Greenrd ( talk · contribs) has created Category:Foundations of mathematics which is redundant with Category:Mathematical logic. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An IP brought up concerns at the copyright problems board about the extensive quotation at Josip Plemelj - from the third paragraph under "A geometrical construction from his schooldays" to the end is a quote. Investigation confirms that this material is likely under copyright, which means that the IP is right that the quotation doesn't comply with copyright policies. WP:NFC forbids extensive quotation. I would really prefer to ask somebody to help turn that into a proper paraphrase than to blank the section - I think it's quite unlikely that I could paraphrase it myself, since the material is so far from my realm. Would any of you be able to help out with this? If not, I can of course apply the usual {{ copyvio}} template to the section in hopes that somebody else will. But with a case like this one, I really hate to do that. :) If there's no takers, it'll probably be blanked in a day or so and removed or truncated in about a week. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The "notability" of the topic of the new article titled Stirling polynomials is being questioned. Would perhaps a few more references settle that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, mathematics experts! Should Draft:Gaussian process latent variable models be published? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Over the last couple of weeks, since at least 22 Nov, User:Brirush has been "Sectionifying" lots of articles, splitting the leads up into lots of sections leaving behind a diminished lead which often says practically nothing e.g. arithmetic topology, arithmetic combinatorics, topological combinatorics. I believe it might be a good idea to just wholesale revert all the articles that have been sectionified rather than trying to check each one individualy to see if any of the sectioning was justified. 2.97.23.254 ( talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I went through and did more work on these articles ( arithmetic topology, arithmetic combinatorics, topological combinatorics). If you find any more that are especially bad, let me know. Brirush ( talk)
We have a new article titled Legendre's formula, whose topic is the same as that of an old article titled de Polignac's formula. I've put "merge" tags on them. If they are merged, we have the question of what the title should be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
The article exponential map has been split into two articles: exponential map (Lie theory) and exponential map (Riemannian geometry) per the consensus at the talkpage, the original page having become the disambiguation page. It remains to fix a large number of incoming links. I did fix the most, but there are some instances when I couldn't figure out the correct targets. It seems many of them should have not be linked to the exponential map (a concept in differential geometry) to begin with. It would be nice if other editors with necessary background can take care of them. -- Taku ( talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that all Top-Class articles are rated B-class or higher. Are they really all at this level? Or is this an artifact from earlier, less restrictive rating requirements? In fact, I noticed that the maths rating "matrix" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0 is almost lower triangular. 76.98.76.147 ( talk) 00:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
We're having a discussion at Talk:Factorial#Categories that started out being about some recent edits changing the categorization of that one article, but I think may be broadening to cover the proper relationship between Category:Factorial and binomial topics and Category:Gamma and related functions and their articles. The participation of additional knowledgeable participants would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concern over the lead at Fourier transform. Comments are welcome at Talk:Fourier transform#Lead. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a project to find academic citations missing from Wikipedia, which I think might be useful for this Wikiproject. It's just a proof of concept right now, but if you have any ideas or feedback, that'd be really helpful at this early stage. Check it out: Open Access Reader.
EdSaperia ( talk) 13:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
SuggestBot recently pointed me to the article linked above. It's extremely stubby (though better than the useless mathworld article it links), but before I work on it I wanted to check that I'm not missing anything obvious. The statement is just a weakening of the weak Goldbach conjecture, right? And as such, it follows from last year's papers by Helfgott (are they accepted to be correct?). Does anyone know of sources actually discussing this conjecture independently of weak Goldbach? Perhaps I will just merge and redirect it there.... Any thoughts welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 04:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
In Equilateral pentagon it is available to calculate the values of three of the internal angles as a function of the values of the other two angles. Then is it available to calculate the values of three of the internal angles in Equilateral hexagon when I know the other three angles? -- Eric4266 ( talk) 11:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Fork (topology) has been proposed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you use a standard Wikiproject tag? Why should this one Wikiproject be different than every single other one? This makes things more difficult for new page patrollers and the like. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
One qualm I've had about that bot is that its maintenance is wholly the work of one person rather than a crowd-sourced thing. If anything happens to him, the Universe will collapse (or at least those who follow our "current activities" page will no longer be able to do so). Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With MathJax as my preferred rendering style (in Chrome on OS X), anomalous cancellation does not appear correctly: the slashes are placed near the digits they are supposed to be through. I.e. (<math>\not{3}</math>) renders as "/3" rather than as a slashed three. With the new MathML/SVG rendering it looks ok, so this is just MathJax. This does not happen when I use MathJax on web sites that I control, with the script from http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML, so I'm guessing it must be something Wikipedia is doing differently than the standard MathJax that screws it up, or possibly a bug in an older version of MathJax that's being used here. Anyone here have any idea what the problem is, how to communicate the existence of the problem to the people who maintain Wikipedia's MathJax interface, and how to persuade them to actually fix it? And/or, whether there's some way of working around this that still renders correctly in the other styles? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
<span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-23" style="font-family: MathJax_Main; padding-left: 0.298em;">3</span>
An experiment:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit rushed or I would try to figure out what _ought_ to appear where this appears in Proof_that_π_is_irrational#Hermite.27s_proof:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I've looked at it while not distracted by pressing things, and I've made the obvious correction. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Are
Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro, coauthor of
and Z. Ya Shapiro, coauthor of
the same person? YohanN7 ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Euclidean algorithm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan ( talk • contribs)
I oppose to close the FAR. The article is full of unresolved issues. Here are some of the main ones.
This only some of the many issues of this article. Considering them as minor would give a bad opinion of our community to external people. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I mean no offense, but this is not a particularly "exciting" article to read. In a sense, it is irrelevant whether the article is understandable to 10-year-old boys and girls since they will not be reading it in the first place. In fact, it is not clear to me what the target audience of the article is. Wikipedia articles are meant for college-educated or college-being-educated "adults"-those who already known gcd. Thus, in principle, it is not necessary to write them like textbooks that are used in elementary schools. But we "could" choose to make the article accessible to children, but then as pointed out above, it's much better to start without gcd; the algorithm is simpler than the concept (I suppose.)
If the article is meant for more sophisticated readers, then it still fails them. I'm thinking of a para from the article like this one (excuse me for a long quote):
Again, who would be reading this? The majority of non-math major students need not learn about the distinction between lovely ring-alphabets: UFD, PID, GCD, etc. And why is this in the article "Euclidean algorithm"? Especially, the mention of GCD domains is problematic; it's only interesting to students in "ring theory". It's quite remarkable that the existence of GCD can guarantee that the domain is an integrally closed domain. But there is no need for a student to start to think about GCD domains before he (usually not she) learns about integrally closed domains.
In short, it's not clear to me what reader would enjoy reading this article. -- Taku ( talk) 22:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
A bit off topic but its not just the wikipeidia community which has problems with maths. Nature has just rejected an Obit of Alexander Grothendieck by David Mumford and John Tate for being too technical. [2] -- Salix alba ( talk): 09:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Daqu,
If you are intrigued, see this edit, with the summary "Added fact about Tsirelson's rogue edits of Wikipedia". See also here and here. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose to merge Stern–Brocot tree and Calkin–Wilf tree, as they appear to be exactly the same tree. I have no opinion for the name of the merged article. I notify this project because of the low number of readers and watchers for both pages. I have opened the discussion at Talk:Stern–Brocot tree#Merger proposal. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comments at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Request for comments. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
These two drafts were submitted today and look promising:
Math topics aren't my forte on Wikipedia, so I'm posting these here if anyone has any comments or wants to review them. Thanks, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 06:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the new article titled Frame (signal processing) be merged into Frame of a vector space? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
There has been a storm of activity the past week (by few authors). I think we need more to chip in since the article is (ought to be) pretty vital in physics (and mathematics by extension to today's math-infested QM applications). The interested could perhaps have a look at Talk:Quantum mechanics#1920s quantum mechanics not obsolete. YohanN7 ( talk) 11:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Well-known crank. See [3] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear members of the world mathematical community! Enyokoyama (talk) (15:12, 8 November 2013) has offered the new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F As a result of discussing this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution.5Bedit.5D has been proposed for improvements to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness article: Attempt at solution Classical solutions In 2013, Mukhtarbay Otelbaev of the Eurasian National University in Astana, Kazakhstan, proposed a solution. As an attempt to solve an important open problem, the proof was immediately inspected by others in the field, who found at least one serious flaw. [1] Otelbaev is attempting to fix the proof, but other mathematicians are skeptical. Alternative solutions Terence Tao in 18 March, 2007 announced [2] three possible strategies of an alternative solutions if one wants to solve the full Millennium Prize problem for the 3-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. Strategy 1 “Solve the Navier-Stokes equation exactly and explicitly (or at least transform this equation exactly and explicitly to a simpler equation)” is used in these works:
The author of these brief notes Alexandr Kozachok ( Kiev, Ukraine) has offered ( in February 2008 – Internet , in 2008, 2010, 2012 – INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE reports, in November 2013 and February 2014 - INTERNATIONAL journal) two exact transformations to the simpler equations. These transformations are executed by well-known classical methods of mathematical physics. Therefore not only some professionals, but also educational, social and many other sites have republished or paid attention to these works . However the Wiki editors can not deny “Alternative solutions” but only block any information about this work. Therefore let's formulate your position for editing of the “Attempt at solution” section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution 93.74.76.101 ( talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The above shows that our old friend Continuum-paradoxes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back (and apparently editing under various IPs). He is no longer limiting his contributions to discussion pages, so it might be good for project participants to keep an eye on Navier-Stokes related articles (and other articles that this crank might attempt to push his OR). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Greenrd ( talk · contribs) has created Category:Foundations of mathematics which is redundant with Category:Mathematical logic. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An IP brought up concerns at the copyright problems board about the extensive quotation at Josip Plemelj - from the third paragraph under "A geometrical construction from his schooldays" to the end is a quote. Investigation confirms that this material is likely under copyright, which means that the IP is right that the quotation doesn't comply with copyright policies. WP:NFC forbids extensive quotation. I would really prefer to ask somebody to help turn that into a proper paraphrase than to blank the section - I think it's quite unlikely that I could paraphrase it myself, since the material is so far from my realm. Would any of you be able to help out with this? If not, I can of course apply the usual {{ copyvio}} template to the section in hopes that somebody else will. But with a case like this one, I really hate to do that. :) If there's no takers, it'll probably be blanked in a day or so and removed or truncated in about a week. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The "notability" of the topic of the new article titled Stirling polynomials is being questioned. Would perhaps a few more references settle that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, mathematics experts! Should Draft:Gaussian process latent variable models be published? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Over the last couple of weeks, since at least 22 Nov, User:Brirush has been "Sectionifying" lots of articles, splitting the leads up into lots of sections leaving behind a diminished lead which often says practically nothing e.g. arithmetic topology, arithmetic combinatorics, topological combinatorics. I believe it might be a good idea to just wholesale revert all the articles that have been sectionified rather than trying to check each one individualy to see if any of the sectioning was justified. 2.97.23.254 ( talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I went through and did more work on these articles ( arithmetic topology, arithmetic combinatorics, topological combinatorics). If you find any more that are especially bad, let me know. Brirush ( talk)
We have a new article titled Legendre's formula, whose topic is the same as that of an old article titled de Polignac's formula. I've put "merge" tags on them. If they are merged, we have the question of what the title should be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
The article exponential map has been split into two articles: exponential map (Lie theory) and exponential map (Riemannian geometry) per the consensus at the talkpage, the original page having become the disambiguation page. It remains to fix a large number of incoming links. I did fix the most, but there are some instances when I couldn't figure out the correct targets. It seems many of them should have not be linked to the exponential map (a concept in differential geometry) to begin with. It would be nice if other editors with necessary background can take care of them. -- Taku ( talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that all Top-Class articles are rated B-class or higher. Are they really all at this level? Or is this an artifact from earlier, less restrictive rating requirements? In fact, I noticed that the maths rating "matrix" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0 is almost lower triangular. 76.98.76.147 ( talk) 00:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
We're having a discussion at Talk:Factorial#Categories that started out being about some recent edits changing the categorization of that one article, but I think may be broadening to cover the proper relationship between Category:Factorial and binomial topics and Category:Gamma and related functions and their articles. The participation of additional knowledgeable participants would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concern over the lead at Fourier transform. Comments are welcome at Talk:Fourier transform#Lead. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a project to find academic citations missing from Wikipedia, which I think might be useful for this Wikiproject. It's just a proof of concept right now, but if you have any ideas or feedback, that'd be really helpful at this early stage. Check it out: Open Access Reader.
EdSaperia ( talk) 13:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
SuggestBot recently pointed me to the article linked above. It's extremely stubby (though better than the useless mathworld article it links), but before I work on it I wanted to check that I'm not missing anything obvious. The statement is just a weakening of the weak Goldbach conjecture, right? And as such, it follows from last year's papers by Helfgott (are they accepted to be correct?). Does anyone know of sources actually discussing this conjecture independently of weak Goldbach? Perhaps I will just merge and redirect it there.... Any thoughts welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 04:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
In Equilateral pentagon it is available to calculate the values of three of the internal angles as a function of the values of the other two angles. Then is it available to calculate the values of three of the internal angles in Equilateral hexagon when I know the other three angles? -- Eric4266 ( talk) 11:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Fork (topology) has been proposed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you use a standard Wikiproject tag? Why should this one Wikiproject be different than every single other one? This makes things more difficult for new page patrollers and the like. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
One qualm I've had about that bot is that its maintenance is wholly the work of one person rather than a crowd-sourced thing. If anything happens to him, the Universe will collapse (or at least those who follow our "current activities" page will no longer be able to do so). Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With MathJax as my preferred rendering style (in Chrome on OS X), anomalous cancellation does not appear correctly: the slashes are placed near the digits they are supposed to be through. I.e. (<math>\not{3}</math>) renders as "/3" rather than as a slashed three. With the new MathML/SVG rendering it looks ok, so this is just MathJax. This does not happen when I use MathJax on web sites that I control, with the script from http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML, so I'm guessing it must be something Wikipedia is doing differently than the standard MathJax that screws it up, or possibly a bug in an older version of MathJax that's being used here. Anyone here have any idea what the problem is, how to communicate the existence of the problem to the people who maintain Wikipedia's MathJax interface, and how to persuade them to actually fix it? And/or, whether there's some way of working around this that still renders correctly in the other styles? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
<span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-23" style="font-family: MathJax_Main; padding-left: 0.298em;">3</span>
An experiment:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit rushed or I would try to figure out what _ought_ to appear where this appears in Proof_that_π_is_irrational#Hermite.27s_proof:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I've looked at it while not distracted by pressing things, and I've made the obvious correction. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Are
Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro, coauthor of
and Z. Ya Shapiro, coauthor of
the same person? YohanN7 ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Euclidean algorithm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan ( talk • contribs)
I oppose to close the FAR. The article is full of unresolved issues. Here are some of the main ones.
This only some of the many issues of this article. Considering them as minor would give a bad opinion of our community to external people. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I mean no offense, but this is not a particularly "exciting" article to read. In a sense, it is irrelevant whether the article is understandable to 10-year-old boys and girls since they will not be reading it in the first place. In fact, it is not clear to me what the target audience of the article is. Wikipedia articles are meant for college-educated or college-being-educated "adults"-those who already known gcd. Thus, in principle, it is not necessary to write them like textbooks that are used in elementary schools. But we "could" choose to make the article accessible to children, but then as pointed out above, it's much better to start without gcd; the algorithm is simpler than the concept (I suppose.)
If the article is meant for more sophisticated readers, then it still fails them. I'm thinking of a para from the article like this one (excuse me for a long quote):
Again, who would be reading this? The majority of non-math major students need not learn about the distinction between lovely ring-alphabets: UFD, PID, GCD, etc. And why is this in the article "Euclidean algorithm"? Especially, the mention of GCD domains is problematic; it's only interesting to students in "ring theory". It's quite remarkable that the existence of GCD can guarantee that the domain is an integrally closed domain. But there is no need for a student to start to think about GCD domains before he (usually not she) learns about integrally closed domains.
In short, it's not clear to me what reader would enjoy reading this article. -- Taku ( talk) 22:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
A bit off topic but its not just the wikipeidia community which has problems with maths. Nature has just rejected an Obit of Alexander Grothendieck by David Mumford and John Tate for being too technical. [2] -- Salix alba ( talk): 09:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Daqu,
If you are intrigued, see this edit, with the summary "Added fact about Tsirelson's rogue edits of Wikipedia". See also here and here. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose to merge Stern–Brocot tree and Calkin–Wilf tree, as they appear to be exactly the same tree. I have no opinion for the name of the merged article. I notify this project because of the low number of readers and watchers for both pages. I have opened the discussion at Talk:Stern–Brocot tree#Merger proposal. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comments at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Request for comments. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
These two drafts were submitted today and look promising:
Math topics aren't my forte on Wikipedia, so I'm posting these here if anyone has any comments or wants to review them. Thanks, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 06:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the new article titled Frame (signal processing) be merged into Frame of a vector space? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
There has been a storm of activity the past week (by few authors). I think we need more to chip in since the article is (ought to be) pretty vital in physics (and mathematics by extension to today's math-infested QM applications). The interested could perhaps have a look at Talk:Quantum mechanics#1920s quantum mechanics not obsolete. YohanN7 ( talk) 11:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Well-known crank. See [3] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear members of the world mathematical community! Enyokoyama (talk) (15:12, 8 November 2013) has offered the new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F As a result of discussing this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution.5Bedit.5D has been proposed for improvements to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness article: Attempt at solution Classical solutions In 2013, Mukhtarbay Otelbaev of the Eurasian National University in Astana, Kazakhstan, proposed a solution. As an attempt to solve an important open problem, the proof was immediately inspected by others in the field, who found at least one serious flaw. [1] Otelbaev is attempting to fix the proof, but other mathematicians are skeptical. Alternative solutions Terence Tao in 18 March, 2007 announced [2] three possible strategies of an alternative solutions if one wants to solve the full Millennium Prize problem for the 3-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. Strategy 1 “Solve the Navier-Stokes equation exactly and explicitly (or at least transform this equation exactly and explicitly to a simpler equation)” is used in these works:
The author of these brief notes Alexandr Kozachok ( Kiev, Ukraine) has offered ( in February 2008 – Internet , in 2008, 2010, 2012 – INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE reports, in November 2013 and February 2014 - INTERNATIONAL journal) two exact transformations to the simpler equations. These transformations are executed by well-known classical methods of mathematical physics. Therefore not only some professionals, but also educational, social and many other sites have republished or paid attention to these works . However the Wiki editors can not deny “Alternative solutions” but only block any information about this work. Therefore let's formulate your position for editing of the “Attempt at solution” section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution 93.74.76.101 ( talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The above shows that our old friend Continuum-paradoxes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back (and apparently editing under various IPs). He is no longer limiting his contributions to discussion pages, so it might be good for project participants to keep an eye on Navier-Stokes related articles (and other articles that this crank might attempt to push his OR). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)