How, if at all, should one rephrase the definition quoted in this comment? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this draft seems to be about a mathematical topic and I would greatly appreciate if anyone could provide feedback about whether the draft is suitable for Wikipedia. Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 13:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, mathematicians. Here's another of those old drafts about to be deleted. Anything worth keeping here? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the initial "A" in "Analysis" to a lower-case "a". Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please visit Draft talk:Convenient analysis in infinitely many dimensions. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we should be thankful to Anne Delong; she is our only "mechanism" (sorry Anne) for saving valuable new articles in such cases. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
Deletion of Tapering (mathematics) has been proposed. Is the article worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
108.242.169.13 ( talk · contribs) came to my attention because of these edits to Talk:Van_der_Waerden_number; the author claims to have solved the (open) problem of the minimal n such that any k-coloring of the integers 1…n must contain a monochromatic k-term arithmetic progression. Since Wikipedia policy restricts talk page discussions to discussions about the article, this revelation was removed, once by mfb ( talk · contribs) and once by myself. I also posted a relevant admonishment on 108.242.169.13's talk page. He is irate, and perhaps a response is in order. I tried to write one, but it came out unacceptably rude so I am not going to post it. The best response may be no response at all, just remove his material without engaging him.
The user claims to be Bill Bouris, a high school and community-college teacher of mathematics; his web site http://www.oddperfectnumbers.com/ is filled with similar crankery, boasting many unintelligible solutions of longstanding open problems. For example, he claims to have proved that there are no odd perfect numbers. He has also begun discussions on similar crankery at at least four other pages, which you can see in his user contributions page. mfb ( talk · contribs) has reverted most of it, except at Talk:Langford_pairing, where David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) opted to bring it back. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
He has also appeared as 99.135.160.136 ( talk · contribs). — Mark Dominus ( talk) 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please offer a view at Platonic solid#Classification. The issue concerns whether the existence of the five Platonic solids can be answered easily by an explicit construction, or cannot. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this just my lack of understanding of Tex?
Below, the "A" and "B" are supposed to be absent.
Remove "A" to obtain
Remove "B" (but keep "A"), then (Removed crashing Tex to save eyes)
?
(Using PNG)
YohanN7 (
talk)
13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, MathML gives a more informative error message:
This is different from what PNG reports. YohanN7 ( talk) 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Insert some air in the form of a pair of braces {}, "A" -> "{}", "B" -> "{}":
Both pairs of braces are necessary. I guess this is due to my lack of understanding of Tex. The square brackets are usually used to pass additional arguments to an "environment", right? YohanN7 ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to solicit opinions on how to handle the numerous articles by Gisling which consist largely of Maple 16 calculations and graphs. On his talk page several editors have raised concerns about these articles. In some cases, such as at Eckhaus equation, an editor went over the article, corrected it, and produced something respectable. In other cases, such as at Fujita-Storm equation, the concerns were not addressed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation asking to delete an article (and probably some related articles) on the flimsy grounds of WP:TNT in cases where I can't determine if even the subject of the article is accurately described (as it was not at Eckhaus equation - even the definition of this equation was erroneous.) I gutted several articles last night, but stopped short of going over all of them as I expected some resistance (which did occur this morning.) Note that Gisling has also contributed a large amount of quality material on the history of Chinese mathematics and other topics. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
United States Government: National Institude of Standards and Technolgy, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Cambridge University Press 2010 printed edtion, 950 pages.( I bought this printed book)
there is also a web edition
US Government NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, full of color diagrams of various mathematical functions
It is a common practice in mathematics to plot graphs using either Matlab, Mathematica or Maple, for instance the graphs in Mathworld is generated wity Mathematica, if you don't know how to make graphs using one of these, you have poor qualification , you are not qualified to edit any mathematic articles on wikipedia -- Gisling ( talk) 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Why animation ? When you have a function with more then 3 variables, the simplest way to visualize is make one parameter changes, then make animation plots. Apparently, this gentleman never makes a single graph with more than three variable
Any comparision ?? [3]
-- Gisling ( talk) 00:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Incidentally: the user whose username consists of two characters has been blocked indefinitely while Gisling has been blocked for three days for sock puppetry. -- JBL ( talk) 01:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The quality of the TeX code at Fujita–Storm equation is still deficient, but far better than it was originally. If Gisling would improve his or her TeX skills, that would be a step in the right direction. For example:
should be changed to
etc. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
US Government National Institude of Standard and Technology:NIST Handbook of Mathematica Functions has nice graphs of Pearcey Integral
Can some one who claimed to be "Mathematica expert" provides similar graphs ?, Othewise, remove "Mathematica expert" claim please--Gisling (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC).
ee s Talk:Spectral theorem. YohanN7 ( talk) 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please join me here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie Concepcion ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone more familiar with our guidelines on software determine if Stella (software) is notable? I can't escape the feeling that Wikipedia is being used as a marketing platform here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
.
I personally not familiar with Stella, but I know that scientists use Stelle to model natural enviroments
[ http://www.uvm.edu/~jphoffma/GSA/Generic.pdf Dr. E. Alan Cassell,Short Course System Dynamics Modeling of Natural Environments: An Introduction to STELLA Sunday 11 March 2001 Geological Society of America Northeastern Section 36th Annual Meeting, So. Burlington, VT.]
It is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella (software). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Actuary for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I could use some more eyes at Floyd–Warshall algorithm, please (see recent article history and talk page comments). — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A bot is running amok and adding a template called 'Authority control' to the bottom of pages. It generates links that make little sense. See e.g. This version of Topological group (at the bottom). Is this legitimate? (If it is I'd say its legitimate bs, therefore bs, hence should not be here or anywhere.) YohanN7 ( talk) 19:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean, what is a link to National Diet Library doing there? whatever this is isn't much better. YohanN7 ( talk) 19:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Since this occupies a box of height at least three lines, it could at least spell out what it is about and where the links go. E.g. NDL → National Diet Library. It is also inconsistent. Sometimes it links to, not a library wiki-entry but to Integrated Authority File. Instead of saying "Authority control" it should spell out what the hell it is supposed to be. "Library catalog entry" or whatever. A parenthetical (in Japanese) might be appropriate when applicable.
When I first encountered this, I clicked the links and immediately took it for vandalism/some sort of unauthorized promotion. YohanN7 ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As it is now it is just amateurish littering (yes, I am now aware that there are people around speaking Japanese—even German—thanks all for patiently explaining this to me). While we are at it, there is also the LIBRIS authority file. That would serve Swedish-speakers well. YohanN7 ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The essay Wikipedia:Authority control has more information about this. It seems like authority control was first implemented on the German Wikipedia, and the template is now being propagated via the interwiki links. I don't know enough to say if this is a good idea. I think a legitimate concern is that, as far as I know, interwiki links are not very well validated. But that would seem to defeat the purpose of authority control. A more immediate concern though is that the template itself is very confusing to readers (as evidenced by the existence of this very thread). It is quite possible that a reader can see the template, click the link to the article Authority control, read that article, and still have no idea what the damn thing is about. This at least should be fixed, perhaps by replacing the link in the template to Wikipedia:Authority control instead, and improving that essay. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Care to offer insight into Draft:Topological Functioning Model? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
My colleagues and I agree that the property of being "full rank" makes perfect sense and has a conventional definition for rectangular matrices. However, none of the books I have on hand give a definition. Can anyone produce a RS? (Refer: [4].) -- JBL ( talk) 00:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mark viking :
BTW, there's a pretty bad typo in equation (3.122) in that book. It says
where it should say this:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Over a field, a square matrix is invertible if and only if it is full-rank (right?) So, I don't think "full-rank" is particularly useful for a square marrix. For a non-square matrix, a "full-rank", I think, has the usual meaning, meaning the rank (row rank) is the maximal possible; i.e., the matrix defines a surjection when it is viewed as a linear transformation. For example, to check the submersion theorem applies one checks if the Jacobian matrix has full-rank, meaning it is surjective; see for instance [5]. At least, this (full-rank = surjective) is how I use the term in my day life. -- Taku ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In case you're still looking, I found a reliable source: David C. Lay, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 1994, Addison-Wesley, p. 242, exercise 26: "In statistical theory, a common requirement is that a matrix be of full rank. That is, the rank should be as large as possible." [Italics are in the original.] Mgnbar ( talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And by the way books by Kolman, Hoffman and Kunze, and Halmos don't seem to mention full rank. Mgnbar ( talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
With a risk of complicating the discussion further, I would like to mention yet another point of view: "full-rank" = "maximal rank" = "generic-rank". Here, I'm using "generic" in the following way. Let X be the (vector) space of all matrices of some fixed size (possibly non-square). We view X as an (affine) algebraic variety (X is simply a vector space.) Then the matrices of maximal possible rank form an open subset with respect to Zariski topology (it is the complement of the vanishing locus of minors.) So, a matrix in a general position has maximal possible rank and that's the generic rank of a matrix. (Do I make sense?) By definition, a matrix is full-rank if it has generic rank or equivalently maximal possible rank. -- Taku ( talk) 14:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the matter settled? Don't we have two reliable sources for full rank (Gentle and Lay), ignoring bad spelling in the former? More sources don't explicitly define the term because they don't need it or its meaning is obvious? (I don't want to dictate conclusion of discussion. I'm just trying to figure out whether I need to keep paying attention.) Mgnbar ( talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I realize I'm late to the party, but thought I would chime in. The term "maximal rank" can be ambiguous. Consider the following statement:
A rather trivial example of the ambiguity is the constant function for all x. The rank of the derivative is zero everywhere, so the maximum value of the rank of f is equal to zero! Thus (under this interpretation) . Now, clearly for "most" applications, this is not the interpretation that would be intended by the statement. Rather, we would mean
Here full rank means that the rank of Df is as large as it can possibly be for an matrix. Thus, the restriction of f to U is a submersion, if , and an immersion, if . Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just created the category for the ICM 2014 Plenary or Invited Speakers. A list with the names of the speakers can be found on http://www.mathunion.org/db/ICM/Speakers/SortedByCongress.php . If someone wants to help to add the category to more articles, be more than welcome! Lolaszvodikech ( talk) 00:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The article title Face configuration appears to be a neologism: neither Cundy & Rollett nor Williams, both cited, use the term. Rather, they use the symbol to identify the related polyhedron (typically a Catalan solid). I do not have Grünbaum and Shephard to hand, but I have never heard the term in this connection. The article makes much of Cundy & Rollett's (non-existent) usage. Do we accept this kind of apparently fabricated usage, or should this kind of article be nominated for deletion? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Now I find myself being reverted. The article at Vertex configuration gives "Cundy-Rollett symbol" as a synonym and cites mathworld. As I pointed out above, mathworld does not in fact use this term and the cite is therefore incorrect. As I also pointed out, one lone author does not establish notability. However when I removed the reference Tom Ruen chose to revert my edit without comment. Is this behaviour acceptable to this Project? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Page 16
The Cundy and Rollett symbol of a vertex configuration nm means that m n-gons meet at a vertex. The vertex configuration can also be written in the form of the Schlafli symbol {n,m} or (n,m). The eight semiregular Archimedean tilings are uniform. This means they have only one type of vertex configuration, i.e. they are vertex transitive; they consist of two or more regular polygons as unit tiles. In the case of layer structures, where one layer type corresponds to one of the Archimedean tilings, the layer next to it will preferentially be the respective dual tiling (Catalan or Laves tiling). The dual to a tiling can be obtained by putting vertices into the center of the unit tiles and connecting them by lines. If the tiling is regular, then the dual tiling will be regular as well. The dual of the regular square tiling is a regular square tiling again, so this tiling is self-dual. The dual to the hexagon tiling is the triangle tiling. While the uniform semiregular tilings are described by their vertex configuration, their duals consistent of just one type of polygon (are isohedral), but have more than one vertex configuration. Therefore, they are described by their face configuration, i.e. the sequential numbers of polygons meeting at each vertex of a face. For instance, the dual to the Archimedean snub square tiling 32.4.3.4 is the Cairo pentagon tiling, V32.4.3.4. Its face configuration V32.4.3.4 means pentagonal unit tile with corners, where 3,3,4,3,4 squashed pentagons meet. |
page 20
The Archimedean solids can all be inscribed in a sphere and in one of the Platonic solids. Their duals are the Catalan solids, with faces that are congruent but not regular ( face-transitive); instead of circumspheres like the Archimedean solids, they have inspheres. The midsphere, touching the edges are common to both of them. The face configuration is used for the description of these face-transitive polyhedra. It is given by the sequential listing of the number of faces that meet around each vertex around a face. For instance, V(3.4)2 describes the rhombic dodecahedron, where at the vertices around one rhombic face 3,4,3,4 rhombs, respectively, meet. |
Hello. I've just created the first page about any mathematician from Indonesia at the English Wikipedia. The name of the page is Moedomo Soedigdomarto. My English is not very good, and the sources are all in Indonesian (my 3rd language, which I don't know very well too...) Anyway, if someone wants to help. Please feel free to join the effort. Chinese-Indonesian ( talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See recent edits at Brouwer fixed-point theorem, and also my talk page. I think lecture notes are sometimes okay and sometimes not depending on what is available. In this case, a simple Google search will give millions of hits, and I don't see the need to have lecture notes linked. YohanN7 ( talk) 11:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
How, if at all, should one rephrase the definition quoted in this comment? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this draft seems to be about a mathematical topic and I would greatly appreciate if anyone could provide feedback about whether the draft is suitable for Wikipedia. Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 13:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, mathematicians. Here's another of those old drafts about to be deleted. Anything worth keeping here? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the initial "A" in "Analysis" to a lower-case "a". Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please visit Draft talk:Convenient analysis in infinitely many dimensions. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we should be thankful to Anne Delong; she is our only "mechanism" (sorry Anne) for saving valuable new articles in such cases. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
Deletion of Tapering (mathematics) has been proposed. Is the article worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
108.242.169.13 ( talk · contribs) came to my attention because of these edits to Talk:Van_der_Waerden_number; the author claims to have solved the (open) problem of the minimal n such that any k-coloring of the integers 1…n must contain a monochromatic k-term arithmetic progression. Since Wikipedia policy restricts talk page discussions to discussions about the article, this revelation was removed, once by mfb ( talk · contribs) and once by myself. I also posted a relevant admonishment on 108.242.169.13's talk page. He is irate, and perhaps a response is in order. I tried to write one, but it came out unacceptably rude so I am not going to post it. The best response may be no response at all, just remove his material without engaging him.
The user claims to be Bill Bouris, a high school and community-college teacher of mathematics; his web site http://www.oddperfectnumbers.com/ is filled with similar crankery, boasting many unintelligible solutions of longstanding open problems. For example, he claims to have proved that there are no odd perfect numbers. He has also begun discussions on similar crankery at at least four other pages, which you can see in his user contributions page. mfb ( talk · contribs) has reverted most of it, except at Talk:Langford_pairing, where David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) opted to bring it back. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
He has also appeared as 99.135.160.136 ( talk · contribs). — Mark Dominus ( talk) 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please offer a view at Platonic solid#Classification. The issue concerns whether the existence of the five Platonic solids can be answered easily by an explicit construction, or cannot. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this just my lack of understanding of Tex?
Below, the "A" and "B" are supposed to be absent.
Remove "A" to obtain
Remove "B" (but keep "A"), then (Removed crashing Tex to save eyes)
?
(Using PNG)
YohanN7 (
talk)
13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, MathML gives a more informative error message:
This is different from what PNG reports. YohanN7 ( talk) 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Insert some air in the form of a pair of braces {}, "A" -> "{}", "B" -> "{}":
Both pairs of braces are necessary. I guess this is due to my lack of understanding of Tex. The square brackets are usually used to pass additional arguments to an "environment", right? YohanN7 ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to solicit opinions on how to handle the numerous articles by Gisling which consist largely of Maple 16 calculations and graphs. On his talk page several editors have raised concerns about these articles. In some cases, such as at Eckhaus equation, an editor went over the article, corrected it, and produced something respectable. In other cases, such as at Fujita-Storm equation, the concerns were not addressed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation asking to delete an article (and probably some related articles) on the flimsy grounds of WP:TNT in cases where I can't determine if even the subject of the article is accurately described (as it was not at Eckhaus equation - even the definition of this equation was erroneous.) I gutted several articles last night, but stopped short of going over all of them as I expected some resistance (which did occur this morning.) Note that Gisling has also contributed a large amount of quality material on the history of Chinese mathematics and other topics. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
United States Government: National Institude of Standards and Technolgy, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Cambridge University Press 2010 printed edtion, 950 pages.( I bought this printed book)
there is also a web edition
US Government NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, full of color diagrams of various mathematical functions
It is a common practice in mathematics to plot graphs using either Matlab, Mathematica or Maple, for instance the graphs in Mathworld is generated wity Mathematica, if you don't know how to make graphs using one of these, you have poor qualification , you are not qualified to edit any mathematic articles on wikipedia -- Gisling ( talk) 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Why animation ? When you have a function with more then 3 variables, the simplest way to visualize is make one parameter changes, then make animation plots. Apparently, this gentleman never makes a single graph with more than three variable
Any comparision ?? [3]
-- Gisling ( talk) 00:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Incidentally: the user whose username consists of two characters has been blocked indefinitely while Gisling has been blocked for three days for sock puppetry. -- JBL ( talk) 01:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The quality of the TeX code at Fujita–Storm equation is still deficient, but far better than it was originally. If Gisling would improve his or her TeX skills, that would be a step in the right direction. For example:
should be changed to
etc. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
US Government National Institude of Standard and Technology:NIST Handbook of Mathematica Functions has nice graphs of Pearcey Integral
Can some one who claimed to be "Mathematica expert" provides similar graphs ?, Othewise, remove "Mathematica expert" claim please--Gisling (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC).
ee s Talk:Spectral theorem. YohanN7 ( talk) 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please join me here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie Concepcion ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone more familiar with our guidelines on software determine if Stella (software) is notable? I can't escape the feeling that Wikipedia is being used as a marketing platform here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
.
I personally not familiar with Stella, but I know that scientists use Stelle to model natural enviroments
[ http://www.uvm.edu/~jphoffma/GSA/Generic.pdf Dr. E. Alan Cassell,Short Course System Dynamics Modeling of Natural Environments: An Introduction to STELLA Sunday 11 March 2001 Geological Society of America Northeastern Section 36th Annual Meeting, So. Burlington, VT.]
It is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella (software). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Actuary for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I could use some more eyes at Floyd–Warshall algorithm, please (see recent article history and talk page comments). — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A bot is running amok and adding a template called 'Authority control' to the bottom of pages. It generates links that make little sense. See e.g. This version of Topological group (at the bottom). Is this legitimate? (If it is I'd say its legitimate bs, therefore bs, hence should not be here or anywhere.) YohanN7 ( talk) 19:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean, what is a link to National Diet Library doing there? whatever this is isn't much better. YohanN7 ( talk) 19:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Since this occupies a box of height at least three lines, it could at least spell out what it is about and where the links go. E.g. NDL → National Diet Library. It is also inconsistent. Sometimes it links to, not a library wiki-entry but to Integrated Authority File. Instead of saying "Authority control" it should spell out what the hell it is supposed to be. "Library catalog entry" or whatever. A parenthetical (in Japanese) might be appropriate when applicable.
When I first encountered this, I clicked the links and immediately took it for vandalism/some sort of unauthorized promotion. YohanN7 ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As it is now it is just amateurish littering (yes, I am now aware that there are people around speaking Japanese—even German—thanks all for patiently explaining this to me). While we are at it, there is also the LIBRIS authority file. That would serve Swedish-speakers well. YohanN7 ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The essay Wikipedia:Authority control has more information about this. It seems like authority control was first implemented on the German Wikipedia, and the template is now being propagated via the interwiki links. I don't know enough to say if this is a good idea. I think a legitimate concern is that, as far as I know, interwiki links are not very well validated. But that would seem to defeat the purpose of authority control. A more immediate concern though is that the template itself is very confusing to readers (as evidenced by the existence of this very thread). It is quite possible that a reader can see the template, click the link to the article Authority control, read that article, and still have no idea what the damn thing is about. This at least should be fixed, perhaps by replacing the link in the template to Wikipedia:Authority control instead, and improving that essay. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Care to offer insight into Draft:Topological Functioning Model? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
My colleagues and I agree that the property of being "full rank" makes perfect sense and has a conventional definition for rectangular matrices. However, none of the books I have on hand give a definition. Can anyone produce a RS? (Refer: [4].) -- JBL ( talk) 00:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mark viking :
BTW, there's a pretty bad typo in equation (3.122) in that book. It says
where it should say this:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Over a field, a square matrix is invertible if and only if it is full-rank (right?) So, I don't think "full-rank" is particularly useful for a square marrix. For a non-square matrix, a "full-rank", I think, has the usual meaning, meaning the rank (row rank) is the maximal possible; i.e., the matrix defines a surjection when it is viewed as a linear transformation. For example, to check the submersion theorem applies one checks if the Jacobian matrix has full-rank, meaning it is surjective; see for instance [5]. At least, this (full-rank = surjective) is how I use the term in my day life. -- Taku ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In case you're still looking, I found a reliable source: David C. Lay, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 1994, Addison-Wesley, p. 242, exercise 26: "In statistical theory, a common requirement is that a matrix be of full rank. That is, the rank should be as large as possible." [Italics are in the original.] Mgnbar ( talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And by the way books by Kolman, Hoffman and Kunze, and Halmos don't seem to mention full rank. Mgnbar ( talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
With a risk of complicating the discussion further, I would like to mention yet another point of view: "full-rank" = "maximal rank" = "generic-rank". Here, I'm using "generic" in the following way. Let X be the (vector) space of all matrices of some fixed size (possibly non-square). We view X as an (affine) algebraic variety (X is simply a vector space.) Then the matrices of maximal possible rank form an open subset with respect to Zariski topology (it is the complement of the vanishing locus of minors.) So, a matrix in a general position has maximal possible rank and that's the generic rank of a matrix. (Do I make sense?) By definition, a matrix is full-rank if it has generic rank or equivalently maximal possible rank. -- Taku ( talk) 14:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the matter settled? Don't we have two reliable sources for full rank (Gentle and Lay), ignoring bad spelling in the former? More sources don't explicitly define the term because they don't need it or its meaning is obvious? (I don't want to dictate conclusion of discussion. I'm just trying to figure out whether I need to keep paying attention.) Mgnbar ( talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I realize I'm late to the party, but thought I would chime in. The term "maximal rank" can be ambiguous. Consider the following statement:
A rather trivial example of the ambiguity is the constant function for all x. The rank of the derivative is zero everywhere, so the maximum value of the rank of f is equal to zero! Thus (under this interpretation) . Now, clearly for "most" applications, this is not the interpretation that would be intended by the statement. Rather, we would mean
Here full rank means that the rank of Df is as large as it can possibly be for an matrix. Thus, the restriction of f to U is a submersion, if , and an immersion, if . Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just created the category for the ICM 2014 Plenary or Invited Speakers. A list with the names of the speakers can be found on http://www.mathunion.org/db/ICM/Speakers/SortedByCongress.php . If someone wants to help to add the category to more articles, be more than welcome! Lolaszvodikech ( talk) 00:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The article title Face configuration appears to be a neologism: neither Cundy & Rollett nor Williams, both cited, use the term. Rather, they use the symbol to identify the related polyhedron (typically a Catalan solid). I do not have Grünbaum and Shephard to hand, but I have never heard the term in this connection. The article makes much of Cundy & Rollett's (non-existent) usage. Do we accept this kind of apparently fabricated usage, or should this kind of article be nominated for deletion? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Now I find myself being reverted. The article at Vertex configuration gives "Cundy-Rollett symbol" as a synonym and cites mathworld. As I pointed out above, mathworld does not in fact use this term and the cite is therefore incorrect. As I also pointed out, one lone author does not establish notability. However when I removed the reference Tom Ruen chose to revert my edit without comment. Is this behaviour acceptable to this Project? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Page 16
The Cundy and Rollett symbol of a vertex configuration nm means that m n-gons meet at a vertex. The vertex configuration can also be written in the form of the Schlafli symbol {n,m} or (n,m). The eight semiregular Archimedean tilings are uniform. This means they have only one type of vertex configuration, i.e. they are vertex transitive; they consist of two or more regular polygons as unit tiles. In the case of layer structures, where one layer type corresponds to one of the Archimedean tilings, the layer next to it will preferentially be the respective dual tiling (Catalan or Laves tiling). The dual to a tiling can be obtained by putting vertices into the center of the unit tiles and connecting them by lines. If the tiling is regular, then the dual tiling will be regular as well. The dual of the regular square tiling is a regular square tiling again, so this tiling is self-dual. The dual to the hexagon tiling is the triangle tiling. While the uniform semiregular tilings are described by their vertex configuration, their duals consistent of just one type of polygon (are isohedral), but have more than one vertex configuration. Therefore, they are described by their face configuration, i.e. the sequential numbers of polygons meeting at each vertex of a face. For instance, the dual to the Archimedean snub square tiling 32.4.3.4 is the Cairo pentagon tiling, V32.4.3.4. Its face configuration V32.4.3.4 means pentagonal unit tile with corners, where 3,3,4,3,4 squashed pentagons meet. |
page 20
The Archimedean solids can all be inscribed in a sphere and in one of the Platonic solids. Their duals are the Catalan solids, with faces that are congruent but not regular ( face-transitive); instead of circumspheres like the Archimedean solids, they have inspheres. The midsphere, touching the edges are common to both of them. The face configuration is used for the description of these face-transitive polyhedra. It is given by the sequential listing of the number of faces that meet around each vertex around a face. For instance, V(3.4)2 describes the rhombic dodecahedron, where at the vertices around one rhombic face 3,4,3,4 rhombs, respectively, meet. |
Hello. I've just created the first page about any mathematician from Indonesia at the English Wikipedia. The name of the page is Moedomo Soedigdomarto. My English is not very good, and the sources are all in Indonesian (my 3rd language, which I don't know very well too...) Anyway, if someone wants to help. Please feel free to join the effort. Chinese-Indonesian ( talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See recent edits at Brouwer fixed-point theorem, and also my talk page. I think lecture notes are sometimes okay and sometimes not depending on what is available. In this case, a simple Google search will give millions of hits, and I don't see the need to have lecture notes linked. YohanN7 ( talk) 11:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)