetical order be renamed to "index of ..."? And what are thoughts about the renaming of Category:Indexes of mathematics topics to Category:Mathematics-related indexes to include all the relevant indexes, as im assuming there will be more from the 230 pages currently in Category:Mathematics-related lists. Brad7777 ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Last month I put Catenary up for GA and have put a lot of work into it since in response to the reviewer's comments. If interested, see Talk:Catenary/GA1 for the discussion, especially if you'd like to help resolve the outstanding issues. For some reason this isn't showing up on the current activity page.-- RDBury ( talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The page The Method used to be a disambiguation page, one of the meanings being The Method of Mechanical Theorems of Archimedes. An editor redirected it to Method acting, claiming that the other meanings are rarely used. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Tricomplex number has been nominated for deletion. -- Lambiam 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the lead example involving John, being a bachelor, and being a man, is actually an example not of logical inconsequence as written, but of tautological inconsequence. That is, if Γ = {“John is a bachelor”}, S1 = “John is a bachelor” and S2 = “John is a man,” then S2 is not a tautological consequence of Γ. S2 is still, however, a logical consequence of Γ. And this is only the beginning of the article. It appears there is severe confusion between the concepts of logical consequence (which currently redirects to entailment) and tautological consequence. This article needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm worried that an article about Sine exists, but not one for Cosine. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions, and a draft for this article is available within my userspace.
Here are some excerpts from the discussion:
This user was for the move:
Sine can be treated independently [of the other trigonometric functions] and it's clearly useful to do so... it seems foolhardy to suggest you delete an article that's accessed 1000+ times a day, has hundreds of internal inbound links, and exists on 34 other language Wikipedias, just because you think people need to simultaneously learn cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, and cosecant. If someone wants to know about sine, let them learn about sine.
Try reading this article with the goal of finding a definition of "sine". First, you have to get to the second sentence of the second paragraph. And then you have to decipher a 443 word sentence. It's absolutely shockingly bad at defining sine, yet you want the hundreds of references to sine to redirect here?
All the same arguments apply equally for cosine. Cosine, although conceptually very similar to sine, has its own properties, some of which are trivial, and others are trivial for sine but more complex for cosine (e.g. fixed point). I really hope I don't have to argue this point further, and I hope no one else has to deal with deletionist trolls when it comes to basic mathematics articles.
— User:Pengo
This user was against the move:
In fact I'd get rid of the sine article and redirect to this article. It already has accumulated ridiculous cruft compared to this article. There is no sine topic, the topic is the trigonometrical functions. Sine is just one of those functions. A name is not the same as a topic.
— User:Dmcq
You may discuss here as well, but please check the simultaneous discussion at Talk:Trigonometric functions and in my userspace before you say something someone else has already said.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not paper. I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the Cosine article. You may also edit my article as necessary, as long as you refrain from vandalism, trolling etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
The Doctahedron, 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i have came up with a theorem and this may sound crazy but stick with me. i would like to ask you all what you think the definition is of the word "negitive". to me, negitive is more than the absence but the inverted space. by this i believe that a simple problem, for example, -1*-1=1, may not be true because 1 can be described as a "ditto" number. anything times 1 is itself so for example, if x*1, it = x. but if we have a problem like x*-1 then then it gets rid of that number and ends up with zero. i would like to hear back about this idea. p.s. this is a 14 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.254.225 ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I happened to run across Baker's theorem and Linear forms in logarithms within a few days of each other. They look very closely related to me — do they really warrant being two separate articles, or should they be merged? — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals is being discussed here Tkuvho ( talk) 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The related Category:Mathematical comparisons has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Brad7777 ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The current votes:
Park test is a new article by a new user that is a mess. It definitely needs a look over from an expert from Mathematics or Statistics. I will also leave a note on the Statistics project page. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. User:Ab konst would like to contribute a new section at L'Hôpital's rule, but is having a little trouble getting the concepts across in English. Specifically, some undefined notions of "conversion" and "comparability" are involved, and a connection to Hardy fields. I'm unable to help (I don't know what the user is referring to) but I'm hoping someone else can. The subject matter is probably very straightforward to an analyst. See Talk:L'Hôpital's rule#Conversion. Thanks, Rschwieb ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently 'Homogeneous', 'Homogenous', 'Inhomogeneous', 'Homogeneous (mathematics)', 'Heterogenous', 'Homogenisation', 'Homogeneous equation', etc. redirect to Homogeneity and heterogeneity which, for the most part, concerns itself with the chemical definition of the terms, though there is an odd mathematical dab section within the article. Most of the mathematical meanings of Homogeneous have nothing to do with chemistry and there are several other cases where the meaning intended in the article has nothing to do with the chemical meaning. So I'm thinking that many of these redirects, and in particular the mathematical ones, should link to Homogeneity (disambiguation) instead and the the articles that link to them should be matched to the article with the intended meaning. I'm going to go ahead and start with the most obvious misplaced redirects, and if there are no objections or better suggestions merge the dab section of 'Homogeneity and heterogeneity' into the actual dab page.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also homogeneous equation was a redirect to homogeneity and heterogeneity which has nothing to do with equations. I have redirected it instead to homogeneous linear equation, and put a see also there to homogeneous differential equation. There seem to be some more math articles listed at [ [1]], if anyone wants to fix these. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We seem to have a little edit war going on (again) in Graph isomorphism problem. Can I find an uninvolved admin here to semiprotect it, or would RFPP be a better choice? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just linked to the Percentage page from the Sourdough page. The How to banner at the top of Percentage struck me, particularly the phrasing, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train", with the emphasis, "present facts, not ... train". The implication that training is not presenting facts seems odd. If one doesn't have facts, then one has non-facts. Non-facts might include beliefs. It just struck me as unusual any training would consist of Belief. The connection to Mathematics project was the banner on Percentage, and I don't have available time to debate, although if anyone has any clarity on the above implication, which I distill to training = belief ?, your thoughts would be appreciated. Gzuufy ( talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator could use some input. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created Category:Theorems in abstract algebra, please help fill it. Many articles can be found in Category:Theorems in algebra and Category:Abstract algebra. Thanks Brad7777 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)