Homogeneous redirects to Homogeneity and heterogeneity in which a hatnote links to Homogeneity (disambiguation). In this dab page most of the mathematical meanings of "homogeneous" are in section "See also". In this dab page there is no link to Homogeneous equation nor to Homogeneous Equations. Homogeneous equation redirects to System of linear equations#Homogeneous systems, while Homogeneous Equations redirects to Homogeneous differential equation. IMO, reorganizing all this stuff is needed. As almost all (but not all) the mathematical meanings of "homogeneous" are "invariant under scalar multiplication" I suggest a WP:multiple-cross-reference page named Homogeneous (mathematics).
I came to this problem by searching the following corollary of fundamental theorem of algebra: Every homogeneous polynomial equation in two variables of degree d has d roots, counted with multiplicity, in the complex projective line. Equivalently: every homogeneous polynomial in two variables may be factorized into linear factors over the complexes. I have not found it in WP. Is there a wikilink for this result?
D.Lazard ( talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably we should created a multiple-cross-reference page titled Homogeneity (mathematics). Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled Loximuthal projection. It could bear a lot of expansion.
Guess what? WikiProject Cartography does not exist!! (Otherwise I'd have notified them by now.) Who'd'a' thunk it?
Michael Hardy (
talk)
03:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The AMS has recently announced an inaugural list of AMS Fellows. It may be worth checking through that list to find ones that are not already represented by an article here, and/or to list that honor on the articles for the ones that do already have articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping that someone in this group could address the old merge proposals at Unbounded operator. If that simply means deleting all the merge tags, that's fine by me. But I can't do these merges since I simply don't understand the math. Thank you, Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to revise some of the labyrinth of pages under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0. Much of the documentation is out of date or unclear, and there are broken templates and pages that do not seem to correspond to any part of the system that I know of or have moved. I plan to start working on this in my copious spare time, but if anybody already has some familiarity with it, their assistance would be appreciated. Also, I am not sure how many of the tables there are updated; some of them are clearly out of date or broken, but I do not know how to fix that. Nat2 ( talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone look at merging
Field of values to
Numerical range? Thanks.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
Could other editors please help address ongoing attempts by an IP to add what is being called "Sabihi's formula" to Formula for primes and Prime-counting function? Paul August ☎ 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I want to come back to the part of the discussion about WP:PSTS policy. IMHO, for new mathematical result, it should be interpreted as follow:
A (new) mathematical result is WP:OR if it does not exists any reliable secondary source attesting it truth, novelty and hopefully its importance (notability). If such a source exists, the primary source may be used for describing the details of the result.
The second sentence is needed, as most secondary sources may be like "the result of S. allows us to prove the theorem of this paper" or "S. algorithm is the state of the art", without giving any detail. IMO, if such an interpretation of WP:OR policy would be an "official" position of our project, many time consuming discussions, like this one would be avoided. Therefore, I suggest, if there is a consensus about such an interpretation, to make it an official policy (if possible) or guideline of the project. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your ideas about my formula and paper on the Goldbach's conjecture. I reviewed all your writings. They were contestant at all.
One of you said that my formula is a reformulation of a known result. His/her opinion is never true, because you can not precisely find a formula as my formula anywhere of the world (accredited documents, papers, proceedings and etc.). Yes, only the Möbius inversion formula is reformulation, but not others. If you claim such, please give me a peer reviewed article containing precisely my formula. Also, I made use of this formula to make my conjecture on the Goldbach's conjecture, which has been published in the Bulletin of the Allahabad Math.Soc., India. Therefore, my formula has exactly passed twice publishing by the two peer reviewed journal.
I'd like to plan some questions to you. Please kindly and logically review and respond to my following questions:
1-Which one of you are an expert in Additive Number Theory (Courses as Goldbach's conjecture, Riemann Hypothesis, etc…)? If are, please clarify to me, what is the problem with my formula on the number of primes? If aren't, you have no authorization for deleting it!!!
2-My two papers containing this formula and the several other ones, are indexed by two great Mathematical indexers as MathSciNet and Zentralblatt-Math. and included in some libraries as Tsinghua University and Serbian Mathematical Institute(Belgrade). All of mathematicians of the world accept these two indexers. Because, they index only papers, which sound of good quality and interesting to more mathematicians and make use of high-level courses of mathematics. Therefore, everybody does not accept them and their indexed articles, should not be a mathematician!!!. Why don't you accept my formula to be added to Wiki?!
3-You let Sebastian Martin Ruiz to add his formula in the "Formula for Primes" in spite of this formula neither published anywhere nor peer reviewed by any mathematical journal or conference. Why is such that?!!!
3-1- Is his formula correct? Where is his proof? I have never found it published in even a weak mathematical journal?!!! Why do you let him to add his formula to the Wiki?!!! This is a discrimination against me!!! It has no any reference. It is a contradiction with yourselves rules (if any)!!!
4-In my opinion, a citation does not need to trust to a paper published in a journal, which also indexed at least in the two accredited places. Why can not you trust to my published work? Whereas I have looked at many pages of the Wiki, and found many documents so they have neither been published nor cited by any secondary accredited places and…!!!
5-I have found several formulas at the same page "Prime Counting function" so they have no any reference and I have never seen anywhere them!!! Like arc-tangent formulas for number of primes. Where is the source of this formula?!!! Please give me its address.
Please note: If one can not give me logical responses to one-to-one questions 1 to 5 so I am convinced with, then I will add my formula and Goldbach's conjecture paper to the related Wiki.pages after a two days deadline. In that time, none of you and other editors do not authorize to delete them!!!
I give you a deadline of two days (started Nov.7 to 9) to be responded to the above questions. -- Sabgold ( talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, these journals are also under supervision of AMS and EMS to be indexed by them. All the above my clarifications must convince you, which my journals contents are reliable and citable. Therefore, my research is not an original research. Please refer to same page in the section "Reliable sources" then, you read the sentence " In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". You see that "Academic and peer reviewed journals" are most reliable sources. Again, my papers are of this type.
And Sławomir Biały is a Professor in maths/physics, and has explained in excruciating detail many times why. Plese stop. Maschen ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Category:Operator topologies. Does this topic intersect with another category e.g. Category:Operator theory, such that more articles could be placed into the category Category:Operator topologies? Please assist or comment at the CfD discussion. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I nominated David Eppstein's two Shapley–Folkman lemma illustrations for Featured picture status, partly because of Shapley's December 2012 receipt of the Nobel Award in Economics (Stockholm).
Mathematical illustrations are challenging for general readers. Already, one reviewer has asked for confirmation of the correctness of the illustrations.
Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Distance-weighted estimator is being discussed. Opine here. Don't just say keep or delete; give your arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
We've been having a discussion as to what extent basic facts related to rings should be included in the article. Inputs from the other editors could be very useful to us. -- Taku ( talk) 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just came across the article Kelvin–Stokes theorem. It's something of a mess, not just because it's in need of proof-reading, but perhaps the technical details could do with being checked (thereby disqualifying me from doing it myself...). Perhaps someone here could take a look? Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have started to cleaning up computer algebra and the related articles, and I need some help on three points.
Thanks in advance to spent some time on these issues. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Stamcose ( talk · contribs) addedd these new sections to the catenary article. I deleted these new sections because:
The author has contested this deletion on my talk page. What do other editors think ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Many IPs have raised concerns about the quality of the work and contributions of Jean-François Mertens (see its talk-page and also mine). I'm not well-versed in modern economics or game-theory research, so I cannot help judge whether the original claims are correct and his contributions to the field are substantial (per some early contributions to article), or whether (as others have claimed) it's all not very sophisticated or novel or noticed by experts in the field. Additional editor assistance would be welcome there. DMacks ( talk) 17:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Two professors have recently expressed to me some reluctance about editing or creating Wikipedia articles because they found it somewhat intimidating or daunting or felt they had to learn a lot about how it is customarily done. I've thought of writing an article for which a working title would be "Wikipedia for mathematicians", to be submitted to the American Mathematical Monthly. Would it make any sense to make that a community project to be done by whichever denizens of this project decide to contribute? Here's a(n initially red) link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the draft to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians. So it's now in the Wikipedia space rather than the Wikipedia talk space. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of these lately; see my VPT post. Anybody else experiencing this? Tijfo098 ( talk) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What shall we make of the new article titled Arithmetico-geometric sequence?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Enough pages link to there (I inserted some [4]), and it should be notable (at the very least TR says [5]), and there is at least one citation (I added), so the template has been changed requesting for more citations [6]. Maschen ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
While I'm logged in, and looking at socle (mathematics), I see this line and it looks fine:
But looking at the same page when I'm not logged in, I see nothing but error messages where that line should be. What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to use packages in WP LaTex? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Failed to parse (unknown function "\setlength"): {\displaystyle \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{picture}(4,2) \put(1,1){\circle{3}} \put(3,1){\circle*{5}} \end{picture} }
Hello,
the purpose of the category Planar graphs [7] is clear: it lists planar graphs like the wheel graph and the Dürer graph, as well as articles on results on planarity.
What is the purpose of the cateogry "Hamiltonian paths and cycles" [8]? The title doesn't really suggest that it should list Hamiltonian graphs. In fact, some of the articles in that category are on specific graphs, that are non-Hamiltonian! (for instance: the Herschel graph and the Tutte graph).
I still feel it would be very informative if there would be a category listing Hamiltonian graphs, but I fear making two different categories is a bit over the top.
How could one solve this? Evilbu ( talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently up for proposed deletion (expiring on Monday), and I'm in a bit of a quandary about it. The current article is not worth keeping as it is - it has very obviously been written by someone who has come across the concept in a single context, and only mentions that context. However, the concept clearly has enough notability to warrant coverage on Wikipedia - indeed, null models are explicitly mentioned in at least twenty other articles. But unfortunately I don't think I have enough familiarity with the concept to rewrite the article to an adequate standard (at least without more research than I have time for at the moment), and I am not entirely happy about the obvious alternative of redirecting it to null hypothesis while that article makes no mention of null models (again, I could make a stab at writing a description of the analogy between the two concepts, but it would be strictly WP:OR). Could anyone help, one way or another? PWilkinson ( talk) 18:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A search [9] on wikipedia shows the term is used in a number of different contexts in particular Theoretical ecology and Statistical model. I've added {{ for}} hat notes to this effect. -- Salix ( talk): 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In this discussion of logical symbols, there is a point that we "zero-credibility" editors should consider. It can be uncomfortable encountering unfamiliar symbols. If the user knows the name of the symbol, they can at least say the equation out loud ("d omega by d t" is so much more satisfying than "d (grunt) by dt"). Also, they may want to typeset the equation in some other medium and don't know their way around LaTeX and Wikipedia templates. So naming the symbol and linking to something like a table of symbols would help - at least for the more elementary subjects. Any other ideas? RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
On occasion I've put in something like (the summation notation in this formula is explained here) - Virginia-American ( talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Universal quantifier and Existential quantifier redirected respectively to Universal quantification and Existential quantification. Then user:Gregbard redirected them respectively to Turned a and Turned e --- articles about the typographical symbols. I reverted.
Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols mixes articles about semantics with those about symbols a fair bit as well. Perhaps organizing that in two columns would help ease the confusion of readers and some editors as well. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it, WP:MATH has been told time and time again that the articles under its scope are unreadable, inaccessible, and confusing. In this regard, all the naysayers have ZERO credibility criticizing me. The symbols are the most significant part of the confusion on the part of the average-everyday-reader (remember them?). The template is for the symbols, not the operations. They are each certainly notable individually, having been used commonly in numerous credible, and notable publications. So I can't think of a more irresponsible or foolish idea than removing anything that helps clarify the use of these symbols. If you want to be constructive in this regard, go through and make sure that everything linked from the template is consistent, and make sure to add whatever symbols are missing. Greg Bard ( talk) 14:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
@Gregbard : How exactly does your way of organizing this information make anything more readable? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have put hatnotes on Universal quantification and Existential quantification directing people to the articles about the symbols.
The articles about the turned A discusses its use as a Japanese title and in traffic engineering, and those have nothing to do with universal quantification, so that's another reason not to redirect universal quantifier to that article. It's perfectly appropriate in an article about a symbol to include those various unrelated meanings, but it would seem inappropriate to include those other topics in a page to which "universal quantifier" redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Dmcq (
talk)
15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I see there's an ANI thread related to this too: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Arthur_Rubin_again. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As for the more mathy question (of Greg) as to whether universal/existential quantification is an expression: the answer is that it can be, e.g. as they are constructed as particular cases of Lindström quantifier. Tijfo098 ( talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Logical NAND redirects to Sheffer stroke. This was made a redirect back in 2005, probably because the lead treated the operator and the symbol as equivalent (see the last revision before redirect). RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Links to the disambiguation pages below could really use the attention of someone with decent math knowledge. Any help at all would be appreciated. If anyone would like to help but is unsure about how disambiguation works, please visit Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links or Wikipedia:Disambiguation for info. Thanks!
-- Fyrefly ( talk) 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved in an edit dispute with an anonymous editor on Pythagorean tiling, concerning issues of image placement, content, and whether the article topic is worthy of being standalone or should be merged into Pythagorean theorem. My opinion is that engaging with this editor in talk pages has been counterproductive, but additional eyes on the page and additional opinions from other editors here would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how notable this is: The Online Journal on Mathematics and Statistics, OJMS. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Homogeneous redirects to Homogeneity and heterogeneity in which a hatnote links to Homogeneity (disambiguation). In this dab page most of the mathematical meanings of "homogeneous" are in section "See also". In this dab page there is no link to Homogeneous equation nor to Homogeneous Equations. Homogeneous equation redirects to System of linear equations#Homogeneous systems, while Homogeneous Equations redirects to Homogeneous differential equation. IMO, reorganizing all this stuff is needed. As almost all (but not all) the mathematical meanings of "homogeneous" are "invariant under scalar multiplication" I suggest a WP:multiple-cross-reference page named Homogeneous (mathematics).
I came to this problem by searching the following corollary of fundamental theorem of algebra: Every homogeneous polynomial equation in two variables of degree d has d roots, counted with multiplicity, in the complex projective line. Equivalently: every homogeneous polynomial in two variables may be factorized into linear factors over the complexes. I have not found it in WP. Is there a wikilink for this result?
D.Lazard ( talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably we should created a multiple-cross-reference page titled Homogeneity (mathematics). Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I've created a new article titled Loximuthal projection. It could bear a lot of expansion.
Guess what? WikiProject Cartography does not exist!! (Otherwise I'd have notified them by now.) Who'd'a' thunk it?
Michael Hardy (
talk)
03:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The AMS has recently announced an inaugural list of AMS Fellows. It may be worth checking through that list to find ones that are not already represented by an article here, and/or to list that honor on the articles for the ones that do already have articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping that someone in this group could address the old merge proposals at Unbounded operator. If that simply means deleting all the merge tags, that's fine by me. But I can't do these merges since I simply don't understand the math. Thank you, Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to revise some of the labyrinth of pages under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0. Much of the documentation is out of date or unclear, and there are broken templates and pages that do not seem to correspond to any part of the system that I know of or have moved. I plan to start working on this in my copious spare time, but if anybody already has some familiarity with it, their assistance would be appreciated. Also, I am not sure how many of the tables there are updated; some of them are clearly out of date or broken, but I do not know how to fix that. Nat2 ( talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone look at merging
Field of values to
Numerical range? Thanks.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
Could other editors please help address ongoing attempts by an IP to add what is being called "Sabihi's formula" to Formula for primes and Prime-counting function? Paul August ☎ 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I want to come back to the part of the discussion about WP:PSTS policy. IMHO, for new mathematical result, it should be interpreted as follow:
A (new) mathematical result is WP:OR if it does not exists any reliable secondary source attesting it truth, novelty and hopefully its importance (notability). If such a source exists, the primary source may be used for describing the details of the result.
The second sentence is needed, as most secondary sources may be like "the result of S. allows us to prove the theorem of this paper" or "S. algorithm is the state of the art", without giving any detail. IMO, if such an interpretation of WP:OR policy would be an "official" position of our project, many time consuming discussions, like this one would be avoided. Therefore, I suggest, if there is a consensus about such an interpretation, to make it an official policy (if possible) or guideline of the project. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your ideas about my formula and paper on the Goldbach's conjecture. I reviewed all your writings. They were contestant at all.
One of you said that my formula is a reformulation of a known result. His/her opinion is never true, because you can not precisely find a formula as my formula anywhere of the world (accredited documents, papers, proceedings and etc.). Yes, only the Möbius inversion formula is reformulation, but not others. If you claim such, please give me a peer reviewed article containing precisely my formula. Also, I made use of this formula to make my conjecture on the Goldbach's conjecture, which has been published in the Bulletin of the Allahabad Math.Soc., India. Therefore, my formula has exactly passed twice publishing by the two peer reviewed journal.
I'd like to plan some questions to you. Please kindly and logically review and respond to my following questions:
1-Which one of you are an expert in Additive Number Theory (Courses as Goldbach's conjecture, Riemann Hypothesis, etc…)? If are, please clarify to me, what is the problem with my formula on the number of primes? If aren't, you have no authorization for deleting it!!!
2-My two papers containing this formula and the several other ones, are indexed by two great Mathematical indexers as MathSciNet and Zentralblatt-Math. and included in some libraries as Tsinghua University and Serbian Mathematical Institute(Belgrade). All of mathematicians of the world accept these two indexers. Because, they index only papers, which sound of good quality and interesting to more mathematicians and make use of high-level courses of mathematics. Therefore, everybody does not accept them and their indexed articles, should not be a mathematician!!!. Why don't you accept my formula to be added to Wiki?!
3-You let Sebastian Martin Ruiz to add his formula in the "Formula for Primes" in spite of this formula neither published anywhere nor peer reviewed by any mathematical journal or conference. Why is such that?!!!
3-1- Is his formula correct? Where is his proof? I have never found it published in even a weak mathematical journal?!!! Why do you let him to add his formula to the Wiki?!!! This is a discrimination against me!!! It has no any reference. It is a contradiction with yourselves rules (if any)!!!
4-In my opinion, a citation does not need to trust to a paper published in a journal, which also indexed at least in the two accredited places. Why can not you trust to my published work? Whereas I have looked at many pages of the Wiki, and found many documents so they have neither been published nor cited by any secondary accredited places and…!!!
5-I have found several formulas at the same page "Prime Counting function" so they have no any reference and I have never seen anywhere them!!! Like arc-tangent formulas for number of primes. Where is the source of this formula?!!! Please give me its address.
Please note: If one can not give me logical responses to one-to-one questions 1 to 5 so I am convinced with, then I will add my formula and Goldbach's conjecture paper to the related Wiki.pages after a two days deadline. In that time, none of you and other editors do not authorize to delete them!!!
I give you a deadline of two days (started Nov.7 to 9) to be responded to the above questions. -- Sabgold ( talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, these journals are also under supervision of AMS and EMS to be indexed by them. All the above my clarifications must convince you, which my journals contents are reliable and citable. Therefore, my research is not an original research. Please refer to same page in the section "Reliable sources" then, you read the sentence " In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". You see that "Academic and peer reviewed journals" are most reliable sources. Again, my papers are of this type.
And Sławomir Biały is a Professor in maths/physics, and has explained in excruciating detail many times why. Plese stop. Maschen ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Category:Operator topologies. Does this topic intersect with another category e.g. Category:Operator theory, such that more articles could be placed into the category Category:Operator topologies? Please assist or comment at the CfD discussion. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I nominated David Eppstein's two Shapley–Folkman lemma illustrations for Featured picture status, partly because of Shapley's December 2012 receipt of the Nobel Award in Economics (Stockholm).
Mathematical illustrations are challenging for general readers. Already, one reviewer has asked for confirmation of the correctness of the illustrations.
Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Distance-weighted estimator is being discussed. Opine here. Don't just say keep or delete; give your arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
We've been having a discussion as to what extent basic facts related to rings should be included in the article. Inputs from the other editors could be very useful to us. -- Taku ( talk) 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just came across the article Kelvin–Stokes theorem. It's something of a mess, not just because it's in need of proof-reading, but perhaps the technical details could do with being checked (thereby disqualifying me from doing it myself...). Perhaps someone here could take a look? Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have started to cleaning up computer algebra and the related articles, and I need some help on three points.
Thanks in advance to spent some time on these issues. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Stamcose ( talk · contribs) addedd these new sections to the catenary article. I deleted these new sections because:
The author has contested this deletion on my talk page. What do other editors think ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Many IPs have raised concerns about the quality of the work and contributions of Jean-François Mertens (see its talk-page and also mine). I'm not well-versed in modern economics or game-theory research, so I cannot help judge whether the original claims are correct and his contributions to the field are substantial (per some early contributions to article), or whether (as others have claimed) it's all not very sophisticated or novel or noticed by experts in the field. Additional editor assistance would be welcome there. DMacks ( talk) 17:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Two professors have recently expressed to me some reluctance about editing or creating Wikipedia articles because they found it somewhat intimidating or daunting or felt they had to learn a lot about how it is customarily done. I've thought of writing an article for which a working title would be "Wikipedia for mathematicians", to be submitted to the American Mathematical Monthly. Would it make any sense to make that a community project to be done by whichever denizens of this project decide to contribute? Here's a(n initially red) link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the draft to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians. So it's now in the Wikipedia space rather than the Wikipedia talk space. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of these lately; see my VPT post. Anybody else experiencing this? Tijfo098 ( talk) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What shall we make of the new article titled Arithmetico-geometric sequence?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Enough pages link to there (I inserted some [4]), and it should be notable (at the very least TR says [5]), and there is at least one citation (I added), so the template has been changed requesting for more citations [6]. Maschen ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
While I'm logged in, and looking at socle (mathematics), I see this line and it looks fine:
But looking at the same page when I'm not logged in, I see nothing but error messages where that line should be. What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to use packages in WP LaTex? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Failed to parse (unknown function "\setlength"): {\displaystyle \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{picture}(4,2) \put(1,1){\circle{3}} \put(3,1){\circle*{5}} \end{picture} }
Hello,
the purpose of the category Planar graphs [7] is clear: it lists planar graphs like the wheel graph and the Dürer graph, as well as articles on results on planarity.
What is the purpose of the cateogry "Hamiltonian paths and cycles" [8]? The title doesn't really suggest that it should list Hamiltonian graphs. In fact, some of the articles in that category are on specific graphs, that are non-Hamiltonian! (for instance: the Herschel graph and the Tutte graph).
I still feel it would be very informative if there would be a category listing Hamiltonian graphs, but I fear making two different categories is a bit over the top.
How could one solve this? Evilbu ( talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently up for proposed deletion (expiring on Monday), and I'm in a bit of a quandary about it. The current article is not worth keeping as it is - it has very obviously been written by someone who has come across the concept in a single context, and only mentions that context. However, the concept clearly has enough notability to warrant coverage on Wikipedia - indeed, null models are explicitly mentioned in at least twenty other articles. But unfortunately I don't think I have enough familiarity with the concept to rewrite the article to an adequate standard (at least without more research than I have time for at the moment), and I am not entirely happy about the obvious alternative of redirecting it to null hypothesis while that article makes no mention of null models (again, I could make a stab at writing a description of the analogy between the two concepts, but it would be strictly WP:OR). Could anyone help, one way or another? PWilkinson ( talk) 18:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A search [9] on wikipedia shows the term is used in a number of different contexts in particular Theoretical ecology and Statistical model. I've added {{ for}} hat notes to this effect. -- Salix ( talk): 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In this discussion of logical symbols, there is a point that we "zero-credibility" editors should consider. It can be uncomfortable encountering unfamiliar symbols. If the user knows the name of the symbol, they can at least say the equation out loud ("d omega by d t" is so much more satisfying than "d (grunt) by dt"). Also, they may want to typeset the equation in some other medium and don't know their way around LaTeX and Wikipedia templates. So naming the symbol and linking to something like a table of symbols would help - at least for the more elementary subjects. Any other ideas? RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
On occasion I've put in something like (the summation notation in this formula is explained here) - Virginia-American ( talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Universal quantifier and Existential quantifier redirected respectively to Universal quantification and Existential quantification. Then user:Gregbard redirected them respectively to Turned a and Turned e --- articles about the typographical symbols. I reverted.
Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols mixes articles about semantics with those about symbols a fair bit as well. Perhaps organizing that in two columns would help ease the confusion of readers and some editors as well. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it, WP:MATH has been told time and time again that the articles under its scope are unreadable, inaccessible, and confusing. In this regard, all the naysayers have ZERO credibility criticizing me. The symbols are the most significant part of the confusion on the part of the average-everyday-reader (remember them?). The template is for the symbols, not the operations. They are each certainly notable individually, having been used commonly in numerous credible, and notable publications. So I can't think of a more irresponsible or foolish idea than removing anything that helps clarify the use of these symbols. If you want to be constructive in this regard, go through and make sure that everything linked from the template is consistent, and make sure to add whatever symbols are missing. Greg Bard ( talk) 14:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
@Gregbard : How exactly does your way of organizing this information make anything more readable? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have put hatnotes on Universal quantification and Existential quantification directing people to the articles about the symbols.
The articles about the turned A discusses its use as a Japanese title and in traffic engineering, and those have nothing to do with universal quantification, so that's another reason not to redirect universal quantifier to that article. It's perfectly appropriate in an article about a symbol to include those various unrelated meanings, but it would seem inappropriate to include those other topics in a page to which "universal quantifier" redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Dmcq (
talk)
15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I see there's an ANI thread related to this too: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Arthur_Rubin_again. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As for the more mathy question (of Greg) as to whether universal/existential quantification is an expression: the answer is that it can be, e.g. as they are constructed as particular cases of Lindström quantifier. Tijfo098 ( talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Logical NAND redirects to Sheffer stroke. This was made a redirect back in 2005, probably because the lead treated the operator and the symbol as equivalent (see the last revision before redirect). RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Links to the disambiguation pages below could really use the attention of someone with decent math knowledge. Any help at all would be appreciated. If anyone would like to help but is unsure about how disambiguation works, please visit Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links or Wikipedia:Disambiguation for info. Thanks!
-- Fyrefly ( talk) 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved in an edit dispute with an anonymous editor on Pythagorean tiling, concerning issues of image placement, content, and whether the article topic is worthy of being standalone or should be merged into Pythagorean theorem. My opinion is that engaging with this editor in talk pages has been counterproductive, but additional eyes on the page and additional opinions from other editors here would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how notable this is: The Online Journal on Mathematics and Statistics, OJMS. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)