The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is at the moment (july-october 2015) a GA cup running for reviewing good article nominations Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup but there is a distinct lack of mathematics article nominations Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics and mathematicians there are only 3 (one nominated by me, another I think a straight fail for another ). Are there no other mathematics articles to nominate ? WillemienH ( talk) 07:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello everybody. What do the Wikipedia's policies have to say about the articles about mathematicians having a section with selected publications? It's common practice to add one (I personally like it, because in a quick look at just the titles of the articles and journals one can already get some ideas about the research of the academic), but it seems that there is no specific policy about it. 189.6.202.87 ( talk) 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, and have added such sections to many articles. The part that's a bad idea is having a "Publications" section that is not selective and lists everything (as a cv would). My tendency is to aim for a selecton of 4-6 publications (fewer if there are not enough important ones, more in rare cases when someone has many very significant works) and only include ones that have very large numbers of citations, are published in top journals, have specific mention in secondary sources as being significant results (especially if these results are also mentioned in the rest of the article), or have been given noteworthy awards. For some mathematical subjects such as theoretical computer science where conference publication may be more important than journal publication, yes, I'll definitely include conference papers too, but replacing some of the 4-6 journal papers rather than adding to them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have one small gripe, that could be fixed by some industrious WikiGnomes no doubt. We often do not provide useful links to old works whose copyrights have expired. (Google books, Archive.org and Project Gutenberg all maintain free collections, and there are other projects with more specific holdings, like the Euler archive.) For example, very few of
Leibniz' works are linked. The significant
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis has its own article, which also lacks a link. The Latin works of
Euler are mostly missing as well. It seems like these would be useful links for scholars in the field.
Sławomir
Biały
12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated! I've already memorized David Eppstein's criteria. This edit should be fine I guess. :D 189.6.202.186 ( talk) 04:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with "David Eppstein's criteria", but the two examples in the last posts show that more deserves to be said: Most article about mathematicians have a section describing their main contributions. Sometimes, these contributions are the object of a specific article, which is normally linked. But, when it is not the case, (and also in this case), it is useful to read the original article. Even when a short selected list of publication exists, such as in James Harris Simons, it may be difficult to know which article corresponds to which main contribution.
Therefore, I would suggest to organize the selected list of publications as a list of references, linked from the section on main contributions. The criterion for inclusion, will then to have one, or at most two, linked publications by subject described in main contribution section. As usual, this section requires also references to secondary sources, but, IMO, this is a case where some primary sources are useful. An example of the bad result of systematically avoiding primary sources in this case is Andrew Wiles article: he is known for one paper; this is amazing that one cannot find the reference of this paper in the article about him! On the other hand, there are mathematicians that are known for many publications, each of them being relatively minor. In this case, a short list of selected publications is difficult to establish (and would be original research), and it is better to omit such a list. Paul Erdős is a clear example of such a case. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to my decline reason on Draft:Integrative Propositional Analysis? Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider the use of {{ WikiProject Mathematics}}; it's a disservice to our fellow editors to expect them to use a different protocol for one project, than the one they use for most others. Also, the claim that "The list of mathematics articles already has a list of all math articles" is false; it does not include new articles of relevence to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
List of mathematics articles no longer links to the list of mathematics articles but instead redirects to something else. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have just done this edit. The statement I deleted has been grossly false for several years. I edited the page that redirected list of mathematics articles to make it a disambiguation page including a link to the actual list. But a user called The Banner insists on reverting without addressing the inappropriateness of the target of the redirect or of the fact that we had that statement on a template directing many thousands of articles to that inappropriate redirect page. If Jitse's bot does not get reactivated, we need to decide what to do about that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
And now I've done this edit, linking to the actual list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A volunteer has proposed removing client-side MathJax from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering in phab:T99369, in favor of modern (up-to-date and probably faster) browser plugins. This will probably affect very few readers and editors, but it's likely to affect more people in this group than anywhere else, so I wanted to make sure that you heard about it. It will also be announced in the next m:Tech/News. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It was Physikerwelt who suggested this change. I'd like to invite him to provide an explanation. @ Physikerwelt: As I said on the task page, as best as I can tell, the plugin you're talking about is a third-party creation not supported by the MathJax team, and there are no corresponding plugins for other browsers. Why do you think that switching to this plugin would be an improvement? Ozob ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Quouting myself from the Phabricator ticket:
"The currently enabled MathJax availible to the users is a old version that branched of from an old version. It's also unmaintained i.e. not supported by the MathJax team. The customization of the MathJax codebase is quite heavy. Updates made to MathJax (for example security updates) are not reflected in the customized wmf clone.
From a conceptual perspective this heavy customization of MathJax seems to suboptimal and the past has proven that is is unmaintained.
I would be interesting, if there are Firefox users that prefer MathJax over MathML.
For the future, we are going to do exactly that was proposed on the discussion page and also envisioned here T78046."
A more detailed overview about the new MathML rendering mode is availible from here http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6179 I promise to review every code that is contributed to the math extension. So if someone is willing to update the current MathJax plugin this is defenity an alternative. However, my current focus is on the MathML rendering mode that still has some issues that need to be resolved. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 15:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Here a side by side comparison of the different maths rendering modes.
If it were not for the baseline, aliasing and font size problems the PNG rendering looks good, MathJax is good with a couple of glitches, but to me the firefox MathML looks like a project still in need of a lot of work to get it looking really good.-- Salix alba ( talk): 01:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The MathJax option has now gone. If you want client side MathJax in Chrome you can use the Wikipedia with mathjax extension. ( github page.)
MathML rendering in firefox is improved quite a bit with the mathml-font extension.-- Salix alba ( talk): 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It turns out to be quite simple to use MathJax with a user script. All you need is to set the raw tex preference and add
window.MathJax = {
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: '$','$'
}
};
mw.loader.load(
'https://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML');
to your Special:MyPage/skin.js. This might not be the fastest way of doing things but its developer independent.-- Salix alba ( talk): 07:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@
TakuyaMurata: You mentioned "no plan" I have been trying to get input on a plan for several years now ... jude by yourself
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/Roadmap ... for me capturing math semantics is much more important than the technical details of the rendering. I think mathoid will improve the rendering for most users and especially for those using browsers that fully support HTML5. However, much more important than the rendering itself is a cleanup of the markup to capture more semantics and allow for additional services such as math search or import export function to computer algebra systems. But therefore we need to get rid of all the problems (and there are a lot more than you might imagine) that the Math extension at this very moment. With the current code basis it is very hard to make progress at all. Therefore I'm trying to recruite a second volunteer how can help with code review or with parts of the implementation. I even wrote a guid to demonstrate how simple it is to review the math extension code at
[1] but until now... I'm still searching.
Everyone is free to decide what's the right way. Either blame me and WMF that we are not making sufficent progress or open an IDE and help coding.-- Physikerwelt ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein: I think we agree on the priorities for math rendering some more details:
@ TakuyaMurata: cas integration is one thing I'm planning to work on in my regular job. I'm looking for a master student and we are going to start with the DRMF and Wolfram eCF project. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
\cdot
by \multiplication
, \innerproduct
, \groupoperation
or whatever the meaning is (and the editor of an article is the best source for this information), we could also provide semantics from inside LaTeX. But changing all formulas accordingly would be a terrible amount of work. Also, agreeing on a standard set of macros and convincing the MediaWiki software engineers to include them could be problematic.It is also the only workaround in existence. Most users get PNG rendering and what they see is not "inconsistent display". They see INCONSISTENTDIS PLAY with inline Latex, and this will not change the forthcoming years as it looks. I find articles with much inline Latex unreadable. (I mostly use PNG because the articles I edit (not to mention my sandbox) tend to be big (making MathJax impossible due to poor performance) and contain plenty of formulae (making MathML impossible due to bugs)). HTML has, after all, acceptable appearance - even tough it doesn't match 100% with what's in the displayed equations (in whatever mode). YohanN7 ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)An anonymous user removes fullstops at end of equations in " Expected value". Is this a good idea to do? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking closely I see that the first of these fullstops was indeed spurious. But the others were not. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of appropriateness, it would be nice if we had some guidance from other style manuals. Halmos recommends natural punctuation in mathematics writing, which would argue against a practice of universally colonating displayed mathematics. But if there are other recommendations in the literature, they might give a usefully different perspective.
Sławomir
Biały
21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 the Summary table puts B+ left of GA (higher grade position ) of GA while Quality grading scheme puts B+ below GA (lower grade position ) the summary table seems to be automatically generated so i don't know how to change this, am I correct in this? (also see Mathematics B+ rating at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Mathematics B+ rating ) WillemienH ( talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
A list I got by browsing the history of User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult:
Thanks! You might get a more comprehensive listing from User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists — Mathbot still seems to be running even though Jitse's bot isn't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested a modification to the article describing the birational and Galois cases. See Talk:Jacobian conjecture#The birational and Galois cases. As usual, will need help on this.
L.Andrew Campbell ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page, I have provided a more elementary, though admittedly less elegant, proof of the theorem, that is much more easily understood by elementary vector calculus students.
Generally, though, I think this article could use a lot of work (as many of you probably do). It should discuss some physical applications of it, such as the equivalence of the differential and integral forms of the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
[ This here] concerns the math project as well, since Cuzkatzimhut (and also I) edit both math and physics articles. YohanN7 ( talk) 13:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It might be a vast improvement if the templates were reconfigured to go to the Talk pages, instead. They are frequently used for political purposes and by frustrated readers who decide to deface the entire page with ref templates, in the vague hope something they may lack the training to understand will lead them to the mother load reference that makes everything clear. Instead, 8 times out of 10, it is the WP article which is clearest. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
In a recent edit, an IP user added yet another red linked item to the list of doctoral students in the infobox at Grigory Margulis. Do we have any policy in place regulating such matters? My own feeling is that infobox should not serve as a replacement for Math Genealogy or person's scientific biography (and bibliography), and in this case the list is already excessive (and also inaccurate). Personally, I would even be hesitant to add red linked names which are not likely to get their articles per our interpretation of WP:Notability to the main text. Arcfrk ( talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A recent dispute over content in List of female mathematicians escalated to the point where the page was protected; see Talk:List of female mathematicians#Joshi edit-warring and more general issues of line length and image inclusion and following sections. Input from more editors would be welcome. RockMagnetist( talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of renaming Algebra over a field to Algebra (mathematical object), and also merge Algebra (ring theory) in there as well; then we could make it a WP:CONCEPTDAB. The concept of an algebra is fairly standard, apart from whether or not we assume unital / associative / commutative / finite-dimensional / over a field / over a commutative ring.. Basically an algebra is something that has an binary addition, binary multiplication, and a scalar multiplication of some kind. Since many readers probably don't quite know what they are looking for, and the precise definitions depend on the sources, I think we should have a broad concept article that covers all "algebras".
We also have Non-associative algebra and Associative algebra. I suppose a Nonassociative ring is trivially an algebra over Z, so we could naturally merge that article into Non-associative algebra.
Any objections to any of the above? Mark MacD ( talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I started an RfC here on the issue mentioned by User:David Eppstein above. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated for deletion Order of a polynomial. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of a polynomial. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of Draft:Biweight midcorrelation? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I found some glossaries that can be useful in translating material about mathematics at the elementary and high school levels: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/bilinged/bilingual_glossaries.htm WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone answer my question at Talk:Exponential type? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is at the moment (july-october 2015) a GA cup running for reviewing good article nominations Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup but there is a distinct lack of mathematics article nominations Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics and mathematicians there are only 3 (one nominated by me, another I think a straight fail for another ). Are there no other mathematics articles to nominate ? WillemienH ( talk) 07:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello everybody. What do the Wikipedia's policies have to say about the articles about mathematicians having a section with selected publications? It's common practice to add one (I personally like it, because in a quick look at just the titles of the articles and journals one can already get some ideas about the research of the academic), but it seems that there is no specific policy about it. 189.6.202.87 ( talk) 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, and have added such sections to many articles. The part that's a bad idea is having a "Publications" section that is not selective and lists everything (as a cv would). My tendency is to aim for a selecton of 4-6 publications (fewer if there are not enough important ones, more in rare cases when someone has many very significant works) and only include ones that have very large numbers of citations, are published in top journals, have specific mention in secondary sources as being significant results (especially if these results are also mentioned in the rest of the article), or have been given noteworthy awards. For some mathematical subjects such as theoretical computer science where conference publication may be more important than journal publication, yes, I'll definitely include conference papers too, but replacing some of the 4-6 journal papers rather than adding to them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have one small gripe, that could be fixed by some industrious WikiGnomes no doubt. We often do not provide useful links to old works whose copyrights have expired. (Google books, Archive.org and Project Gutenberg all maintain free collections, and there are other projects with more specific holdings, like the Euler archive.) For example, very few of
Leibniz' works are linked. The significant
Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis has its own article, which also lacks a link. The Latin works of
Euler are mostly missing as well. It seems like these would be useful links for scholars in the field.
Sławomir
Biały
12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated! I've already memorized David Eppstein's criteria. This edit should be fine I guess. :D 189.6.202.186 ( talk) 04:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with "David Eppstein's criteria", but the two examples in the last posts show that more deserves to be said: Most article about mathematicians have a section describing their main contributions. Sometimes, these contributions are the object of a specific article, which is normally linked. But, when it is not the case, (and also in this case), it is useful to read the original article. Even when a short selected list of publication exists, such as in James Harris Simons, it may be difficult to know which article corresponds to which main contribution.
Therefore, I would suggest to organize the selected list of publications as a list of references, linked from the section on main contributions. The criterion for inclusion, will then to have one, or at most two, linked publications by subject described in main contribution section. As usual, this section requires also references to secondary sources, but, IMO, this is a case where some primary sources are useful. An example of the bad result of systematically avoiding primary sources in this case is Andrew Wiles article: he is known for one paper; this is amazing that one cannot find the reference of this paper in the article about him! On the other hand, there are mathematicians that are known for many publications, each of them being relatively minor. In this case, a short list of selected publications is difficult to establish (and would be original research), and it is better to omit such a list. Paul Erdős is a clear example of such a case. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to my decline reason on Draft:Integrative Propositional Analysis? Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider the use of {{ WikiProject Mathematics}}; it's a disservice to our fellow editors to expect them to use a different protocol for one project, than the one they use for most others. Also, the claim that "The list of mathematics articles already has a list of all math articles" is false; it does not include new articles of relevence to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
List of mathematics articles no longer links to the list of mathematics articles but instead redirects to something else. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have just done this edit. The statement I deleted has been grossly false for several years. I edited the page that redirected list of mathematics articles to make it a disambiguation page including a link to the actual list. But a user called The Banner insists on reverting without addressing the inappropriateness of the target of the redirect or of the fact that we had that statement on a template directing many thousands of articles to that inappropriate redirect page. If Jitse's bot does not get reactivated, we need to decide what to do about that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
And now I've done this edit, linking to the actual list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A volunteer has proposed removing client-side MathJax from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering in phab:T99369, in favor of modern (up-to-date and probably faster) browser plugins. This will probably affect very few readers and editors, but it's likely to affect more people in this group than anywhere else, so I wanted to make sure that you heard about it. It will also be announced in the next m:Tech/News. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It was Physikerwelt who suggested this change. I'd like to invite him to provide an explanation. @ Physikerwelt: As I said on the task page, as best as I can tell, the plugin you're talking about is a third-party creation not supported by the MathJax team, and there are no corresponding plugins for other browsers. Why do you think that switching to this plugin would be an improvement? Ozob ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Quouting myself from the Phabricator ticket:
"The currently enabled MathJax availible to the users is a old version that branched of from an old version. It's also unmaintained i.e. not supported by the MathJax team. The customization of the MathJax codebase is quite heavy. Updates made to MathJax (for example security updates) are not reflected in the customized wmf clone.
From a conceptual perspective this heavy customization of MathJax seems to suboptimal and the past has proven that is is unmaintained.
I would be interesting, if there are Firefox users that prefer MathJax over MathML.
For the future, we are going to do exactly that was proposed on the discussion page and also envisioned here T78046."
A more detailed overview about the new MathML rendering mode is availible from here http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6179 I promise to review every code that is contributed to the math extension. So if someone is willing to update the current MathJax plugin this is defenity an alternative. However, my current focus is on the MathML rendering mode that still has some issues that need to be resolved. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 15:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Here a side by side comparison of the different maths rendering modes.
If it were not for the baseline, aliasing and font size problems the PNG rendering looks good, MathJax is good with a couple of glitches, but to me the firefox MathML looks like a project still in need of a lot of work to get it looking really good.-- Salix alba ( talk): 01:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The MathJax option has now gone. If you want client side MathJax in Chrome you can use the Wikipedia with mathjax extension. ( github page.)
MathML rendering in firefox is improved quite a bit with the mathml-font extension.-- Salix alba ( talk): 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It turns out to be quite simple to use MathJax with a user script. All you need is to set the raw tex preference and add
window.MathJax = {
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: '$','$'
}
};
mw.loader.load(
'https://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML');
to your Special:MyPage/skin.js. This might not be the fastest way of doing things but its developer independent.-- Salix alba ( talk): 07:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@
TakuyaMurata: You mentioned "no plan" I have been trying to get input on a plan for several years now ... jude by yourself
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/Roadmap ... for me capturing math semantics is much more important than the technical details of the rendering. I think mathoid will improve the rendering for most users and especially for those using browsers that fully support HTML5. However, much more important than the rendering itself is a cleanup of the markup to capture more semantics and allow for additional services such as math search or import export function to computer algebra systems. But therefore we need to get rid of all the problems (and there are a lot more than you might imagine) that the Math extension at this very moment. With the current code basis it is very hard to make progress at all. Therefore I'm trying to recruite a second volunteer how can help with code review or with parts of the implementation. I even wrote a guid to demonstrate how simple it is to review the math extension code at
[1] but until now... I'm still searching.
Everyone is free to decide what's the right way. Either blame me and WMF that we are not making sufficent progress or open an IDE and help coding.-- Physikerwelt ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein: I think we agree on the priorities for math rendering some more details:
@ TakuyaMurata: cas integration is one thing I'm planning to work on in my regular job. I'm looking for a master student and we are going to start with the DRMF and Wolfram eCF project. -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
\cdot
by \multiplication
, \innerproduct
, \groupoperation
or whatever the meaning is (and the editor of an article is the best source for this information), we could also provide semantics from inside LaTeX. But changing all formulas accordingly would be a terrible amount of work. Also, agreeing on a standard set of macros and convincing the MediaWiki software engineers to include them could be problematic.It is also the only workaround in existence. Most users get PNG rendering and what they see is not "inconsistent display". They see INCONSISTENTDIS PLAY with inline Latex, and this will not change the forthcoming years as it looks. I find articles with much inline Latex unreadable. (I mostly use PNG because the articles I edit (not to mention my sandbox) tend to be big (making MathJax impossible due to poor performance) and contain plenty of formulae (making MathML impossible due to bugs)). HTML has, after all, acceptable appearance - even tough it doesn't match 100% with what's in the displayed equations (in whatever mode). YohanN7 ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)An anonymous user removes fullstops at end of equations in " Expected value". Is this a good idea to do? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking closely I see that the first of these fullstops was indeed spurious. But the others were not. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of appropriateness, it would be nice if we had some guidance from other style manuals. Halmos recommends natural punctuation in mathematics writing, which would argue against a practice of universally colonating displayed mathematics. But if there are other recommendations in the literature, they might give a usefully different perspective.
Sławomir
Biały
21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 the Summary table puts B+ left of GA (higher grade position ) of GA while Quality grading scheme puts B+ below GA (lower grade position ) the summary table seems to be automatically generated so i don't know how to change this, am I correct in this? (also see Mathematics B+ rating at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Mathematics B+ rating ) WillemienH ( talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
A list I got by browsing the history of User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult:
Thanks! You might get a more comprehensive listing from User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists — Mathbot still seems to be running even though Jitse's bot isn't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested a modification to the article describing the birational and Galois cases. See Talk:Jacobian conjecture#The birational and Galois cases. As usual, will need help on this.
L.Andrew Campbell ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page, I have provided a more elementary, though admittedly less elegant, proof of the theorem, that is much more easily understood by elementary vector calculus students.
Generally, though, I think this article could use a lot of work (as many of you probably do). It should discuss some physical applications of it, such as the equivalence of the differential and integral forms of the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
[ This here] concerns the math project as well, since Cuzkatzimhut (and also I) edit both math and physics articles. YohanN7 ( talk) 13:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It might be a vast improvement if the templates were reconfigured to go to the Talk pages, instead. They are frequently used for political purposes and by frustrated readers who decide to deface the entire page with ref templates, in the vague hope something they may lack the training to understand will lead them to the mother load reference that makes everything clear. Instead, 8 times out of 10, it is the WP article which is clearest. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
In a recent edit, an IP user added yet another red linked item to the list of doctoral students in the infobox at Grigory Margulis. Do we have any policy in place regulating such matters? My own feeling is that infobox should not serve as a replacement for Math Genealogy or person's scientific biography (and bibliography), and in this case the list is already excessive (and also inaccurate). Personally, I would even be hesitant to add red linked names which are not likely to get their articles per our interpretation of WP:Notability to the main text. Arcfrk ( talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A recent dispute over content in List of female mathematicians escalated to the point where the page was protected; see Talk:List of female mathematicians#Joshi edit-warring and more general issues of line length and image inclusion and following sections. Input from more editors would be welcome. RockMagnetist( talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of renaming Algebra over a field to Algebra (mathematical object), and also merge Algebra (ring theory) in there as well; then we could make it a WP:CONCEPTDAB. The concept of an algebra is fairly standard, apart from whether or not we assume unital / associative / commutative / finite-dimensional / over a field / over a commutative ring.. Basically an algebra is something that has an binary addition, binary multiplication, and a scalar multiplication of some kind. Since many readers probably don't quite know what they are looking for, and the precise definitions depend on the sources, I think we should have a broad concept article that covers all "algebras".
We also have Non-associative algebra and Associative algebra. I suppose a Nonassociative ring is trivially an algebra over Z, so we could naturally merge that article into Non-associative algebra.
Any objections to any of the above? Mark MacD ( talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I started an RfC here on the issue mentioned by User:David Eppstein above. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated for deletion Order of a polynomial. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of a polynomial. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of Draft:Biweight midcorrelation? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I found some glossaries that can be useful in translating material about mathematics at the elementary and high school levels: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/bilinged/bilingual_glossaries.htm WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone answer my question at Talk:Exponential type? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)