See this unsourced edit, claiming the Sarrus rule extends to n × n matrices, and changes made to the 4 × 4 determinant. Is it true? Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 07:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
by: Doctor Engr. Ramjie Jovero,PhD Atty. Christian B. Concillo,MD-Drug Lord
Is there a way to label equations and refer to them by their labels, while consecutive numbers are assigned to the equations and their corresponding references. I mean something similar as in LaTeX? I haven't seen such a feature used on Wikipedia, but some mathematical articles like binomial coefficient could benefit from it. At least for referring to equations given earlier in the article, such a feature should be possible, as the use of footnote and references shows. Any help, hints or example pages? Schmock ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently declined this draft article about Slovin's Formula, which is used in statistics. It was supposedly invented in 1843. I've never heard of it. If it is a notable formula and it can be backed up by reliable sources, perhaps an article should be written about it. Has anyone heard of this formula, either under this name or another name? The listed formula is
n= N/1+Ne^2 where n= sample size, N= population size, e= margin of error
According to late Ramjie Jovero it is widely use as formula in surveying the population of aliens, but according to late General Christian Concillo, it used for measuring the size of girls butt and boobs.
Anyone heard of such a formula? If it already has an article under a different name, it might be a good idea to add a section about how this is sometimes mis-labeled as "Slovin's Formula" and provide a redirect.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail)
14:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately David Eppstein's pessimistic take is mistaken. There are lots of mentions of this same formula by this same name in Google Books and Google Scholar. The article's contradictory assertions about when it originated and who did it cannot be allowed to stand, and the article obviously needs work in some other respects as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've created this userspace draft: User:Michael Hardy/proof of André's theorem. The idea is that it could be incorporated somewhere into the article titled alternating permutation. I thought I'd cite something from the writings of Richard P. Stanley, but details remain to be ascertained.
Comments, criticisms, or suggestions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether I should cite something Richard Stanley wrote or something by someone else also remains unclear at this point. Michael Hardy ( talk) 08:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Stack (descent theory) is not rigorously defined at all. Descent (category theory) has a treatment of vector bundles. Some time ago I found a reference on stacks and tried to remedy this, but ultimately I couldn't understand it well enough to make an exact description from it. Its absence is really a big barrier to getting any coherent information about moduli spaces from Wikipedia, so I'm requesting expert attention on Stack. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
("Part 2" above refers to this present discussion, not to the theorem.)
I've added this section, stating and proving André's theorem. Doubtless it could benefit from others' contributions. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have linked 438 EOM-articles to Wikipedia's mathematics articles as external links since August 2012 (EOM stands for 'Encyclopedia of Mathematics' and its online version). As a tool to make these external links I have principally used Wikipedia's 'springer' template. However, it has recently come to my knowledge that 1) a malfunction has emerged to this template and 2) a discrepancy is associated with it, namely:
1) Its property to show the headword as a hyperlink has become sporadic; in some articles the link works, in some others it won't. (Eg., in the entry
2) {{ Springer}} redirects to {{ SpringerEOM}} in the Template documentation, although the template codes 'springer' and 'SpringerEOM' follow a completely different syntax. The syntax of the former is:
As to the problem 1: Has someone changed recently the code for the 'springer' template, thus producing its sporadic malfunctioning? And as to the problem 2: Template documentation for the 'springer' template should be updated according to its syntax. Since I am still a novice, I kindly ask advise from someone more mature Wikipedian. And many thanks for your attention and help! — Policron ( talk) 23:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
{{SpringerEOM|id=headword&oldid=string|title=headword|first=name|last=name}}
and {{Springer|id=headword&oldid=string|title=headword|first=name|last=name}}
give exactly the same result:It has been pointed out to me by a new User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi that the integrals of absolute values of trigonometric functions are wrong. Does anyone have a source? I've looked in a couple of formulae books with integral tables but of all things they don't have the functions listed in that WP section. I'll keep looking around also, just thought to notify the project. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Prime Pages is no longer online. I have no idea whether this is temporary, but I think many mathematical articles, especially about prime numbers link to it, so all citations and external links pointing there are broken now. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It is online now. -- WillNess ( talk) 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In Glossary of tensor theory#Spinors there's a link to pinor, which redirects to Piñor. Just thought to point it out - maybe replace the redirect with an article? There is no pinor (mathematics) by the way. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 10:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I note that :- Wikisource:Index:The_Elements_of_Euclid_for_the_Use_of_Schools_and_Colleges_-_1872.djvu is nearing completion in terms of text translation.
It would be appreciated if some WP:MATH people would assist carefully in reviewing it. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 22:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please help fix incoming links to April's most-linked mathematics-related disambiguation pages, Geometric shape, Extra dimensions, Parametric, Positive definiteness, Planar, and Delta function. Some of these may also be questionably ambiguous. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Let's just drop it for now. Anyone can comment on the appropriate discussion pages about the ultimate outcome. An RfC might be appropriate, with this project notified along with all affected discussion pages, although at present it seems likely that this can be handled amicably without appealing to a wider consensus. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The definition in Positive-definite function on a group (usually a locally compact group) is not quite right; the added B(H) coefficients are unneeded and irrelevant generality. The standard definition from times of yore (say in Dixmier's book on C* algebras, Gelfand-Naimark or Mackey's Chicago notes) is for scalar functions on a group with some mild measurabilty or continuity properties (the usual theorem, from Banach's book and Calvin Moore's papers on Borel cohomology, that a Borel homomorphism on a Polish group is continuous). Certainly for the two articles I wrote on representation theory ( zonal spherical functions and Plancherel theorem for spherical functions) the wikipedia definition is not helpful, in fact useless, and misses the point entirely (the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal or the Gelfand-Naimark construction). I don't know how that happened. I am not at all surprised. Mathsci ( talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I can follow most of the allusions in http://www.google.com/doodles/leonhard-eulers-306th-birthday but I am not sure which of Euler's contributions the animated "O" is supposed to illustrate. Any ideas? Tkuvho ( talk) 09:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Bob Baillie wrote me, asking for help with the article Lucas primality test. In particular:
this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_primality_test does not describe any kind of lucas test at all. instead, it describes pocklington's theorem. the whole article needs to be renamed to something else, and the {{ number theoretic algorithms}} template needs to be corrected.
We have Pocklington primality test, LL, and LLR; I'm not sure what should be where and what the best names are. Any thoughts?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)There's a discussion going on at Talk:Sexagesimal on how to format some equations. Please contribute. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The article polynomial recurrence is being considered for deletion. Please add your thoughts here. This article has been discussed at least once before on this page; see this past discussion. Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on this? It is under discussion at Talk:Adele ring#Idèle vs idele. Deltahedron ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone tagged Marilyn's Cross as a possible hoax. Is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
None of the above makes it a hoax, but maybe it makes it a mistake. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axiom of global choice. Eozhik ( talk · contribs) believes that Axiom of global choice is a hoax. Obviously, I disagree. If you have an opinion on this, I urge you to express it on the AfD page. JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not know what to do with these consequences of those clumsy changes in 2009 (and earlier). And the proposal about deprecation of redirects, which could avoid this kind of situation in the future, also did not attract any support. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit was done by a user whose most recent edit history does not mention the following:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the article's title back to List of things named after Leonhard Euler and commented on the article's talk page about my reasons for this. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just organized the List of things named after Archimedes into sections. Further work could probably be done, possibly including alphabetizing, creating subsections of the "Mathematical concepts" section, further refining the organization, and other things. Some of our lists of (pardon the expression) "namesakes" are organized this way, and I think some are not. Some of those that are not might benefit from such work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a request for assistance on Tessellation, which has been in a scrappy state for some years. There are clearly several aspects of the mathematics of the subject (such as in higher dimensions, and of non-Euclidean surfaces) that need proper treatment with decent visual examples, citations and intelligible explanation. I have done some work on the basics and on the artistic and historical side, but a mathematician's hand is now required. I'm happy to lend a hand where I can. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor at Pursuit-evasion is adding references that are not used in the text and appear likely to be a conflict of interest. Are they sufficiently significant in the history of this topic to keep in the article? If not, could I have some help keeping them out, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
See this unsourced edit, claiming the Sarrus rule extends to n × n matrices, and changes made to the 4 × 4 determinant. Is it true? Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 07:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
by: Doctor Engr. Ramjie Jovero,PhD Atty. Christian B. Concillo,MD-Drug Lord
Is there a way to label equations and refer to them by their labels, while consecutive numbers are assigned to the equations and their corresponding references. I mean something similar as in LaTeX? I haven't seen such a feature used on Wikipedia, but some mathematical articles like binomial coefficient could benefit from it. At least for referring to equations given earlier in the article, such a feature should be possible, as the use of footnote and references shows. Any help, hints or example pages? Schmock ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently declined this draft article about Slovin's Formula, which is used in statistics. It was supposedly invented in 1843. I've never heard of it. If it is a notable formula and it can be backed up by reliable sources, perhaps an article should be written about it. Has anyone heard of this formula, either under this name or another name? The listed formula is
n= N/1+Ne^2 where n= sample size, N= population size, e= margin of error
According to late Ramjie Jovero it is widely use as formula in surveying the population of aliens, but according to late General Christian Concillo, it used for measuring the size of girls butt and boobs.
Anyone heard of such a formula? If it already has an article under a different name, it might be a good idea to add a section about how this is sometimes mis-labeled as "Slovin's Formula" and provide a redirect.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail)
14:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately David Eppstein's pessimistic take is mistaken. There are lots of mentions of this same formula by this same name in Google Books and Google Scholar. The article's contradictory assertions about when it originated and who did it cannot be allowed to stand, and the article obviously needs work in some other respects as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've created this userspace draft: User:Michael Hardy/proof of André's theorem. The idea is that it could be incorporated somewhere into the article titled alternating permutation. I thought I'd cite something from the writings of Richard P. Stanley, but details remain to be ascertained.
Comments, criticisms, or suggestions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether I should cite something Richard Stanley wrote or something by someone else also remains unclear at this point. Michael Hardy ( talk) 08:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Stack (descent theory) is not rigorously defined at all. Descent (category theory) has a treatment of vector bundles. Some time ago I found a reference on stacks and tried to remedy this, but ultimately I couldn't understand it well enough to make an exact description from it. Its absence is really a big barrier to getting any coherent information about moduli spaces from Wikipedia, so I'm requesting expert attention on Stack. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
("Part 2" above refers to this present discussion, not to the theorem.)
I've added this section, stating and proving André's theorem. Doubtless it could benefit from others' contributions. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have linked 438 EOM-articles to Wikipedia's mathematics articles as external links since August 2012 (EOM stands for 'Encyclopedia of Mathematics' and its online version). As a tool to make these external links I have principally used Wikipedia's 'springer' template. However, it has recently come to my knowledge that 1) a malfunction has emerged to this template and 2) a discrepancy is associated with it, namely:
1) Its property to show the headword as a hyperlink has become sporadic; in some articles the link works, in some others it won't. (Eg., in the entry
2) {{ Springer}} redirects to {{ SpringerEOM}} in the Template documentation, although the template codes 'springer' and 'SpringerEOM' follow a completely different syntax. The syntax of the former is:
As to the problem 1: Has someone changed recently the code for the 'springer' template, thus producing its sporadic malfunctioning? And as to the problem 2: Template documentation for the 'springer' template should be updated according to its syntax. Since I am still a novice, I kindly ask advise from someone more mature Wikipedian. And many thanks for your attention and help! — Policron ( talk) 23:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
{{SpringerEOM|id=headword&oldid=string|title=headword|first=name|last=name}}
and {{Springer|id=headword&oldid=string|title=headword|first=name|last=name}}
give exactly the same result:It has been pointed out to me by a new User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi that the integrals of absolute values of trigonometric functions are wrong. Does anyone have a source? I've looked in a couple of formulae books with integral tables but of all things they don't have the functions listed in that WP section. I'll keep looking around also, just thought to notify the project. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Prime Pages is no longer online. I have no idea whether this is temporary, but I think many mathematical articles, especially about prime numbers link to it, so all citations and external links pointing there are broken now. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It is online now. -- WillNess ( talk) 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In Glossary of tensor theory#Spinors there's a link to pinor, which redirects to Piñor. Just thought to point it out - maybe replace the redirect with an article? There is no pinor (mathematics) by the way. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 10:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I note that :- Wikisource:Index:The_Elements_of_Euclid_for_the_Use_of_Schools_and_Colleges_-_1872.djvu is nearing completion in terms of text translation.
It would be appreciated if some WP:MATH people would assist carefully in reviewing it. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 22:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please help fix incoming links to April's most-linked mathematics-related disambiguation pages, Geometric shape, Extra dimensions, Parametric, Positive definiteness, Planar, and Delta function. Some of these may also be questionably ambiguous. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Let's just drop it for now. Anyone can comment on the appropriate discussion pages about the ultimate outcome. An RfC might be appropriate, with this project notified along with all affected discussion pages, although at present it seems likely that this can be handled amicably without appealing to a wider consensus. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The definition in Positive-definite function on a group (usually a locally compact group) is not quite right; the added B(H) coefficients are unneeded and irrelevant generality. The standard definition from times of yore (say in Dixmier's book on C* algebras, Gelfand-Naimark or Mackey's Chicago notes) is for scalar functions on a group with some mild measurabilty or continuity properties (the usual theorem, from Banach's book and Calvin Moore's papers on Borel cohomology, that a Borel homomorphism on a Polish group is continuous). Certainly for the two articles I wrote on representation theory ( zonal spherical functions and Plancherel theorem for spherical functions) the wikipedia definition is not helpful, in fact useless, and misses the point entirely (the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal or the Gelfand-Naimark construction). I don't know how that happened. I am not at all surprised. Mathsci ( talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I can follow most of the allusions in http://www.google.com/doodles/leonhard-eulers-306th-birthday but I am not sure which of Euler's contributions the animated "O" is supposed to illustrate. Any ideas? Tkuvho ( talk) 09:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Bob Baillie wrote me, asking for help with the article Lucas primality test. In particular:
this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_primality_test does not describe any kind of lucas test at all. instead, it describes pocklington's theorem. the whole article needs to be renamed to something else, and the {{ number theoretic algorithms}} template needs to be corrected.
We have Pocklington primality test, LL, and LLR; I'm not sure what should be where and what the best names are. Any thoughts?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)There's a discussion going on at Talk:Sexagesimal on how to format some equations. Please contribute. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The article polynomial recurrence is being considered for deletion. Please add your thoughts here. This article has been discussed at least once before on this page; see this past discussion. Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on this? It is under discussion at Talk:Adele ring#Idèle vs idele. Deltahedron ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone tagged Marilyn's Cross as a possible hoax. Is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
None of the above makes it a hoax, but maybe it makes it a mistake. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axiom of global choice. Eozhik ( talk · contribs) believes that Axiom of global choice is a hoax. Obviously, I disagree. If you have an opinion on this, I urge you to express it on the AfD page. JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not know what to do with these consequences of those clumsy changes in 2009 (and earlier). And the proposal about deprecation of redirects, which could avoid this kind of situation in the future, also did not attract any support. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit was done by a user whose most recent edit history does not mention the following:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the article's title back to List of things named after Leonhard Euler and commented on the article's talk page about my reasons for this. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just organized the List of things named after Archimedes into sections. Further work could probably be done, possibly including alphabetizing, creating subsections of the "Mathematical concepts" section, further refining the organization, and other things. Some of our lists of (pardon the expression) "namesakes" are organized this way, and I think some are not. Some of those that are not might benefit from such work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a request for assistance on Tessellation, which has been in a scrappy state for some years. There are clearly several aspects of the mathematics of the subject (such as in higher dimensions, and of non-Euclidean surfaces) that need proper treatment with decent visual examples, citations and intelligible explanation. I have done some work on the basics and on the artistic and historical side, but a mathematician's hand is now required. I'm happy to lend a hand where I can. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor at Pursuit-evasion is adding references that are not used in the text and appear likely to be a conflict of interest. Are they sufficiently significant in the history of this topic to keep in the article? If not, could I have some help keeping them out, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)