This has recently been created, with the disambiguation page previously at this location moved to Intersection (disambiguation). The problem is I don't think the mathematical term is the primary topic: if anything the common usage of the word is when talking about road intersections (or listening to your sat-nav read them off to you), but probably being a common English word used in many ways and fields its best without a primary topic, as before.
At the same time the new article at Intersection doesn't seem to be on a distinct topic: it's mostly on geometric intersection, but includes some set theory and possibly other areas, leading to a very confusing introduction, some even more confusing links, and little else. The problem is the different mathematical uses have little in common, except for being different interpretations of the word in different fields. But that does not make for a good article topic.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The primary usage of the word "intersect" in my opinion is to cut, in the geometrical sense. This is consistent with the Latin origin of the term, and the current English vernacular (as in the intersection of two streets). The set theoretic meaning if the term was not even introduced until the 20th century (or possibly the late 19th century, the OED puts it at 1909). I'm not sure what this implies for an article on the topic. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear math experts: Here's another old abandoned Afc submission that's about to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Octagonal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Octagonal -- 70.50.148.248 ( talk) 07:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K-trivial sets. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new, painfully stubby, article titled cyclic sieving. So work on it. Or, in other words, have fun. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
So far only two articles link to it, so that's another thing to work on. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinningspark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting the addition of EOM links en masse. I don't really have strong opinions about this, but I generally find the EOM to be a rather useful supplement to our own treatment of mathematical topics. At least some of the removed links are of a high quality (actually the first I noticed at Korn's inequality.) What does the project think about these edits? Should they be reverted? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of addition/revert em masse either way. However disagree with an overly literal application of particular line in WP:EL here, that is only adding it if it really offers information not being contained in the article yet. I rather treat it (and to degree links to MathWorld, MacTuror and PlanetMath as well) as "standard" link as long as the EL is rather small and empty. In a way similar to linking the IMDB in movie related articles. The reason for that being twofold. For short article EOM, MathWorld and MacTutor can also be considered as "general" sources/sources outside of footnotes. In such that cases a placing under references might be more appropriate, but since they are links some editors place them under EL. The other reason is simply, that I consider it as beneficial to readers to offer links to alternative encyclopedic representations of math content.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Several people have now contributed to Cyclic sieving. References and examples were added. I have now added a precise definition in a section labeled Definition.
There are still only three other articles that link to this new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently edited Talk:Transitive relation, and found that displayed equations are centered. I use MathJax, so my view may not be typical, but there could be a problem here.
Yep, it's a problem here, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
<div class="MathJax_Display" role="textbox" aria-readonly="true" style="text-align: center;">
<span class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-2-Frame" style=""> ...
</span>
</div>
How should it look like? I had a long discussion about that with one of the MathJax developers. As a result, the goal is to introduce a Displaystyle feature -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
:<math>a R b \land b R c \rightarrow a R c</math>
:
and
WP:MARKUP#Indent text which says "Each colon at the start of a line causes the line to be indented by three more character positions." Editors will expect this rule to be applied, if the intention had been to center the equation then the {{
center}} template or equivalent to be used.<dl>
<dd><span class="tex" dir="ltr">$ aRb\land bRc\rightarrow aRc $</span></dd>
</dl>
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to report this, and moreover maybe it's just me, but an equation is still centered when "mathjax" is on.
Interestingly, the problem can be fixed by adding ref:
-- Taku ( talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's another old Afc submission. It appears to have references. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Advice on whether and how to number equations is sought at User Talk:Constant314/Archive 1#Numbering equations. JohnCD ( talk) 23:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hessian equation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Correlation coefficient and Transition function are currently disambiguation pages, and have been among the most-linked disambiguation pages for the past four months. It would be great if we could either get the incoming links to these pages fixed, or arrange them into freestanding articles. This will likely require some expert attention. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The Spherical trigonometry article has several bits of LaTeX that Failed to parse, for example the displayed equation in the Spherical trigonometry#Polar triangles section. My guess is that the alignat and align environments are not being handled. I went to the Wikimedia page Help:Displaying a formula and found that the align and alignat environments seem to be supported, but also generate a Failed to parse error on the page. A bug report at the wikimedia bugzilla suggests that these environments might be supported in MathJax, but not texvc. Is this a bug that others see? Thanks, -- Mark viking ( talk) 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#Math aligned environments failing to parse. Maybe an answer will magically appear there... Melchoir ( talk) 02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I ran into the problem as well, all multline formulas using \begin{align} ... \end{align} seem to be affected (see here Help:Displaying_a_formula, scroll through the page). However some special symbols seem to have a rendering issue as well (see de:Hilfe:TeX, scroll through the page)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Problem still present. Isn't there a way to post a warning about this issue? Just to avoid people editing all sorts of math articles, escalating problems. This section in this talk page isn't all that easily found, even when looked for:) This is a serious issue after all. I think it should be posted somewhere central that it's known and is a server-side problem. -- Loudandras ( talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been finding the server very slow to respond today when I edit articles with mathematical equations in them, to the point where it sometimes times out without saving my changes (that is, it is a back end issue rather than a front end issue). Perhaps this is related? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikid77 ( talk · contribs) and I have reverted each other a couple of times at Integral and Spherical trigonometry regarding this issue. Other editors may want to express an opinion. Ozob ( talk) 06:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a hotfix for that. It's waiting to be reviewed. After the problem should diaper. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
?action=purge
.
Melchoir (
talk)
21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is a hoax. There is no source, the definition does not make sense, and the so-called "super-trowel", allegedly "one of the most used tools in the analysis of general equilibrium" fails to show up at ZMATH. Can anyone shed any light on it? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Not directly related, but there's obviously some editorial work needed in the articles decoupling and decoupling (disambiguation). -- JBL ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Should the new article titled multiplicative suborder get merged into multiplicative order? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A properly sourced example of (Abel) summation by Euler was deleted by User:Slawekb here and here. Now that User:Incnis Mrsi joined the discussion, a tempered opinion would be welcome. Tkuvho ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A more appropriate article for discussing such paradoxes would be the article on divergent series. This article is briefly summarized with appropriate weight in the series (mathematics) article. It's hard to see how emphasizing edge cases in the summation article would conform to WP:WEIGHT. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Val2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I feel sorry about the problems with the current version of the Math extension.
My goal was to move from the current version to a completely new version of the Math-extension aka Math 2.0 in one step. Unfortunately, this does work with the code review system used at MediaWiki, since it was a lot code and nobody was willing to do a code review for that. So I started to integrate the changes via continuous integration. That means all features from the list below are going to be integrated step by step. I turned out that this is not a good idea as well.
Since the new features interact with each other, it happened that parts were merged whereas other parts are still waiting for the code review. For example in the case of the broken align environments the adjustments to the PNG mode were in another feature as the general security improvement that was merged. A hotfix for that is waiting to get merged to the Wikipedia live version https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112057/ I really want to get feedback for the planned changes and asked over and again on the Mediawiki mailing list. But I did not get much feedback. So I’d be more than happy if someone would like to help testing the changes before they break things in production environments. See http://www.formulasearchengine.com/review for a guide that I wrote to attract people for that task.
The discussions above show that I might find someone in this portal… If not… sorry for the spamming.
See a live demo http://math-test2.instance-proxy.wmflabs.org/wiki/Fourier_series.
This isn't really my area expertise, but the bug makes me wonder whether there is any regression testing done before such software or configuration changes go live. I mean just a regression test against a single project side such as Help:Displaying_a_formula presumably would have revealed problems as the current one.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm basically looking for some people who want to discuss about how the display of math can be improved in the future and to test the implemented features. I feel sorry about the mistakes I made in the past, but I think it's better to look forward rather than to complain about the past. I'll update the Roadmap that I started more than a year ago. And come back to this project page again after completing this task. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Physikerwelt, I just want to thank you for your work. I tried to do some work many years ago and I did not get much feedback from the developers then (it was all run less professionally then). Don't feel too bad about the align issue and don't give up. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The fix seems to have been deployed; I'm not seeing any problems. Ozob ( talk) 22:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Are the current performance problems also due to the upgrade? In several wikipedias previewing or editing articles with formulas takes very long at the moment. Articles with many formulas (such as List of mathematical symbols) even get a "504 Gateway Time-out" when you just try to preview them. Best wishes, -- Quartl ( talk) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1173 CPU time usage: 1.452 seconds Real time usage: 26.816 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 3564/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 10682/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 50621/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 3857/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 11/40 Expensive parser function count: 1/500 Lua time usage: 0.091s Lua memory usage: 2.49 MB
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1079 CPU time usage: 13.505 seconds Real time usage: 308.243 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 11927/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 37075/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 217037/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 90026/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 15/40 Expensive parser function count: 3/500 Lua time usage: 0.084s Lua memory usage: 2.76 MB
$wgMathDisableTexFilter = true
on the bug report.--
Physikerwelt (
talk)
09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Is this really fixed? I'm seeing long loading times for math pages again, simply viewing a page. E.g. Clifford algebra gives me the following:
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1076 CPU time usage: 1.236 seconds Real time usage: 26.291 seconds [...]
Exterior algebra gives.
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1046 CPU time usage: 1.548 seconds Real time usage: 30.305 seconds [...]
And this is not previewing or purging, just viewing (though subsequent views are fine). The pages were last edited on the 7th and 8th of this month so were presumably viewed and cached then, and even if they required recaching since the patch they're viewed over 100 times a day each on average. How are they still slow four days later?
By 00:02 15 February 2014, fix deployed ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/113481) by User:Aaron_Schulz as update so math-tags run faster, than during 8–14 Feb 2014. I have confirmed the math-tag cache speed as double (2.4x), similar now to Simple WP, so new equations edit-preview 2.4x faster than before (124 math-tags in 38 seconds, formerly 92 sec.) and then will re-display from cache within 3 seconds. - Wikid77 08:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a new article called List of mathematical symbols as TeX codes. I haev commented at Talk:List of mathematical symbols as TeX codes and put a factual-accuracy-dispute tag at the top of the article. So some work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the user Wachipichay is making many edits to mathematics pages. It seems the purpose of all edits is to include references to a mathematician called István Mező. As far as I can tell, these are typically very recent minor results that have no place in an encyclopedia. Perhaps someone who reads this can have a look at his edits and clean up as needed. I apologize if this is the wrong forum, I am not active on Wikipedia and have no idea how these things work. 129.16.126.117 ( talk) 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a prime example of a mathematics page which needs to communicate with a general readership [1]. I have posted some strictly editorial concerns on the talk page which I think deserve some response. Thank you in advance, 109.157.83.88 ( talk) 11:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC) [previously 109.158.185.136 and 81.147.165.192]
What am I missing? The rationale for depicting vectors as "line segments" floating on a stretchy background rather than as unique elements of a vector space is eluding me, including that these are "an elementary concept in vector spaces" not even needing to be mentioned in that article, and intuition can be relied upon for underlying concepts in WP. — Quondum 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, List of unsolved problems in Cryptography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
We have no article titled global analysis. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The subpage Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics/Logic is not picked up by the bot that maintains Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and so new entries there are not flagged up. Is it possible to get that changed? And is there any special necessity to maintain this separation anyway? Deltahedron ( talk) 07:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Bub250 ( talk · contribs) on Fundamental theorem of calculus. The issue is whether a roman or italic letter d should be used for differentials. Formerly, the article used italic d, as in:
Bub250 changed these to roman, as in:
I firmly believe that this is wrong, regardless of the interpretation of d, and accordingly I reverted him. He reverted me, citing the IUPAP Red Book and ISO 80000-2 standards. We have both hit WP:3RR, and neither of us seems to be budging, so I think it would be helpful to have some outside input.
In the past, the community has applied WP:RETAIN to the question of upright versus italic d. That may still be the consensus, but since it has been a while since we had this discussion it may be worth reopening the issue. Ozob ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I should note that "upright d" is mathematically incorrect. (I know some students use them, but the usage is incorrect.) The reason is simple: "dx" means the diffenrial or the exterior derivative of x. Here, d is a function (from the space of functions to the space of one-forms). One can write d(x), but since d is linear, one can drop parathesis; like one writes Tx instead if T(x). Whenever you see the "upright d", the order is to eliminate them. -- Taku ( talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multivariate metamodelling of mathematical models. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Anybody here acquainted with the K(n,n) equation? -- Crowsnest ( talk) 07:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing a scan of wikipedia articles for miss-matched <sub> and <sup> tags. Things like e<sup>x</sub>
. Anyway there are a fair number of maths articles (357) with such problems. You can see a list at
User:Salix alba/subsup. For the most part the normal renderer works fine and manages to correct the problem, however the Visual editor makes different assumptions so things look a bit odd. If anyone fancies fixing a few of these that would be great.--
Salix alba (
talk):
08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To help spots these things I written a bit of javascript which displays lines with errors. To use add the line
importScript('User:Salix alba/SubSup.js');
to your Special:MyPage/skin.js. This will add an entry 'SubSup' to your toolbox. Clicking on that link will open a window showing the lines where the tags don't match.-- Salix alba ( talk): 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
<sup id="foo">ref</sup>
correct markup which get listed in the dumps but the javascript tool does not report.--
Salix alba (
talk):
10:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've started a requested move at Fibred category. Participations are very welcome. -- Taku ( talk) 12:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Index (mathematics) is a disambiguation redirect, and happens to be one of the last links needing to be cleared for the February 2014 list of most linked disambigs. The seven pages linking to this title are:
If someone with the requisite knowledge could go correct the link to Index (mathematics) in these seven pages, that would be most appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This has recently been created, with the disambiguation page previously at this location moved to Intersection (disambiguation). The problem is I don't think the mathematical term is the primary topic: if anything the common usage of the word is when talking about road intersections (or listening to your sat-nav read them off to you), but probably being a common English word used in many ways and fields its best without a primary topic, as before.
At the same time the new article at Intersection doesn't seem to be on a distinct topic: it's mostly on geometric intersection, but includes some set theory and possibly other areas, leading to a very confusing introduction, some even more confusing links, and little else. The problem is the different mathematical uses have little in common, except for being different interpretations of the word in different fields. But that does not make for a good article topic.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The primary usage of the word "intersect" in my opinion is to cut, in the geometrical sense. This is consistent with the Latin origin of the term, and the current English vernacular (as in the intersection of two streets). The set theoretic meaning if the term was not even introduced until the 20th century (or possibly the late 19th century, the OED puts it at 1909). I'm not sure what this implies for an article on the topic. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear math experts: Here's another old abandoned Afc submission that's about to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Octagonal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Octagonal -- 70.50.148.248 ( talk) 07:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K-trivial sets. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new, painfully stubby, article titled cyclic sieving. So work on it. Or, in other words, have fun. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
So far only two articles link to it, so that's another thing to work on. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinningspark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting the addition of EOM links en masse. I don't really have strong opinions about this, but I generally find the EOM to be a rather useful supplement to our own treatment of mathematical topics. At least some of the removed links are of a high quality (actually the first I noticed at Korn's inequality.) What does the project think about these edits? Should they be reverted? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of addition/revert em masse either way. However disagree with an overly literal application of particular line in WP:EL here, that is only adding it if it really offers information not being contained in the article yet. I rather treat it (and to degree links to MathWorld, MacTuror and PlanetMath as well) as "standard" link as long as the EL is rather small and empty. In a way similar to linking the IMDB in movie related articles. The reason for that being twofold. For short article EOM, MathWorld and MacTutor can also be considered as "general" sources/sources outside of footnotes. In such that cases a placing under references might be more appropriate, but since they are links some editors place them under EL. The other reason is simply, that I consider it as beneficial to readers to offer links to alternative encyclopedic representations of math content.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Several people have now contributed to Cyclic sieving. References and examples were added. I have now added a precise definition in a section labeled Definition.
There are still only three other articles that link to this new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently edited Talk:Transitive relation, and found that displayed equations are centered. I use MathJax, so my view may not be typical, but there could be a problem here.
Yep, it's a problem here, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
<div class="MathJax_Display" role="textbox" aria-readonly="true" style="text-align: center;">
<span class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-2-Frame" style=""> ...
</span>
</div>
How should it look like? I had a long discussion about that with one of the MathJax developers. As a result, the goal is to introduce a Displaystyle feature -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
:<math>a R b \land b R c \rightarrow a R c</math>
:
and
WP:MARKUP#Indent text which says "Each colon at the start of a line causes the line to be indented by three more character positions." Editors will expect this rule to be applied, if the intention had been to center the equation then the {{
center}} template or equivalent to be used.<dl>
<dd><span class="tex" dir="ltr">$ aRb\land bRc\rightarrow aRc $</span></dd>
</dl>
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to report this, and moreover maybe it's just me, but an equation is still centered when "mathjax" is on.
Interestingly, the problem can be fixed by adding ref:
-- Taku ( talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's another old Afc submission. It appears to have references. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Advice on whether and how to number equations is sought at User Talk:Constant314/Archive 1#Numbering equations. JohnCD ( talk) 23:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hessian equation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Correlation coefficient and Transition function are currently disambiguation pages, and have been among the most-linked disambiguation pages for the past four months. It would be great if we could either get the incoming links to these pages fixed, or arrange them into freestanding articles. This will likely require some expert attention. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The Spherical trigonometry article has several bits of LaTeX that Failed to parse, for example the displayed equation in the Spherical trigonometry#Polar triangles section. My guess is that the alignat and align environments are not being handled. I went to the Wikimedia page Help:Displaying a formula and found that the align and alignat environments seem to be supported, but also generate a Failed to parse error on the page. A bug report at the wikimedia bugzilla suggests that these environments might be supported in MathJax, but not texvc. Is this a bug that others see? Thanks, -- Mark viking ( talk) 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#Math aligned environments failing to parse. Maybe an answer will magically appear there... Melchoir ( talk) 02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I ran into the problem as well, all multline formulas using \begin{align} ... \end{align} seem to be affected (see here Help:Displaying_a_formula, scroll through the page). However some special symbols seem to have a rendering issue as well (see de:Hilfe:TeX, scroll through the page)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Problem still present. Isn't there a way to post a warning about this issue? Just to avoid people editing all sorts of math articles, escalating problems. This section in this talk page isn't all that easily found, even when looked for:) This is a serious issue after all. I think it should be posted somewhere central that it's known and is a server-side problem. -- Loudandras ( talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been finding the server very slow to respond today when I edit articles with mathematical equations in them, to the point where it sometimes times out without saving my changes (that is, it is a back end issue rather than a front end issue). Perhaps this is related? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikid77 ( talk · contribs) and I have reverted each other a couple of times at Integral and Spherical trigonometry regarding this issue. Other editors may want to express an opinion. Ozob ( talk) 06:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a hotfix for that. It's waiting to be reviewed. After the problem should diaper. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
?action=purge
.
Melchoir (
talk)
21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is a hoax. There is no source, the definition does not make sense, and the so-called "super-trowel", allegedly "one of the most used tools in the analysis of general equilibrium" fails to show up at ZMATH. Can anyone shed any light on it? Deltahedron ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Not directly related, but there's obviously some editorial work needed in the articles decoupling and decoupling (disambiguation). -- JBL ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Should the new article titled multiplicative suborder get merged into multiplicative order? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A properly sourced example of (Abel) summation by Euler was deleted by User:Slawekb here and here. Now that User:Incnis Mrsi joined the discussion, a tempered opinion would be welcome. Tkuvho ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A more appropriate article for discussing such paradoxes would be the article on divergent series. This article is briefly summarized with appropriate weight in the series (mathematics) article. It's hard to see how emphasizing edge cases in the summation article would conform to WP:WEIGHT. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Val2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I feel sorry about the problems with the current version of the Math extension.
My goal was to move from the current version to a completely new version of the Math-extension aka Math 2.0 in one step. Unfortunately, this does work with the code review system used at MediaWiki, since it was a lot code and nobody was willing to do a code review for that. So I started to integrate the changes via continuous integration. That means all features from the list below are going to be integrated step by step. I turned out that this is not a good idea as well.
Since the new features interact with each other, it happened that parts were merged whereas other parts are still waiting for the code review. For example in the case of the broken align environments the adjustments to the PNG mode were in another feature as the general security improvement that was merged. A hotfix for that is waiting to get merged to the Wikipedia live version https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112057/ I really want to get feedback for the planned changes and asked over and again on the Mediawiki mailing list. But I did not get much feedback. So I’d be more than happy if someone would like to help testing the changes before they break things in production environments. See http://www.formulasearchengine.com/review for a guide that I wrote to attract people for that task.
The discussions above show that I might find someone in this portal… If not… sorry for the spamming.
See a live demo http://math-test2.instance-proxy.wmflabs.org/wiki/Fourier_series.
This isn't really my area expertise, but the bug makes me wonder whether there is any regression testing done before such software or configuration changes go live. I mean just a regression test against a single project side such as Help:Displaying_a_formula presumably would have revealed problems as the current one.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm basically looking for some people who want to discuss about how the display of math can be improved in the future and to test the implemented features. I feel sorry about the mistakes I made in the past, but I think it's better to look forward rather than to complain about the past. I'll update the Roadmap that I started more than a year ago. And come back to this project page again after completing this task. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Physikerwelt, I just want to thank you for your work. I tried to do some work many years ago and I did not get much feedback from the developers then (it was all run less professionally then). Don't feel too bad about the align issue and don't give up. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The fix seems to have been deployed; I'm not seeing any problems. Ozob ( talk) 22:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Are the current performance problems also due to the upgrade? In several wikipedias previewing or editing articles with formulas takes very long at the moment. Articles with many formulas (such as List of mathematical symbols) even get a "504 Gateway Time-out" when you just try to preview them. Best wishes, -- Quartl ( talk) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1173 CPU time usage: 1.452 seconds Real time usage: 26.816 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 3564/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 10682/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 50621/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 3857/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 11/40 Expensive parser function count: 1/500 Lua time usage: 0.091s Lua memory usage: 2.49 MB
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1079 CPU time usage: 13.505 seconds Real time usage: 308.243 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 11927/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 37075/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 217037/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 90026/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 15/40 Expensive parser function count: 3/500 Lua time usage: 0.084s Lua memory usage: 2.76 MB
$wgMathDisableTexFilter = true
on the bug report.--
Physikerwelt (
talk)
09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Is this really fixed? I'm seeing long loading times for math pages again, simply viewing a page. E.g. Clifford algebra gives me the following:
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1076 CPU time usage: 1.236 seconds Real time usage: 26.291 seconds [...]
Exterior algebra gives.
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1046 CPU time usage: 1.548 seconds Real time usage: 30.305 seconds [...]
And this is not previewing or purging, just viewing (though subsequent views are fine). The pages were last edited on the 7th and 8th of this month so were presumably viewed and cached then, and even if they required recaching since the patch they're viewed over 100 times a day each on average. How are they still slow four days later?
By 00:02 15 February 2014, fix deployed ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/113481) by User:Aaron_Schulz as update so math-tags run faster, than during 8–14 Feb 2014. I have confirmed the math-tag cache speed as double (2.4x), similar now to Simple WP, so new equations edit-preview 2.4x faster than before (124 math-tags in 38 seconds, formerly 92 sec.) and then will re-display from cache within 3 seconds. - Wikid77 08:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a new article called List of mathematical symbols as TeX codes. I haev commented at Talk:List of mathematical symbols as TeX codes and put a factual-accuracy-dispute tag at the top of the article. So some work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the user Wachipichay is making many edits to mathematics pages. It seems the purpose of all edits is to include references to a mathematician called István Mező. As far as I can tell, these are typically very recent minor results that have no place in an encyclopedia. Perhaps someone who reads this can have a look at his edits and clean up as needed. I apologize if this is the wrong forum, I am not active on Wikipedia and have no idea how these things work. 129.16.126.117 ( talk) 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a prime example of a mathematics page which needs to communicate with a general readership [1]. I have posted some strictly editorial concerns on the talk page which I think deserve some response. Thank you in advance, 109.157.83.88 ( talk) 11:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC) [previously 109.158.185.136 and 81.147.165.192]
What am I missing? The rationale for depicting vectors as "line segments" floating on a stretchy background rather than as unique elements of a vector space is eluding me, including that these are "an elementary concept in vector spaces" not even needing to be mentioned in that article, and intuition can be relied upon for underlying concepts in WP. — Quondum 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, List of unsolved problems in Cryptography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
We have no article titled global analysis. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The subpage Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics/Logic is not picked up by the bot that maintains Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and so new entries there are not flagged up. Is it possible to get that changed? And is there any special necessity to maintain this separation anyway? Deltahedron ( talk) 07:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Bub250 ( talk · contribs) on Fundamental theorem of calculus. The issue is whether a roman or italic letter d should be used for differentials. Formerly, the article used italic d, as in:
Bub250 changed these to roman, as in:
I firmly believe that this is wrong, regardless of the interpretation of d, and accordingly I reverted him. He reverted me, citing the IUPAP Red Book and ISO 80000-2 standards. We have both hit WP:3RR, and neither of us seems to be budging, so I think it would be helpful to have some outside input.
In the past, the community has applied WP:RETAIN to the question of upright versus italic d. That may still be the consensus, but since it has been a while since we had this discussion it may be worth reopening the issue. Ozob ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I should note that "upright d" is mathematically incorrect. (I know some students use them, but the usage is incorrect.) The reason is simple: "dx" means the diffenrial or the exterior derivative of x. Here, d is a function (from the space of functions to the space of one-forms). One can write d(x), but since d is linear, one can drop parathesis; like one writes Tx instead if T(x). Whenever you see the "upright d", the order is to eliminate them. -- Taku ( talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multivariate metamodelling of mathematical models. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Anybody here acquainted with the K(n,n) equation? -- Crowsnest ( talk) 07:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing a scan of wikipedia articles for miss-matched <sub> and <sup> tags. Things like e<sup>x</sub>
. Anyway there are a fair number of maths articles (357) with such problems. You can see a list at
User:Salix alba/subsup. For the most part the normal renderer works fine and manages to correct the problem, however the Visual editor makes different assumptions so things look a bit odd. If anyone fancies fixing a few of these that would be great.--
Salix alba (
talk):
08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To help spots these things I written a bit of javascript which displays lines with errors. To use add the line
importScript('User:Salix alba/SubSup.js');
to your Special:MyPage/skin.js. This will add an entry 'SubSup' to your toolbox. Clicking on that link will open a window showing the lines where the tags don't match.-- Salix alba ( talk): 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
<sup id="foo">ref</sup>
correct markup which get listed in the dumps but the javascript tool does not report.--
Salix alba (
talk):
10:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've started a requested move at Fibred category. Participations are very welcome. -- Taku ( talk) 12:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Index (mathematics) is a disambiguation redirect, and happens to be one of the last links needing to be cleared for the February 2014 list of most linked disambigs. The seven pages linking to this title are:
If someone with the requisite knowledge could go correct the link to Index (mathematics) in these seven pages, that would be most appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)