The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in Invariant interval and is easily contained within spacetime or (my rewrite of) Line element. If there are no objections - I will merge. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried to build up the article Diophantine approximation starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly User:D.Lazard sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-( I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in Golden ratio and Line (geometry).
IMO Diophantine approximation needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure WP:OR and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a due weight to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/b2 to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/b2+ε for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).
I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, that I am not willing to do alone. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This may already be common knowledge, but a fellow librarian drew my attention to the AMS's History of Mathematics: A Century of Mathematics in America set which they have made available free online -- could be a useful resource for referencing some of the history of math/mathematician articles! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits to mathematics pages by 32.173.153.198 are puzzling. They introduce some subtle errors; most of them have already been reverted. I'd like to assume good faith here, but I think it's important to watch any further edits from that address. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Check the edit I just reverted on Fundamental theorem of arithmetic by some guy calling himself Shrohaneinstein. I don't know if it's vandalism or stupidity, nor do I know if it's 32.173.153.198 or 24.18.247.140. - Virginia-American ( talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article Fernando Revilla has the interesting sentence "In this lecture [by Fernando Revilla], it is proven that dynamic processes assocciated with natural number characterize the Goldbach's conjecture, a characterization which is lost in an instant of time, obtaining a temporal singularity." This suggests that the article may need some attention. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is that article? Should it be trimmed and the non-obvious parts moved to bicomplex number. I know the article is old, but is there any evidence the term is actually used? I would rather not propose a merge tag before I understand what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was browsing WP:VITAL, and saw that Area is only start class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this most important mathematical article up to GA status?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning a backlog of old merge proposals, and one of the oldest was for this article: Talk:Gödel–Gentzen_negative_translation which was proposed to be merged with Glivenko's_theorem and renamed to Double-negation translation. The consensus was to merge, so I closed the discussion and asked the involved editors to perform the merge because my math skills are too rusty to safely do this merge; since they may no longer be active, I'm also asking here if someone who understands the math can do the merge correctly. Thanks. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been struggling with trying to understand the Hodge dual article for a while. To be honest, I didn't get anything from it at all. I found an on-line text that explained it in a, to me at least, much more natural way. (It actually motivated the definition!) I've added a section to the article: Hodge_dual#Explanation, to hopefully add that extra clarity which I found useful. But I'm no expert and would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Cheers. — Fly by Night ( talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Relying on Hodge dual#Derivatives in three dimensions which says
it seems to me that the coefficients are the components of a covariant vector and thus dx, dy, and dz are the basis of a covector space (the dual space of the tangent space (vectors) of the manifold at the relevant event). So it seems to me that the W of Hodge dual#Explanation should be a covector space rather than a vector space. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that the added explanation refers to dual spaces unnecessarily. Tevian Dray (1999) The Hodge Dual Operator has a very similar "abstract definition" (at least its symbol choice overlaps), and it makes no use of the dual space (not counting the metric) thoughout the paper. To avoid confusion, I too agree that the Hodge dual applies to any vector space (with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form). — Quondum ☏ 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding a very poorly conceived section to Fano plane; I've tried to engage User:Nicolae-boicu on the talk page on how to improve the section to make it acceptable, but the editor is being evasive. (Also, someone interested in this sort of procedural detail could probably find a WP:3RR violation there somewhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since two points determine a line, after labeling any two points in the Fano plane another point is settled. The relabeling liberty for the rest of the four remaining points is described by the Klein Group.
The Maple permutation group for Fano plane is 7T5.
The e.g.f. is
hence there are 30 ways to label the plane. Here 6 represents the six distinct ways of labeling the affine (Klein) corresponding plane.
Dear Ed, I have already answered to 5/7 "accusations" points. It remains the below two ones. Please be careful and read the talk before clicking an irreversible button. Thank you.
• it is poorly formatted (e.g., the use of "." instead of "\cdot" for multiplication in LaTeX, the unexplained bold text) • the language could use polishing
Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: where is this cryptic notation (Fano"=X.Klein etc) used? It's certainly not notable enough to be used in articles to explain things. Rschwieb ( talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I continued to work on my section following the expressed requierements. I have now a new form that I cannot imagine how to improve without kidnapp the subject. Thank you all for remarks and your time. The actual variant is on my page. Dear Matt, the argument regarding the redundancy is on my talk user page. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I didn't wrote it for you. Thanks for your comment, after all, you help me to get a better picture. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Watching edits on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, I have reverted edits by user:Nbarth, which were out of context and not directly related to the subject of the article. Looking on the article which were linked to by these edits, it appeared that the same user has also inserted inappropriate material in Commuting matrices and Spectral theory. I have reverted, or in some cases rewritten, these edits. There may be other articles that have been similarly edited by the same editor in a way that may be viewed as some kind of subtle vandalism. Attention of the project members is thus needed. I may add that I'll be away from the net for two weeks, and I will not be able to follow the question. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum of Mathematics, an article about two new journals published by Cambridge University Press, has been nominated for deletion. Here's its first paragraph:
An argument is that as a new journal it has not yet had time to achieve notability. Another is that it's getting mentioned in the new media in connection with the boycott and with the broader purposes of that movement and is therefore notable for other reasons.
Opine at this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Cox–Zucker machine suddenly showed up in our "new articles" list although it's several years old and hasn't been edited since June 30th of this year.
It is an orphan i.e. no other articles link to it.
Here's most of the article:
Two tasks:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Wikiproject Mathematics,
A new editor recently submitted a new article trough article's for creation on Nagao's theorem. The article itself looks fine, but mathematics is most definitely not a subject that i am to knowledgeable about, which means i have some difficulty reviewing it. On a sidenote i would mention that we did receive some bogus math article's as of late so i wondered if someone could glance over it and check two things:
If you are familiar with the article's for creation area, feel free to handle the entire page. If not, I'll happily take care of those matters. Also - Thanks in advance for the assistance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across another mathematics article, so i fear i have to ask the same as i did above. If anyone could glance over it I'd be grateful. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of mathematics related article's lately - at this rate i fear i am going to have to resort to asking assistance on a regular basis. The above article is another submission, and on first glance it looks very decent for a new article. Anyone spare a moment to confirm this? Thanks in advance, as usual. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master. As suggested there by Christopher Thomas, I am also notifying this project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We are informed that:
Is this professorship named after Alfred North Whitehead, or J. H. C. Whitehead, or someone else? The article about A. N. Whitehead doesn't mention his having a professorship named after him. Can the information be added to the articles with appropriate links among them? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of the 136th most viewed mathematics article is open for comment.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice the use of the term notion in a number of articles where I would have used the term concept. The former seems to have semantics of vagueness associated with it, apparently corroborated by several dictionary definitions, whereas the latter seems more appropriate for use in the mathematical context where the thing described is usually precise. Would there be any objections to me replacing notion with concept in articles when this seems to apply? — Quondum ☏ 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The terms notion and concept are synonymous. However, the preferred term among those who study them formally is " concept". Greg Bard ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the distinction is particularly important in the vast majority of our articles. For example, if I write about the notion of Lebesgue measure or the concept of Lebesgue measure I mean the same thing in either case, and if there is any philosophical distinction it will not matter for the subject of Lebesgue measure. I don't see a reason to go through replacing one with the other just for the sake of it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominant functor is a orphaned article (i.e. no others link to it) and lacks references. It's also very very short. Do what you can. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Böttcher equation begins like this:
I don't know if Fn means n-fold composition of functions, or n-fold multiplication of the value of the function. Also, if it's supposed to be evaluated at the same point h, it wouldn't hurt to be clear about that, and if it's not, then what is meant is not clear. Then it says "where h is an analytic function with[ . . . etc . . . ]". Does that mean for every analytic function with that property, or for some analytic function with that property, or does it mean for some special analytic function with that property? Does "with n ≥ 0" mean for some n ≥ 0 (so that as long as there is some such value of n, this is an instance of the Böttcher equation, or for every n ≥ 0, or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Property of equivalence in gaussian primes has been around for most of a year, but with a bad category that prevented it from showing up in our new article lists. It needs either a lot of help, or deletion, I'm not sure which. Please do what you can. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably makes sense to discuss with the author? (At least as far as the goal is to understand what the article is about.) I note that s/he failed twice to get this through Articles for Creation, without apparently improving it in the process. -- JBL ( talk) 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a slow-moving discussion at Talk:Club filter involving a series of merges. I was hoping some math folks could head over there and continue the discussion, and merge the article, as I know nothing of these topics. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Another reminder of the hazards of the word "any". This is from a new article titled Tsen rank:
Does this mean "[...]if there is any system of degrees that has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]", or does it mean "[...]if it is the case that _any_ such system, no matter which one, has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]"? A reasonable person might read it either way. In the first case, changing "any" to "some" would resolve the ambiguity; in the second case, changing "any" to "every" would do it. "Any" is sometimes a hazardous word. I've changed it to "every" in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The quantifier "any" lacks existence claims.
("Any" is often used where free-logic pussyfooting is not intended, and where "every" or "some" should have been specified. Thus Halmos thinks that "any" should be avoided by mathematicians writing it gooder.)
Jaakko Hintikka has a nice article on "any" and ordinary English.
I forget whether Charles Sanders Peirce and his students considered free logical quantification. I think Mitchell has a paper on quantification in the 1878 Johns Hopkins Studies. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ring structures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the Mathematics WikiProject are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Professor Griewank is one of the principal architects of automatic differentiation, a co-founder of the theory of partially separable functions (the usage of which is an important part of the success of AMPL's modeling language and the large-scale optimization packages Lancelot and Galahad), an initiate of the mysteries of semi-analytic geometry, and an amateur guitarist:
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |urn=
ignored (|id=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)His would be an interesting biography.
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! We're getting another drive-by deletion being pushed bynon-physicists of a physics topic. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 13#Category:Introductory physics. To express my frustration: the drive-by deletion process brings out the very worst in wikipedia behavior, and creates a huge amount of damage (remember the deletion of Category:Proof, carefully nurtured for years, here, and shot dead with only three votes?) Please help get these hooligans under control. linas ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Indefinite logarithm has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indefinite logarithm. -- Lambiam 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the bug fixes in MathJax implementation are now working so we can have less than signs and matrices .-- Salix ( talk): 07:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
With a bit of messing around the closes set of styles I've managed to come to is
span.texhtml { font-family: MathJax_Main, serif; font-size: 123%;}
span.texhtml var { font-family: MathJax_Math, serif;}
span.texhtml sup { font-size: 70.7%; }
span.texhtml sub { font-size: 70.7%; }
Using those styles in skin.css the following two are virtually indistinguishable.
{{math|3 sin(<var>x</var><sub>2<var>i</var></sub>) e<sup>3<var>t</var></sup>}}
MathJax uses a different font for variables, MathJax_Math, than for other content, MathJax_Main, and slightly different sizes 123% as opposed to 118%. The code is dynamically generated so it might be different in other browsers.-- Salix ( talk): 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
what happened to V. J. Havel (see too: S. L. Hakimi) - -- Rovnet ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (w:es)
I've un-deleted it for now. I'll try to notify interested parties. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thx . -- Rovnet ( talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What a mess! Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash, not a hyphen) are two separate articles, and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (with a hyphen) does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash) but to Arabic numerals, and Arabic numeral system does not redirect to Arabic numerals but to Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
Welcome to the earliest days of Wikipedia. In 2002 and 2003 this would be expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Hurwitz quaternion order and Hurwitz quaternion should be distinct article which don't even link to each other? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Udita fractional operator is at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, a function is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of if . There is no mention of this in the article. I'm assuming that this is a well known fact. Should we add something to the article? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've recently made what I consider to be a number of improvements throughout the article on Elementary algebra, and submitted it as a Good Article nominee (see the article Talk page template for details). -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in Invariant interval and is easily contained within spacetime or (my rewrite of) Line element. If there are no objections - I will merge. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried to build up the article Diophantine approximation starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly User:D.Lazard sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-( I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in Golden ratio and Line (geometry).
IMO Diophantine approximation needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure WP:OR and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a due weight to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/b2 to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/b2+ε for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).
I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, that I am not willing to do alone. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This may already be common knowledge, but a fellow librarian drew my attention to the AMS's History of Mathematics: A Century of Mathematics in America set which they have made available free online -- could be a useful resource for referencing some of the history of math/mathematician articles! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits to mathematics pages by 32.173.153.198 are puzzling. They introduce some subtle errors; most of them have already been reverted. I'd like to assume good faith here, but I think it's important to watch any further edits from that address. Jowa fan ( talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Check the edit I just reverted on Fundamental theorem of arithmetic by some guy calling himself Shrohaneinstein. I don't know if it's vandalism or stupidity, nor do I know if it's 32.173.153.198 or 24.18.247.140. - Virginia-American ( talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The new article Fernando Revilla has the interesting sentence "In this lecture [by Fernando Revilla], it is proven that dynamic processes assocciated with natural number characterize the Goldbach's conjecture, a characterization which is lost in an instant of time, obtaining a temporal singularity." This suggests that the article may need some attention. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is that article? Should it be trimmed and the non-obvious parts moved to bicomplex number. I know the article is old, but is there any evidence the term is actually used? I would rather not propose a merge tag before I understand what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was browsing WP:VITAL, and saw that Area is only start class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this most important mathematical article up to GA status?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning a backlog of old merge proposals, and one of the oldest was for this article: Talk:Gödel–Gentzen_negative_translation which was proposed to be merged with Glivenko's_theorem and renamed to Double-negation translation. The consensus was to merge, so I closed the discussion and asked the involved editors to perform the merge because my math skills are too rusty to safely do this merge; since they may no longer be active, I'm also asking here if someone who understands the math can do the merge correctly. Thanks. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been struggling with trying to understand the Hodge dual article for a while. To be honest, I didn't get anything from it at all. I found an on-line text that explained it in a, to me at least, much more natural way. (It actually motivated the definition!) I've added a section to the article: Hodge_dual#Explanation, to hopefully add that extra clarity which I found useful. But I'm no expert and would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Cheers. — Fly by Night ( talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Relying on Hodge dual#Derivatives in three dimensions which says
it seems to me that the coefficients are the components of a covariant vector and thus dx, dy, and dz are the basis of a covector space (the dual space of the tangent space (vectors) of the manifold at the relevant event). So it seems to me that the W of Hodge dual#Explanation should be a covector space rather than a vector space. JRSpriggs ( talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that the added explanation refers to dual spaces unnecessarily. Tevian Dray (1999) The Hodge Dual Operator has a very similar "abstract definition" (at least its symbol choice overlaps), and it makes no use of the dual space (not counting the metric) thoughout the paper. To avoid confusion, I too agree that the Hodge dual applies to any vector space (with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form). — Quondum ☏ 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding a very poorly conceived section to Fano plane; I've tried to engage User:Nicolae-boicu on the talk page on how to improve the section to make it acceptable, but the editor is being evasive. (Also, someone interested in this sort of procedural detail could probably find a WP:3RR violation there somewhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since two points determine a line, after labeling any two points in the Fano plane another point is settled. The relabeling liberty for the rest of the four remaining points is described by the Klein Group.
The Maple permutation group for Fano plane is 7T5.
The e.g.f. is
hence there are 30 ways to label the plane. Here 6 represents the six distinct ways of labeling the affine (Klein) corresponding plane.
Dear Ed, I have already answered to 5/7 "accusations" points. It remains the below two ones. Please be careful and read the talk before clicking an irreversible button. Thank you.
• it is poorly formatted (e.g., the use of "." instead of "\cdot" for multiplication in LaTeX, the unexplained bold text) • the language could use polishing
Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: where is this cryptic notation (Fano"=X.Klein etc) used? It's certainly not notable enough to be used in articles to explain things. Rschwieb ( talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I continued to work on my section following the expressed requierements. I have now a new form that I cannot imagine how to improve without kidnapp the subject. Thank you all for remarks and your time. The actual variant is on my page. Dear Matt, the argument regarding the redundancy is on my talk user page. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I didn't wrote it for you. Thanks for your comment, after all, you help me to get a better picture. Nicolae-boicu ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Watching edits on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, I have reverted edits by user:Nbarth, which were out of context and not directly related to the subject of the article. Looking on the article which were linked to by these edits, it appeared that the same user has also inserted inappropriate material in Commuting matrices and Spectral theory. I have reverted, or in some cases rewritten, these edits. There may be other articles that have been similarly edited by the same editor in a way that may be viewed as some kind of subtle vandalism. Attention of the project members is thus needed. I may add that I'll be away from the net for two weeks, and I will not be able to follow the question. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum of Mathematics, an article about two new journals published by Cambridge University Press, has been nominated for deletion. Here's its first paragraph:
An argument is that as a new journal it has not yet had time to achieve notability. Another is that it's getting mentioned in the new media in connection with the boycott and with the broader purposes of that movement and is therefore notable for other reasons.
Opine at this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Cox–Zucker machine suddenly showed up in our "new articles" list although it's several years old and hasn't been edited since June 30th of this year.
It is an orphan i.e. no other articles link to it.
Here's most of the article:
Two tasks:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiyas there Wikiproject Mathematics,
A new editor recently submitted a new article trough article's for creation on Nagao's theorem. The article itself looks fine, but mathematics is most definitely not a subject that i am to knowledgeable about, which means i have some difficulty reviewing it. On a sidenote i would mention that we did receive some bogus math article's as of late so i wondered if someone could glance over it and check two things:
If you are familiar with the article's for creation area, feel free to handle the entire page. If not, I'll happily take care of those matters. Also - Thanks in advance for the assistance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across another mathematics article, so i fear i have to ask the same as i did above. If anyone could glance over it I'd be grateful. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of mathematics related article's lately - at this rate i fear i am going to have to resort to asking assistance on a regular basis. The above article is another submission, and on first glance it looks very decent for a new article. Anyone spare a moment to confirm this? Thanks in advance, as usual. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master. As suggested there by Christopher Thomas, I am also notifying this project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We are informed that:
Is this professorship named after Alfred North Whitehead, or J. H. C. Whitehead, or someone else? The article about A. N. Whitehead doesn't mention his having a professorship named after him. Can the information be added to the articles with appropriate links among them? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of the 136th most viewed mathematics article is open for comment.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice the use of the term notion in a number of articles where I would have used the term concept. The former seems to have semantics of vagueness associated with it, apparently corroborated by several dictionary definitions, whereas the latter seems more appropriate for use in the mathematical context where the thing described is usually precise. Would there be any objections to me replacing notion with concept in articles when this seems to apply? — Quondum ☏ 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The terms notion and concept are synonymous. However, the preferred term among those who study them formally is " concept". Greg Bard ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the distinction is particularly important in the vast majority of our articles. For example, if I write about the notion of Lebesgue measure or the concept of Lebesgue measure I mean the same thing in either case, and if there is any philosophical distinction it will not matter for the subject of Lebesgue measure. I don't see a reason to go through replacing one with the other just for the sake of it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominant functor is a orphaned article (i.e. no others link to it) and lacks references. It's also very very short. Do what you can. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article titled Böttcher equation begins like this:
I don't know if Fn means n-fold composition of functions, or n-fold multiplication of the value of the function. Also, if it's supposed to be evaluated at the same point h, it wouldn't hurt to be clear about that, and if it's not, then what is meant is not clear. Then it says "where h is an analytic function with[ . . . etc . . . ]". Does that mean for every analytic function with that property, or for some analytic function with that property, or does it mean for some special analytic function with that property? Does "with n ≥ 0" mean for some n ≥ 0 (so that as long as there is some such value of n, this is an instance of the Böttcher equation, or for every n ≥ 0, or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Property of equivalence in gaussian primes has been around for most of a year, but with a bad category that prevented it from showing up in our new article lists. It needs either a lot of help, or deletion, I'm not sure which. Please do what you can. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably makes sense to discuss with the author? (At least as far as the goal is to understand what the article is about.) I note that s/he failed twice to get this through Articles for Creation, without apparently improving it in the process. -- JBL ( talk) 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a slow-moving discussion at Talk:Club filter involving a series of merges. I was hoping some math folks could head over there and continue the discussion, and merge the article, as I know nothing of these topics. Thanks, Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Another reminder of the hazards of the word "any". This is from a new article titled Tsen rank:
Does this mean "[...]if there is any system of degrees that has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]", or does it mean "[...]if it is the case that _any_ such system, no matter which one, has a common non-zero solution whenever[...etc...]"? A reasonable person might read it either way. In the first case, changing "any" to "some" would resolve the ambiguity; in the second case, changing "any" to "every" would do it. "Any" is sometimes a hazardous word. I've changed it to "every" in the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The quantifier "any" lacks existence claims.
("Any" is often used where free-logic pussyfooting is not intended, and where "every" or "some" should have been specified. Thus Halmos thinks that "any" should be avoided by mathematicians writing it gooder.)
Jaakko Hintikka has a nice article on "any" and ordinary English.
I forget whether Charles Sanders Peirce and his students considered free logical quantification. I think Mitchell has a paper on quantification in the 1878 Johns Hopkins Studies. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ring structures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the Mathematics WikiProject are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Professor Griewank is one of the principal architects of automatic differentiation, a co-founder of the theory of partially separable functions (the usage of which is an important part of the success of AMPL's modeling language and the large-scale optimization packages Lancelot and Galahad), an initiate of the mysteries of semi-analytic geometry, and an amateur guitarist:
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |urn=
ignored (|id=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)His would be an interesting biography.
Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! We're getting another drive-by deletion being pushed bynon-physicists of a physics topic. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 13#Category:Introductory physics. To express my frustration: the drive-by deletion process brings out the very worst in wikipedia behavior, and creates a huge amount of damage (remember the deletion of Category:Proof, carefully nurtured for years, here, and shot dead with only three votes?) Please help get these hooligans under control. linas ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Indefinite logarithm has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indefinite logarithm. -- Lambiam 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the bug fixes in MathJax implementation are now working so we can have less than signs and matrices .-- Salix ( talk): 07:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
With a bit of messing around the closes set of styles I've managed to come to is
span.texhtml { font-family: MathJax_Main, serif; font-size: 123%;}
span.texhtml var { font-family: MathJax_Math, serif;}
span.texhtml sup { font-size: 70.7%; }
span.texhtml sub { font-size: 70.7%; }
Using those styles in skin.css the following two are virtually indistinguishable.
{{math|3 sin(<var>x</var><sub>2<var>i</var></sub>) e<sup>3<var>t</var></sup>}}
MathJax uses a different font for variables, MathJax_Math, than for other content, MathJax_Main, and slightly different sizes 123% as opposed to 118%. The code is dynamically generated so it might be different in other browsers.-- Salix ( talk): 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
what happened to V. J. Havel (see too: S. L. Hakimi) - -- Rovnet ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (w:es)
I've un-deleted it for now. I'll try to notify interested parties. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thx . -- Rovnet ( talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What a mess! Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash, not a hyphen) are two separate articles, and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (with a hyphen) does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash) but to Arabic numerals, and Arabic numeral system does not redirect to Arabic numerals but to Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
Welcome to the earliest days of Wikipedia. In 2002 and 2003 this would be expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Hurwitz quaternion order and Hurwitz quaternion should be distinct article which don't even link to each other? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Udita fractional operator is at AfD. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, a function is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of if . There is no mention of this in the article. I'm assuming that this is a well known fact. Should we add something to the article? — Fly by Night ( talk) 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've recently made what I consider to be a number of improvements throughout the article on Elementary algebra, and submitted it as a Good Article nominee (see the article Talk page template for details). -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)