You can now opine at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton_Mathematics_Institute. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I wrote Draft:Sabir Gusein-Zade and it has been rejected twice. If someone here would like to help me to improve it so that it can be accepted I would be really grateful. Sorry about my bad English (it's not my native tongue you know...), I won't try to create articles again, but it will be sad to me if my work there (albeit modest) be deleted after the six months deadline... By the way, it seems that pages marked as "Draft:" are not shown by Google or Wikipedia searches in standard mode, making it difficult for other interested people to find them and maybe help to improve the drafts. Sincerely, --Rodrigo 189.6.212.77 ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion and the link! I've just made an addition to the draft http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft%3ASabir_Gusein-Zade&diff=654669582&oldid=654592460 --Rodrigo 189.6.193.44 ( talk) 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What's going on with the Current activity page today? Its format is changed and most of it is blank. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi all; I'd like to let you know there will be a mathematical Wikipedia edit-a-thon this Wednesday at 3:30-6pm (UK time), in Lancaster University during a mathematics conference, as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations of the London Mathematical Society. The event page is here:
So feel free to join in online, and/or keep an eye on that page for any relevant activity. Cheers! Mark M ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Please could some one check the discussion on Steiner's theorem. User Wcherowi changed the sence of Steiner's thorem twice in such a way that it does not comply with Steiner's "Vorlesungen,...., Teil 2, p.96". Wcherowi's Steiner theorem is not the base of what he calls " sometimes referred to as Steiner's definition of conics or the projective generation of conics". Steiner (!) did proof the generation: see his lecture "Jacob Steiner’s Vorlesungen über synthetische Geometrie, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1867 (bei Google Books: [1]), 2. Teil, p. 96 ". Wcherowi changed the reference to Steiner's Vorlesungen such that it is wrong.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Mathematics community,
I would like to propose a change to the article Montgomery reduction. The article is about a certain method for fast modular multiplication invented by the mathematician Peter L. Montgomery.
I'm a very newly registered user here on Wikipedia. (See my user page for a brief self-introduction.) I only learned of the subject of Montgomery multiplication via the Wikipedia article, and I am not an expert in the field. However, having now studied the subject for a few weeks I think I now understand the subject reasonably well, and I think I see a few ways to improve the article.
However, even if I now think I understand the subject reasonably well, I still preferred to seek discussion before I make edits, not only because I am completely new on Wikipedia, but also because I am new to the Montgomery multiplication subject. I.e., what I seek is the input of people who have contributed to the article and who are more familiar with the subject than I am. (For example, it may be that I am unfamiliar with the terminology or label under which the subject is classified in certain fields such as cryptology.) About 2 weeks ago I already posted on the article's talk page, but no one responded there, which is why in my attempt to seek discussion I am now posting this here.
In this posting, I would like to address the following set of very related problems with the article Montgomery reduction:
Properly speaking, the "Montgomery reduction" in the title of the WP article is in fact only a subroutine used internally inside the fast modular multiplication method invented by Montgomery. (In his 1985 paper, Montgomery used the desgination REDC() for this reduction subroutine.) Montgomery's fast modular multiplication method as a whole is properly called Montgomery multiplication. Moreover, this REDC() subroutine (= the algorithm performing "Montgomery reduction") is a subroutine that is specific to Montgomery multiplication, i.e. it is not a general-purpose algorithm that can be taken out of Montgomery multiplication and applied outside of it.
In the bulk of the text, the WP article actually in effect explains the complete Montgomery multiplication, and not only the REDC() subroutine for the Reduction step. (That the article explains the complete Montgomery multiplication is of course very logical, since it would be hard to explain the Reduction subroutine without explaining also the complete Montgomery multiplication.)
However, looking at the title, the lead section, and the section "Formal statement" in the beginning, the WP article seems to be presented as a description of "Montgomery REDUCTION" only.
I think this is a case of naming something for one of its parts.
(Note also that (at present) there does not exist a separate WP article titled "Montgomery multiplication".)
A very related problem with the article is the confusion between the following terms:
This terminology problem is IMO very much related to the improper "pars pro toto" title. The problem is a lack of clear distinguishing between terms and hierarchical algorithm elements in the beginning of the article (and in its whole presentation which includes its title). In my view, a reader new to the subject is from the beginning led to misunderstanding of terms and into confusion about what are the different algorithms and how they fit together. (At least, it caused me some confusion on first reading.)
The measure I would like to propose, to solve all these related problems in one go, is to change the presentation of the article from "Montgomery reduction" to "Montgomery multiplication".
This would involve the following:
I think that ideally the change would probably include also a small amount of rearranging/reordering of the structure of the article. E.g., move the sections "Formal statement" and "Description of Algorithm" into a section that deals with the the REDC() subroutine. Note that all the Examples in the article already are about Montgomery multiplication as a whole, and not about only the Reduction specifically. The section "Rationale" also in effect already explains Montgomery multiplication as a whole, and seems to me to need only very small editing work to adapt if the article presentation would be changed to Montgomery multiplication as a whole.
The Wikipedian Gronk Oz made the suggestion that it would be also a possibility, instead of changing the Montgomery reduction article, to add a separate new article titled "Montgomery multiplication". I would also like to invite your views on this idea. Questions: Does the subject merit two different articles? Was the intention of the creators of the existing article to discuss the Reduction exclusively, or to explain Montgomery multiplication as a whole (and if so why did they title it "Reduction" and not "Multiplication")?
Another thing I would welcome comments on is the following: This is only my speculation, but I could imagine that it could be possible that in some circles (maybe cryptology?), Montgomery's method for fast modular multiplication might conceivably be generally referred to under the label "Montgomery Reduction", same as many other things are commonly referred to under "pars pro toto" names. This might be a reason to consider keeping the the title "Montgomery reduction" intact. However, I am new to the subject and I have no knowledge of circles that use the "pars pro toto" label of "Montgomery reduction" when talking about "Montgomery multiplication". I invite people who have knowledge of circles that use this "pars pro toto" naming for this subject to speak up and comment.
There are no doubt many more kinds of improvement that could be made to this article. However in order to keep things focused, with this posting I seek discussion at first only on this specific issue.
Also, what I would like to discuss at this point is at first only the question of whether the change (or small package of changes) I am proposing is sensible or desirable. I.e. to reach a consensus decision on whether it would be good if the presentation of the Montgomery reduction article is changed to "Montgomery multiplication", leaving the bulk of the article text (including all Examples) intact. Addressing how exactly to implement this change (and when and by whom, etc.) seems then to me a later step.
I would like to acknowledge W.carter from the Teahouse, for pointing me to the Mathematics Project talk page, and Gronk Oz for enthusing and helpful discussion. (Any mistakes in the above are my own.)
With best regards, -- MRaccoon ( talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This draft was prepared last October by Mbw314 ( talk · contribs), who never submitted it for review and has not edited since. It qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G13 as an abandoned draft, but I have postponed that in case it is worth keeping, or can be developed. Comments welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is worth keeping. It passes my BS and OR detectors (but I have no idea of what the thingies are). A Google search gives plenty of seemingly trustworthy hits. A couple of more references and an inline citation or two, and I think we have decent stub article. YohanN7 ( talk) 17:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't know where to ask help from fellow mathematicians in wiki. Several users (including me) have disputed the statement in Eigenvalue perturbation and its proof. Can someone check it? Best, Taha ( talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear mathematics experts: here's an old AfC submission on a mathematical subject. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity shows no new mathematics articles for the last three days, which seems quite unlikely. Jitse's bot, the one that updates current activity, seems to be running ok, but maybe there's some other link in the chain that's malfunctioning? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem could be with Oleg's bot rather than with Jitse's bot. That would explain why other aspects of the page than the new articles list have continued to get updated. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The current activities page and its list of new articles depend on two people who run bots. Some day they will die and Civilization will collapse unless we have some crowd-sourced way of running those bots. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If this is the stuff you find exciting, then the comments and the feedbacks are very welcome at Talk:Total quotient ring. -- Taku ( talk) 22:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So far the only article linking to Poincaré separation theorem is the List of things named after Henri Poincaré, where I added the link. Higher up on this page, you see several people vouching for the theorem's notability, and one saying it appears in many books. Would someone who knows the topic add some links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know this material very well at all, but is there a connection between the Poincaré separation theorem and min-max theorem? They look pretty similar, and if they are closely enough connected this might provide a potential cross-link to remove the orphan tag. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Chapters of N.W. Johnson: Geometries and Transformations, (2015) are being cited in various wiki pages on groups. But it doesn't seem to be a published book. Is it some kind of samizdat or what? Some1Redirects4You ( talk) 13:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You can now opine at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton_Mathematics_Institute. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I wrote Draft:Sabir Gusein-Zade and it has been rejected twice. If someone here would like to help me to improve it so that it can be accepted I would be really grateful. Sorry about my bad English (it's not my native tongue you know...), I won't try to create articles again, but it will be sad to me if my work there (albeit modest) be deleted after the six months deadline... By the way, it seems that pages marked as "Draft:" are not shown by Google or Wikipedia searches in standard mode, making it difficult for other interested people to find them and maybe help to improve the drafts. Sincerely, --Rodrigo 189.6.212.77 ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion and the link! I've just made an addition to the draft http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft%3ASabir_Gusein-Zade&diff=654669582&oldid=654592460 --Rodrigo 189.6.193.44 ( talk) 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What's going on with the Current activity page today? Its format is changed and most of it is blank. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi all; I'd like to let you know there will be a mathematical Wikipedia edit-a-thon this Wednesday at 3:30-6pm (UK time), in Lancaster University during a mathematics conference, as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations of the London Mathematical Society. The event page is here:
So feel free to join in online, and/or keep an eye on that page for any relevant activity. Cheers! Mark M ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Please could some one check the discussion on Steiner's theorem. User Wcherowi changed the sence of Steiner's thorem twice in such a way that it does not comply with Steiner's "Vorlesungen,...., Teil 2, p.96". Wcherowi's Steiner theorem is not the base of what he calls " sometimes referred to as Steiner's definition of conics or the projective generation of conics". Steiner (!) did proof the generation: see his lecture "Jacob Steiner’s Vorlesungen über synthetische Geometrie, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1867 (bei Google Books: [1]), 2. Teil, p. 96 ". Wcherowi changed the reference to Steiner's Vorlesungen such that it is wrong.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Mathematics community,
I would like to propose a change to the article Montgomery reduction. The article is about a certain method for fast modular multiplication invented by the mathematician Peter L. Montgomery.
I'm a very newly registered user here on Wikipedia. (See my user page for a brief self-introduction.) I only learned of the subject of Montgomery multiplication via the Wikipedia article, and I am not an expert in the field. However, having now studied the subject for a few weeks I think I now understand the subject reasonably well, and I think I see a few ways to improve the article.
However, even if I now think I understand the subject reasonably well, I still preferred to seek discussion before I make edits, not only because I am completely new on Wikipedia, but also because I am new to the Montgomery multiplication subject. I.e., what I seek is the input of people who have contributed to the article and who are more familiar with the subject than I am. (For example, it may be that I am unfamiliar with the terminology or label under which the subject is classified in certain fields such as cryptology.) About 2 weeks ago I already posted on the article's talk page, but no one responded there, which is why in my attempt to seek discussion I am now posting this here.
In this posting, I would like to address the following set of very related problems with the article Montgomery reduction:
Properly speaking, the "Montgomery reduction" in the title of the WP article is in fact only a subroutine used internally inside the fast modular multiplication method invented by Montgomery. (In his 1985 paper, Montgomery used the desgination REDC() for this reduction subroutine.) Montgomery's fast modular multiplication method as a whole is properly called Montgomery multiplication. Moreover, this REDC() subroutine (= the algorithm performing "Montgomery reduction") is a subroutine that is specific to Montgomery multiplication, i.e. it is not a general-purpose algorithm that can be taken out of Montgomery multiplication and applied outside of it.
In the bulk of the text, the WP article actually in effect explains the complete Montgomery multiplication, and not only the REDC() subroutine for the Reduction step. (That the article explains the complete Montgomery multiplication is of course very logical, since it would be hard to explain the Reduction subroutine without explaining also the complete Montgomery multiplication.)
However, looking at the title, the lead section, and the section "Formal statement" in the beginning, the WP article seems to be presented as a description of "Montgomery REDUCTION" only.
I think this is a case of naming something for one of its parts.
(Note also that (at present) there does not exist a separate WP article titled "Montgomery multiplication".)
A very related problem with the article is the confusion between the following terms:
This terminology problem is IMO very much related to the improper "pars pro toto" title. The problem is a lack of clear distinguishing between terms and hierarchical algorithm elements in the beginning of the article (and in its whole presentation which includes its title). In my view, a reader new to the subject is from the beginning led to misunderstanding of terms and into confusion about what are the different algorithms and how they fit together. (At least, it caused me some confusion on first reading.)
The measure I would like to propose, to solve all these related problems in one go, is to change the presentation of the article from "Montgomery reduction" to "Montgomery multiplication".
This would involve the following:
I think that ideally the change would probably include also a small amount of rearranging/reordering of the structure of the article. E.g., move the sections "Formal statement" and "Description of Algorithm" into a section that deals with the the REDC() subroutine. Note that all the Examples in the article already are about Montgomery multiplication as a whole, and not about only the Reduction specifically. The section "Rationale" also in effect already explains Montgomery multiplication as a whole, and seems to me to need only very small editing work to adapt if the article presentation would be changed to Montgomery multiplication as a whole.
The Wikipedian Gronk Oz made the suggestion that it would be also a possibility, instead of changing the Montgomery reduction article, to add a separate new article titled "Montgomery multiplication". I would also like to invite your views on this idea. Questions: Does the subject merit two different articles? Was the intention of the creators of the existing article to discuss the Reduction exclusively, or to explain Montgomery multiplication as a whole (and if so why did they title it "Reduction" and not "Multiplication")?
Another thing I would welcome comments on is the following: This is only my speculation, but I could imagine that it could be possible that in some circles (maybe cryptology?), Montgomery's method for fast modular multiplication might conceivably be generally referred to under the label "Montgomery Reduction", same as many other things are commonly referred to under "pars pro toto" names. This might be a reason to consider keeping the the title "Montgomery reduction" intact. However, I am new to the subject and I have no knowledge of circles that use the "pars pro toto" label of "Montgomery reduction" when talking about "Montgomery multiplication". I invite people who have knowledge of circles that use this "pars pro toto" naming for this subject to speak up and comment.
There are no doubt many more kinds of improvement that could be made to this article. However in order to keep things focused, with this posting I seek discussion at first only on this specific issue.
Also, what I would like to discuss at this point is at first only the question of whether the change (or small package of changes) I am proposing is sensible or desirable. I.e. to reach a consensus decision on whether it would be good if the presentation of the Montgomery reduction article is changed to "Montgomery multiplication", leaving the bulk of the article text (including all Examples) intact. Addressing how exactly to implement this change (and when and by whom, etc.) seems then to me a later step.
I would like to acknowledge W.carter from the Teahouse, for pointing me to the Mathematics Project talk page, and Gronk Oz for enthusing and helpful discussion. (Any mistakes in the above are my own.)
With best regards, -- MRaccoon ( talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This draft was prepared last October by Mbw314 ( talk · contribs), who never submitted it for review and has not edited since. It qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G13 as an abandoned draft, but I have postponed that in case it is worth keeping, or can be developed. Comments welcome. JohnCD ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is worth keeping. It passes my BS and OR detectors (but I have no idea of what the thingies are). A Google search gives plenty of seemingly trustworthy hits. A couple of more references and an inline citation or two, and I think we have decent stub article. YohanN7 ( talk) 17:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't know where to ask help from fellow mathematicians in wiki. Several users (including me) have disputed the statement in Eigenvalue perturbation and its proof. Can someone check it? Best, Taha ( talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear mathematics experts: here's an old AfC submission on a mathematical subject. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity shows no new mathematics articles for the last three days, which seems quite unlikely. Jitse's bot, the one that updates current activity, seems to be running ok, but maybe there's some other link in the chain that's malfunctioning? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem could be with Oleg's bot rather than with Jitse's bot. That would explain why other aspects of the page than the new articles list have continued to get updated. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The current activities page and its list of new articles depend on two people who run bots. Some day they will die and Civilization will collapse unless we have some crowd-sourced way of running those bots. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If this is the stuff you find exciting, then the comments and the feedbacks are very welcome at Talk:Total quotient ring. -- Taku ( talk) 22:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So far the only article linking to Poincaré separation theorem is the List of things named after Henri Poincaré, where I added the link. Higher up on this page, you see several people vouching for the theorem's notability, and one saying it appears in many books. Would someone who knows the topic add some links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know this material very well at all, but is there a connection between the Poincaré separation theorem and min-max theorem? They look pretty similar, and if they are closely enough connected this might provide a potential cross-link to remove the orphan tag. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Chapters of N.W. Johnson: Geometries and Transformations, (2015) are being cited in various wiki pages on groups. But it doesn't seem to be a published book. Is it some kind of samizdat or what? Some1Redirects4You ( talk) 13:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)