Category:Pretzel knots and links, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Pretzel knots and links (mathematics). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej ( talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am sitting over a text that has the following passage: "The oligonucleotide spectrum owes much of its discriminatory power to the number of possible oligonucleotides: if n is the size of the vocabulary and w is oligonucleotide size, the number of possible distinct oligonucleotides is nw; for example, there are 45=1024 possible pentanucleotides." I would like to link it to the appropriate English Wikipedia article but am not sure which one this would be. On the German Wikipedia, the relevant information is in Variation (Kombinatorik), and that article links to Partial permutation here, which seems a plausible English equivalent to me, yet the article is written in a way that I am not sure it actually covers the same subject as the German one. Any pointers or clarifications? -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission needs a lead and some rewriting, but is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The link Beurling transform redirects to Singular integral operators of convolution type#Beurling transform while Beurling–Ahlfors transform redirects to Grunsky matrix#Beurling transform. My understanding is that these are essentiually the same thing. What is the appropriate target? Deltahedron ( talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help).
Deltahedron (
talk)
21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)For the past three years, the redirect Radical extension has been targeted at Separable extension, but an IP editor has recently objected to this, on the grounds that the "redirect is nonsensical. Radical extensions are neither identical to nor special cases of separable extensions nor are they mentioned anywhere on that page." [1] Now, I know little of Galois theory, so I thought I'd ask for input here as to whether a more suitable target (or targets) is available, or whether the original should be restored. Thank you, VeryCrocker ( talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Are Glossary_of_commutative_algebra#R or Purely inseparable extension not potential candidates? I only ask because they mention the term. If more than one target is suitable, a disambiguation page could be made. -- VeryCrocker ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We have long-standing articles at Modular exponentiation and exponentiation by squaring. (They should probably be merged, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.) Recently, a new editor has written a third article, Discrete exponential function, that covers much of the same material. He has rather persistently linked to it from other articles, such as Discrete logarithm. I have proposed a merge, but the editor refuses to respond to any kind of discussion. So we could use some input from the community in this little knot of articles. Mgnbar ( talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been attempting for some time to make the lead of the spinor article accessible to a wider audience, in part on my own impetus, but in part on the helpful urgings of others of varying skill levels. But now we seem to be at an impasse that would benefit from some outside input. Four milestones in the recent bout of edits are:
I would like some input on a way forward. It has already been suggested that the way forward is backwards, but I would find it hard to believe that all of the work and discussion in the mean time has been for naught. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
To update, RogierBrussee has reverted to one of Sławomir's versions. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Therefore it is pointless to try to explain things for the laymen." This is an absolutely wrong starting position in editing an article that is likely to be read by probably many high school and college students, who are "laymen" by the standards of the revisions you have in mind. The lead must at least convey a sense of what the thing is about to all of the likely readers of the article. To disregard this consideration is astonishing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR Given that many of the mathematically and physically literate people here are already somewhat confused on the details about this subject (really nobodies fault I hasten to say, the confusion is widely taught), clarity and correctness take precedence over intuitive understanding because _there is no intuitive route to the existence of spinors_ , at least not one that I and apparently Michael Atiyah is aware of. The properties of spinors are easy enough to explain for say first year physics students, and I did, I think. In my opinion it is OK if even a bright high school student comes to the conclusion that they have something to do with the geometry of vectors and quantum mechanics, but for a proper understanding he or she needs more background. That is just the way it is, and no mention of WP:Technical can change that. Anyway I am tired of fighting this. It is not that I don't want to cooperate, I just cannot do it when every time I make an edit it is reverted within minutes or "improved" before I have time to get to a new round of editing. I have tried giving Slawomir input which he did try to incorporate at some point but only after a very long and frustrating process for all of us and with a result that nobody was pleased with. I have work, wife and kids and they all need attention. RogierBrussee ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I just want to say that despite all the frustration, head-butting and occasional drama, real strides have been made in this article. Comparing the August 11 version to the current version, both the lead and introduction are much, much improved in clarity and accessibility. I know there are still issues to hash out, but good job, you all. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you RogierBrussee and Sławomir Biały (in no particular order) for the good work on the spinor article, and thank you for listening to every single concern from us mere mortals in the spinor world. YohanN7 ( talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Scott domain has remained unsourced since 2009. I do see some real textbooks in books.google.com that could be used as sources, but if anyone happens to know a bit about this discipline's literature, they would probably do a better job than me picking random sources. Any takers? Rschwieb ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull. — D.Lazard ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission is about an interesting topic and there appear to be plenty of references. I added some, but being unfamiliar with the topic I may have messed it up. Can someone please check this over, and also tell me if this is a notable topic that should be kept and improved? Or is it covered somewhere else under another title? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if this question is not of interest to this group. I had placed an image of a calculator in the baker percentage article, since they're commonly used with baker's percentages, but it was reversed in this edit. Daniel Wing & Alan Scott say in The Bread Builders: Hearth Loaves and Masonry Ovens (page 8 & 9), emphasis added by me,
“ | What is especially nice about weighing ingredients by baker's percentage is that I don't have to measure out volume quantities, cup by cup. If I find my dough is too stiff, it is easy to add a little water. I can then plan to make a 66 percent hydration dough next time. If I want to make 18 kg of dough, or 3 kg of dough, I can do it easily, without having to divide quantities into half-cups, tablespoons, or whatever. I just refigure the percentages with my calculator. | ” |
Since I placed the image, I obviously like it, and you just read a quote from a popular artisan baking book for it's use. What do you math folks think, is the calculator image appropriate in the article? Gzuufy ( talk) 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that in general, Wikipedia math articles would benefit from having a short section about the terminology of the different symbols that are used, as many articles seem to lack some or much of that. For example, what is the variable that is written under the summation sign in a series called; is it the "summation variable"? Is there anything that can be done about this to increase the overall quality of math articles in this aspect? — Kri ( talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
It seems there is a disagreement among editors as to whether Lie theory should be merged into Lie group. I'm in favor of merger as the former doesn't have much materials and the term is also somehow vague. For example, how much the representation theory of Lie groups a part of Lie theory? In any case, more inputs will help. -- Taku ( talk) 11:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Cantor's first uncountability proof for "good article" status. The article in its present form was written mostly by Robert J. Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published on this and related topics in refereed journals. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A new editor is insisting on major changes to the lead of natural number without waiting for consensus. Please take a look. -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently no articles link to Hilbert–Bernays paradox. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Is Vera de Spinadel a notable academic? Her work appears to be primarily on the metallic means, an article that is also on AfD. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mathematics editors! I come from the far-off Wikiland of WP:ANATOMY and humbly beseech any kind editors here to fix the wikicode used to represent some formulas on this article: Heart_valve#Physiology. Any additional thoughts or comments or edits to the article are also welcome. Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I would much appreciate if someone could take a look at this and comment. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This concerns the infamous two envelope problem. Great fun, lots of confusion. Badly needs some sensible mathematicians to look at it. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Does Number need a fancier hat? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pretzel knots and links, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Pretzel knots and links (mathematics). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej ( talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am sitting over a text that has the following passage: "The oligonucleotide spectrum owes much of its discriminatory power to the number of possible oligonucleotides: if n is the size of the vocabulary and w is oligonucleotide size, the number of possible distinct oligonucleotides is nw; for example, there are 45=1024 possible pentanucleotides." I would like to link it to the appropriate English Wikipedia article but am not sure which one this would be. On the German Wikipedia, the relevant information is in Variation (Kombinatorik), and that article links to Partial permutation here, which seems a plausible English equivalent to me, yet the article is written in a way that I am not sure it actually covers the same subject as the German one. Any pointers or clarifications? -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission needs a lead and some rewriting, but is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The link Beurling transform redirects to Singular integral operators of convolution type#Beurling transform while Beurling–Ahlfors transform redirects to Grunsky matrix#Beurling transform. My understanding is that these are essentiually the same thing. What is the appropriate target? Deltahedron ( talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help).
Deltahedron (
talk)
21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)For the past three years, the redirect Radical extension has been targeted at Separable extension, but an IP editor has recently objected to this, on the grounds that the "redirect is nonsensical. Radical extensions are neither identical to nor special cases of separable extensions nor are they mentioned anywhere on that page." [1] Now, I know little of Galois theory, so I thought I'd ask for input here as to whether a more suitable target (or targets) is available, or whether the original should be restored. Thank you, VeryCrocker ( talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Are Glossary_of_commutative_algebra#R or Purely inseparable extension not potential candidates? I only ask because they mention the term. If more than one target is suitable, a disambiguation page could be made. -- VeryCrocker ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We have long-standing articles at Modular exponentiation and exponentiation by squaring. (They should probably be merged, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.) Recently, a new editor has written a third article, Discrete exponential function, that covers much of the same material. He has rather persistently linked to it from other articles, such as Discrete logarithm. I have proposed a merge, but the editor refuses to respond to any kind of discussion. So we could use some input from the community in this little knot of articles. Mgnbar ( talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been attempting for some time to make the lead of the spinor article accessible to a wider audience, in part on my own impetus, but in part on the helpful urgings of others of varying skill levels. But now we seem to be at an impasse that would benefit from some outside input. Four milestones in the recent bout of edits are:
I would like some input on a way forward. It has already been suggested that the way forward is backwards, but I would find it hard to believe that all of the work and discussion in the mean time has been for naught. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
To update, RogierBrussee has reverted to one of Sławomir's versions. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Therefore it is pointless to try to explain things for the laymen." This is an absolutely wrong starting position in editing an article that is likely to be read by probably many high school and college students, who are "laymen" by the standards of the revisions you have in mind. The lead must at least convey a sense of what the thing is about to all of the likely readers of the article. To disregard this consideration is astonishing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR Given that many of the mathematically and physically literate people here are already somewhat confused on the details about this subject (really nobodies fault I hasten to say, the confusion is widely taught), clarity and correctness take precedence over intuitive understanding because _there is no intuitive route to the existence of spinors_ , at least not one that I and apparently Michael Atiyah is aware of. The properties of spinors are easy enough to explain for say first year physics students, and I did, I think. In my opinion it is OK if even a bright high school student comes to the conclusion that they have something to do with the geometry of vectors and quantum mechanics, but for a proper understanding he or she needs more background. That is just the way it is, and no mention of WP:Technical can change that. Anyway I am tired of fighting this. It is not that I don't want to cooperate, I just cannot do it when every time I make an edit it is reverted within minutes or "improved" before I have time to get to a new round of editing. I have tried giving Slawomir input which he did try to incorporate at some point but only after a very long and frustrating process for all of us and with a result that nobody was pleased with. I have work, wife and kids and they all need attention. RogierBrussee ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I just want to say that despite all the frustration, head-butting and occasional drama, real strides have been made in this article. Comparing the August 11 version to the current version, both the lead and introduction are much, much improved in clarity and accessibility. I know there are still issues to hash out, but good job, you all. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you RogierBrussee and Sławomir Biały (in no particular order) for the good work on the spinor article, and thank you for listening to every single concern from us mere mortals in the spinor world. YohanN7 ( talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Scott domain has remained unsourced since 2009. I do see some real textbooks in books.google.com that could be used as sources, but if anyone happens to know a bit about this discipline's literature, they would probably do a better job than me picking random sources. Any takers? Rschwieb ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull. — D.Lazard ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission is about an interesting topic and there appear to be plenty of references. I added some, but being unfamiliar with the topic I may have messed it up. Can someone please check this over, and also tell me if this is a notable topic that should be kept and improved? Or is it covered somewhere else under another title? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if this question is not of interest to this group. I had placed an image of a calculator in the baker percentage article, since they're commonly used with baker's percentages, but it was reversed in this edit. Daniel Wing & Alan Scott say in The Bread Builders: Hearth Loaves and Masonry Ovens (page 8 & 9), emphasis added by me,
“ | What is especially nice about weighing ingredients by baker's percentage is that I don't have to measure out volume quantities, cup by cup. If I find my dough is too stiff, it is easy to add a little water. I can then plan to make a 66 percent hydration dough next time. If I want to make 18 kg of dough, or 3 kg of dough, I can do it easily, without having to divide quantities into half-cups, tablespoons, or whatever. I just refigure the percentages with my calculator. | ” |
Since I placed the image, I obviously like it, and you just read a quote from a popular artisan baking book for it's use. What do you math folks think, is the calculator image appropriate in the article? Gzuufy ( talk) 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that in general, Wikipedia math articles would benefit from having a short section about the terminology of the different symbols that are used, as many articles seem to lack some or much of that. For example, what is the variable that is written under the summation sign in a series called; is it the "summation variable"? Is there anything that can be done about this to increase the overall quality of math articles in this aspect? — Kri ( talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
It seems there is a disagreement among editors as to whether Lie theory should be merged into Lie group. I'm in favor of merger as the former doesn't have much materials and the term is also somehow vague. For example, how much the representation theory of Lie groups a part of Lie theory? In any case, more inputs will help. -- Taku ( talk) 11:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Cantor's first uncountability proof for "good article" status. The article in its present form was written mostly by Robert J. Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published on this and related topics in refereed journals. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A new editor is insisting on major changes to the lead of natural number without waiting for consensus. Please take a look. -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently no articles link to Hilbert–Bernays paradox. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Is Vera de Spinadel a notable academic? Her work appears to be primarily on the metallic means, an article that is also on AfD. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mathematics editors! I come from the far-off Wikiland of WP:ANATOMY and humbly beseech any kind editors here to fix the wikicode used to represent some formulas on this article: Heart_valve#Physiology. Any additional thoughts or comments or edits to the article are also welcome. Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I would much appreciate if someone could take a look at this and comment. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This concerns the infamous two envelope problem. Great fun, lots of confusion. Badly needs some sensible mathematicians to look at it. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Does Number need a fancier hat? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)