I'm trying to engage researchers in Sweden to be active contributors to Wikipedia. I will today talk to the department of Mathematics at Uppsala University. Some researchers from their department have earlier said that PlanetMath has the same function as Wikipedia has for other areas and that it might be more wise to be active on PlanetMath instead. It seems that a long time ago, people tried to do both, but what has happened since with the Exchange project? Olle Terenius (SLU) ( talk) 10:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
A new AfC draft has appeared: Draft:Quasi-exact-solvability. I have used my (somewhat rudimentary) TeX knowledge to clean up the draft, but a math check would be welcomed! Thanks all, /wia /tlk 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to solve with the expression
יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it notable enough for being mentioned in " Trigonometric polynomial"? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I did some restructuring at inverse hyperbolic functions, mostly moving the part about complex inverse hyperbolic functions to the end of the article, but I am wondering did i do every thing right and are there still other improvements to make.
Also editing this article did make me wonder:
Lets improve this article together :) WillemienH ( talk) 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The two following pages seem to talk about very similar topics : /info/en/?search=Inverse_limit /info/en/?search=Inverse_system, in my opinion the second could be added as a part (the "category" point of view) of the first. -- Tilwen ( talk) 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A case is being made at the talk page that the title "false position" is a bad mistranslation of "regula falsi". Thoughts welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
What should be done with Trigonometry of a tetrahedron? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I just created a new section presenting Einstein's stunningly simple proof of the Pythagorean theorem (which I learned just yesterday). Perhaps others can improve it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
We routinely write things like this:
When done inline like this: then the characters appear in a font size sometimes three times that of the surrounding letters and often suffer from bizarre misalignments (but the size and alignment seems to depend on how the user's preferences are set). However, for the lower-case π we have a template enabling us to say that the area of a disk of radius r is πr2, that last expression being coded as {{pi}}''r''<sup>2</sup>. This suffers no such problems as those mentioned above, as far as I know. I don't know how to create such templates. How hard would it be to create such templates for other Greek letters? (I see that the template "alpha" currently rediects to a template called "alphabetize".) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor is very insistent at Basel problem that trigonometric functions like should be typeset as . I reverted the original edit, citing WP:MOSMATH#Multi-letter names, and he reverted back, weirdly citing WP:BRD as if the onus were on me to justify the original consensus (even though I had already done so). I'm now at 3rr, and my edit has been reverted there again. This situation would benefit from other editors experienced in mathematics typesetting.
The same editor has pushed a similar
set of edits through at
Euler-Mascheroni constant, replacing the LaTeX with the html γ, including things like → γ′. I assume the reason is preferred is that it looks more like the LaTeX formulas that display on their own line, and so is consistent. In addition, the edit includes an obfuscation of the definition of the constant. Also, that edit did other weird things like replace an aligned equation with an unaligned onr.
Sławomir
Biały
13:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I just posted a comment about this on that editor's talk page. The fact that he used {{{sin(x)}}} rather than {sin(x)} suggests that the code may have come from one of those software packages on the web that generate TeX or MathJax code. Often they write code that looks as if a psychotic wrote it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
New user Mim.cis ( talk · contribs) identifies himself as Prof. Michael Miller from Johns Hopkins University, a pioneer in the field of Computational Anatomy. You can see him on Youtube here.
Some concern was caused because he started developing large amounts of mathematics in a sandbox, and it was not clear where this was going. You can read on User talk:Mim.cis the advice that he has been given, and at User talk:JohnCD/Archive 31#Questions re sandbox and User talk:JohnCD#Unrelated his replies and questions.
My initial worry that this was new original research was allayed by searching Google Scholar, in particular by finding this 1998 paper with 567 citations. It seems that Computational Anatomy is a real, and probably notable, subject.
Would people please look at User:Mim.cis/sandbox and advise: is there an article, or articles, in there? What should Prof. Miller do to progress it? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute about a small addition, which seems to caused by different notions of the nature of (good) encyclopedic writing, sourcing and WP:SYNTH. Comments/opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Pythagorean_theorem#explicit_sources_needed?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 06:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The code below gives me this error message:
Nothing gets rendered; I see only the code.
What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
[6pt] \hline
. Compare\begin{array}{ccl} n & \qquad & P_n(x) \\
\hline 0 & & 1 \\
[6pt] 1 & & x \\
[6pt] 2 & & \frac12 (3x^2-1) \\
\hline \end{array}
With
\begin{array}{ccl} n & \qquad & P_n(x) \\
[6pt] \hline 0 & & 1 \\
[6pt] 1 & & x \\
[6pt] 2 & & \frac12 (3x^2-1) \\
\hline \end{array}
</math>
Could people take a look at Draft:Regularized least squares , reviewers often have problems determining whether mathematics related drafts are appropriate or not.21:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see and fix this.
Thank you kindly.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I left a message saying the same thing in WP:VPT but maybe someone here knows something more: Rendering of mathematics using the "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" preference option has become very slow today, to the point where I cannot view simple articles such as Centroid — after a long delay I instead get a Wikimedia Error page. If I switch to the default "PNG images" preference option for mathematics, rendering is fast. Anyone know what is going on and when it will be fixed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The VisualEditor recently expanded the mathematics tool, and I'd like your feedback on the overall design, whether it seems to be working for you (browser/OS if it's not), and whether anything significant is missing. You don't actually need to opt in to VisualEditor in your preferences if you haven't already; just click here to play in my sandbox. Double-click on existing formulae to open them, or go to Insert > More > Formula to add new ones.
Feedback can be posted at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback (or here, if that's easier for you). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, some actual feedback. This looks reasonably feature-complete and useful. I like the fact that I can go back and forth between editing using the gui and editing LaTeX code, with a real-time preview of the current formula. The "block" option in the options pane does seem to work, so my complaint above about not handling display math is invalid. (I didn't save so I have no idea how it encodes the result or whether it is compatible with our current MOS.)
The baselines on the names of the "standard numerical functions" buttons are uneven — function names with descenders but no ascenders (like exp) are aligned differently than ones that have ascenders but no descenders (like ln) which are in turn aligned differently than ones with neither (like cos). The "tanh" button name is cut off on both sides, because it's too wide for its button. (In Chrome on OS X, if it matters.) And why does log10 need a separate button?
The "operators" section is missing \square and \ltimes. Maybe they're somewhere else? Also I didn't see \operatorname{...} anywhere — is it there and I missed it? Because it's very important for being able to define operators that aren't already predefined.
The organization is a little odd; I would have expected to find π in symbols and constants (but it's in only Greek letters), and I would not have expected to find vertical fractions and binomial coefficients in a section labeled as being about matrices. I would have expected some way to format Stirling numbers of the first kind and Stirling numbers of the second kind near binomial coefficients (they look the same but with square or curly braces instead of parens) but I don't see it.
In the logic section, I don't know what the difference between the vDash and models buttons is supposed to be; their labels look the same although they render in different sizes in the formula. I would usually want the "models" one in my editing but with the current interface I'm not going to be able to remember which one that is and would have to go back and forth looking at the TeX code to tell whether I had the right one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Jitse's bot has been inactive since June 17, 2015. The three pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Count have {{historical}}. There should be a replacement bot for these tasks. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have found the following page useful. It identifies new math articles:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This edit would bear discussion. Are all of these _things_ concepts? What about all the other articles titled "List of things named after X"? Does every one of them list only _concepts_? If not, do we need to decide which should be edited in this way? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "things" except that it's a word that comes from Germanic barbarians rather than civilized Romans and Greeks. It is broad and inclusive, and that is what is needed here. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The draft author, who appears to be the primary author of most of the cited sources, seems impervious to advice from AFC reviewers. Perhaps he/she might be more receptive to advice from fellow mathematicians. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to engage researchers in Sweden to be active contributors to Wikipedia. I will today talk to the department of Mathematics at Uppsala University. Some researchers from their department have earlier said that PlanetMath has the same function as Wikipedia has for other areas and that it might be more wise to be active on PlanetMath instead. It seems that a long time ago, people tried to do both, but what has happened since with the Exchange project? Olle Terenius (SLU) ( talk) 10:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
A new AfC draft has appeared: Draft:Quasi-exact-solvability. I have used my (somewhat rudimentary) TeX knowledge to clean up the draft, but a math check would be welcomed! Thanks all, /wia /tlk 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to solve with the expression
יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it notable enough for being mentioned in " Trigonometric polynomial"? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I did some restructuring at inverse hyperbolic functions, mostly moving the part about complex inverse hyperbolic functions to the end of the article, but I am wondering did i do every thing right and are there still other improvements to make.
Also editing this article did make me wonder:
Lets improve this article together :) WillemienH ( talk) 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The two following pages seem to talk about very similar topics : /info/en/?search=Inverse_limit /info/en/?search=Inverse_system, in my opinion the second could be added as a part (the "category" point of view) of the first. -- Tilwen ( talk) 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A case is being made at the talk page that the title "false position" is a bad mistranslation of "regula falsi". Thoughts welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
What should be done with Trigonometry of a tetrahedron? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I just created a new section presenting Einstein's stunningly simple proof of the Pythagorean theorem (which I learned just yesterday). Perhaps others can improve it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
We routinely write things like this:
When done inline like this: then the characters appear in a font size sometimes three times that of the surrounding letters and often suffer from bizarre misalignments (but the size and alignment seems to depend on how the user's preferences are set). However, for the lower-case π we have a template enabling us to say that the area of a disk of radius r is πr2, that last expression being coded as {{pi}}''r''<sup>2</sup>. This suffers no such problems as those mentioned above, as far as I know. I don't know how to create such templates. How hard would it be to create such templates for other Greek letters? (I see that the template "alpha" currently rediects to a template called "alphabetize".) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor is very insistent at Basel problem that trigonometric functions like should be typeset as . I reverted the original edit, citing WP:MOSMATH#Multi-letter names, and he reverted back, weirdly citing WP:BRD as if the onus were on me to justify the original consensus (even though I had already done so). I'm now at 3rr, and my edit has been reverted there again. This situation would benefit from other editors experienced in mathematics typesetting.
The same editor has pushed a similar
set of edits through at
Euler-Mascheroni constant, replacing the LaTeX with the html γ, including things like → γ′. I assume the reason is preferred is that it looks more like the LaTeX formulas that display on their own line, and so is consistent. In addition, the edit includes an obfuscation of the definition of the constant. Also, that edit did other weird things like replace an aligned equation with an unaligned onr.
Sławomir
Biały
13:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I just posted a comment about this on that editor's talk page. The fact that he used {{{sin(x)}}} rather than {sin(x)} suggests that the code may have come from one of those software packages on the web that generate TeX or MathJax code. Often they write code that looks as if a psychotic wrote it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
New user Mim.cis ( talk · contribs) identifies himself as Prof. Michael Miller from Johns Hopkins University, a pioneer in the field of Computational Anatomy. You can see him on Youtube here.
Some concern was caused because he started developing large amounts of mathematics in a sandbox, and it was not clear where this was going. You can read on User talk:Mim.cis the advice that he has been given, and at User talk:JohnCD/Archive 31#Questions re sandbox and User talk:JohnCD#Unrelated his replies and questions.
My initial worry that this was new original research was allayed by searching Google Scholar, in particular by finding this 1998 paper with 567 citations. It seems that Computational Anatomy is a real, and probably notable, subject.
Would people please look at User:Mim.cis/sandbox and advise: is there an article, or articles, in there? What should Prof. Miller do to progress it? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute about a small addition, which seems to caused by different notions of the nature of (good) encyclopedic writing, sourcing and WP:SYNTH. Comments/opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Pythagorean_theorem#explicit_sources_needed?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 06:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The code below gives me this error message:
Nothing gets rendered; I see only the code.
What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
[6pt] \hline
. Compare\begin{array}{ccl} n & \qquad & P_n(x) \\
\hline 0 & & 1 \\
[6pt] 1 & & x \\
[6pt] 2 & & \frac12 (3x^2-1) \\
\hline \end{array}
With
\begin{array}{ccl} n & \qquad & P_n(x) \\
[6pt] \hline 0 & & 1 \\
[6pt] 1 & & x \\
[6pt] 2 & & \frac12 (3x^2-1) \\
\hline \end{array}
</math>
Could people take a look at Draft:Regularized least squares , reviewers often have problems determining whether mathematics related drafts are appropriate or not.21:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see and fix this.
Thank you kindly.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I left a message saying the same thing in WP:VPT but maybe someone here knows something more: Rendering of mathematics using the "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" preference option has become very slow today, to the point where I cannot view simple articles such as Centroid — after a long delay I instead get a Wikimedia Error page. If I switch to the default "PNG images" preference option for mathematics, rendering is fast. Anyone know what is going on and when it will be fixed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The VisualEditor recently expanded the mathematics tool, and I'd like your feedback on the overall design, whether it seems to be working for you (browser/OS if it's not), and whether anything significant is missing. You don't actually need to opt in to VisualEditor in your preferences if you haven't already; just click here to play in my sandbox. Double-click on existing formulae to open them, or go to Insert > More > Formula to add new ones.
Feedback can be posted at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback (or here, if that's easier for you). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, some actual feedback. This looks reasonably feature-complete and useful. I like the fact that I can go back and forth between editing using the gui and editing LaTeX code, with a real-time preview of the current formula. The "block" option in the options pane does seem to work, so my complaint above about not handling display math is invalid. (I didn't save so I have no idea how it encodes the result or whether it is compatible with our current MOS.)
The baselines on the names of the "standard numerical functions" buttons are uneven — function names with descenders but no ascenders (like exp) are aligned differently than ones that have ascenders but no descenders (like ln) which are in turn aligned differently than ones with neither (like cos). The "tanh" button name is cut off on both sides, because it's too wide for its button. (In Chrome on OS X, if it matters.) And why does log10 need a separate button?
The "operators" section is missing \square and \ltimes. Maybe they're somewhere else? Also I didn't see \operatorname{...} anywhere — is it there and I missed it? Because it's very important for being able to define operators that aren't already predefined.
The organization is a little odd; I would have expected to find π in symbols and constants (but it's in only Greek letters), and I would not have expected to find vertical fractions and binomial coefficients in a section labeled as being about matrices. I would have expected some way to format Stirling numbers of the first kind and Stirling numbers of the second kind near binomial coefficients (they look the same but with square or curly braces instead of parens) but I don't see it.
In the logic section, I don't know what the difference between the vDash and models buttons is supposed to be; their labels look the same although they render in different sizes in the formula. I would usually want the "models" one in my editing but with the current interface I'm not going to be able to remember which one that is and would have to go back and forth looking at the TeX code to tell whether I had the right one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Jitse's bot has been inactive since June 17, 2015. The three pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Count have {{historical}}. There should be a replacement bot for these tasks. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have found the following page useful. It identifies new math articles:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This edit would bear discussion. Are all of these _things_ concepts? What about all the other articles titled "List of things named after X"? Does every one of them list only _concepts_? If not, do we need to decide which should be edited in this way? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "things" except that it's a word that comes from Germanic barbarians rather than civilized Romans and Greeks. It is broad and inclusive, and that is what is needed here. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The draft author, who appears to be the primary author of most of the cited sources, seems impervious to advice from AFC reviewers. Perhaps he/she might be more receptive to advice from fellow mathematicians. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)